As part of the rigorous investigation into the truth of Sr. Lucy and her imposter, Sister Lucy Truth turned to the iPRoBe Lab at Michigan State University to utilize its state-of-the-art facial recognition and biometric software. The lab is headed by Dr. Arun Ross, an established leader in biometrics who has co-authored the standard textbook introduction to the subject.
iPRoBe Lab’s report of the photographs submitted for analysis establishes further conclusive evidence that the pre-1967 Sr. Lucy and the post-1967 Sr. Lucy are two distinct individuals.
FROM THE IPROBE REPORT
The goal of this evaluation is to assess 4 claims:
Claim I. Subject A and Subject B are the same individual.
Claim II. Subject C and Subject D are the same individual.
Claim III. Subject B is a different individual than Subject C.
Claim IV. Subject B is a different individual than Subject D.
For our evaluation, we use the RankOne Computing ROC SDK v1.18.1 to match face images. We also make use of a reference set of images from the Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) dataset. This assists us in classifying the scores as genuine or imposter.
A genuine score is a match score that results from comparing two face images of the same subject.
An imposter score is a match score that results from comparing two face images from different subjects.
The analysis found that the young Sr. Lucy and the adult, pre-1967 Sr. Lucy are the same individual (claim I).
Further, the 1967 and post-1967 Sr. Lucy are very likely the same individual (claim II).
Thirdly, the young Sr. Lucy and the elderly, post-1967 Sr. Lucy are different individuals (claim IV).
Nevertheless, the report indicates that from the photographs analyzed, it cannot be conclusively admitted that Subject B (adult, pre-1967 Sr. Lucy) and Subject C (the 1967 Sr. Lucy) are different individuals. This is certainly problematic and raises the question of the identity of the 1967 Sr. Lucy.
The other facial recognition analysis currently available to us and the handwriting analysis of the 1967 Sr. Lucy suggest strongly that the 1967 Sr. Lucy is different from the pre-1967 Sr. Lucy. Only further testing will more fully resolve the mystery of the 1967 Sr. Lucy. The truth of the Sister Lucy Project does not stand or fall on this single report but the cumulative force of all the evidence, from other facial recognition reports and scientific investigation into every other detail of the two Sr. Lucy’s.
On the other hand, this iPRoBe report states that the “confidence” of the two post-1967 Sr. Lucy’s being the same individual is “very likely.” This finding suggests that there was not a third Sr. Lucy but one individual who replaced the original Sr. Lucy, certainly by 1967. Also, the fact that Subject B and Subject D are different individuals is a key component to the Sister Lucy Truth project. The questionable logic of the computer analysis that says Subject B and C are the same individual yet Subject B and D are different individuals also points to how necessary it is for us to wait for all the tests and analysis to be completed and to evaluate the total force of the findings.
If the pre-1967, adult Sr. Lucy—that is, the real Sr. Lucy—and the elderly, imposter Sr. Lucy are likely to be different individuals, and the 1967 and elderly Sr. Lucys are very likely to be the same individual, then logically it follows that the pre-1967, adult Sr. Lucy must be a different individual than the 1967 Sr. Lucy. In other words, in the end, this report provides further support for the thesis that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced by an imposter, certainly by 1967.