One of my more notable goals during the research for On the Third Part of the Secret of Fatima was to take a look at the publication Fatima 50. This short-lived publication began in 1967 and went to 1970, comprising some 39 (or so) issues.

Fatima 50 was important because it was cited by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite in his The Whole Truth About Fatima three-volume collection. I had questions about some of his interpretations and it was important to check his sources.

By the Grace of God and the efforts of the Marian Library at the University of Dayton, I was able to look at the issues of Fatima 50 during my road trip in the summer of 2016. I documented what I needed and set about processing the information upon my return home. At some point in time, I was also able to purchase a hard copy of one issue from an online retailer. That copy now sits in my fairly sizable Fatima private library.

At some point of my reading (I no longer recall when), I noticed an oddity in issue #2 of Fatima 50 (July 13, 1967).

On page 14, there was an article entitled Resposta e Primeira Saudação de Paolo VI (Reply and First Greeting of Paul VI). It contained a short article but with several pictures. On page 18, there were several photos of Paul VI in front of or with the crowds present in Fatima.

As I continued reading the periodical, I came to page 28 of the same issue. The exact same image of Paul VI was displayed, but it was different. It had Sr. Lucia in the photo to the left (the Holy Father’s right).

I noticed this difference and said to myself, “Wait a minute. Didn’t I just see this picture earlier in the issue but without Sr. Lucia in it?” I went back, found the first photo above and saw that, yes indeed, my memory had not failed me. It is clear that there had been an alteration.*

Some questions arise from this observation:

1. Why was this photo doctored?
2. Which is the original photo?**
3. Was there some conspiracy to deceive the public?

I have had about two years to ponder these questions. Immediately, I could rule-out any notion of conspiracy. How?

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to human error.

The above principle helps to keep things into perspective. I would like to offer two considerations at this time.

First, consider the fact that the photos were in the exact same issue of Fatima 50. If malice was involved, why would the “perpetrator(s)” be so foolish as to put everything in the same issue? Did the “perpetrator(s)” think that people were too stupid not to notice? No, hiding out in the open like that doesn’t make any sense. One must ask, to what end? As Cicero once observed, cui bono fuisset (to whose benefit)?

The photo on page 28 appeared with 4 other images of Sr. Lucia. It is clear that the photo was altered to include her with Paul VI because the two positioned next to each other made for a better photo. Moreover, it is not unthinkable for the two to have been in this kind of situation. Video and other photos show Paul VI and Sr. Lucia already standing side by side. Perhaps the person(s) doctoring the photo thought that it was alright to do this because it was, essentially, re-creating something that did in fact already happen in one shape or another.

The possibilities are many and we possess very little historical knowledge of what exactly took place. It is best not to speculate on motive without further information. I can, however, say that it is safe to rule out conspiratorial notions. It just does not fit the larger picture (no pun intended) of what we do know.

Secondly, Fatima 50 was, in 1967, under the control of Canon Jose Galamba de Oliveira, one of the chief and early scholars of Fatima. It is unthinkable that his integrity could be impugned by such a ridiculous notion of malice or intent to deceive.

If, however, someone wanted to do some further research, it would require some on the ground research in Portugal itself. I offer the following image for people as a starting point for such research:

Comfortably knowing that there is no grand conspiracy here, we await further information that could otherwise resolve what appears to be a rather simple matter.
-Kevin

*As I am not a photographer or a historian of photography, I am unaware of what technology was available in 1967 to perform such an act. While not exactly a scholarly reference, I refer readers to this article that might shed some light.

**Regarding this second question, I believe that the image of Paul VI on page 18 is the original photo. The reason is because of a crease/fold on Paul VI’s right arm sleeve. In the photo on page 28, that crease/fold is gone. By the very definition of a “non-altered photo,” there can be no alteration. If the image on page 14 is not the original, why “add” a crease/fold to the sleeve? It makes no sense to remove that crease/fold.