What People Are Commenting
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

Spanish Handwriting Expert Speaks
on the Third Secret

From La Coruña to Los Angeles

Dear Mr. Guimarães,

I am sending the post I published that has an interview with the handwriting expert Begoña Slocker de Arce, which may be of interest to you. It is preceded by some of my considerations.

The important thing is to know that the Secret is gradually gaining greater interest and becoming known.

     Yours sincerely,


The Editor responds:

Dear Mr. Moimunan,

I thank you very much for sending me both your comments and the interview granted by Begoña Slocker de Arce to José Maria Zabala. They are precious documents to confirm the authenticity of the Third Secret we posted in 2010.

TIA translated them to English and is posting them below for the benefit of our readers on this eve of the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady in Fátima.


     Atila S. Guimarães


Good Reasons to Believe in the Secret's Authenticity


In an interview in El Semanal Digital [The Weekly Digital], the author of the book The Best Kept Secret of Fatima, José Maria Zabala asked Begoña Slocker de Arce about her analysis that he published in full in the last chapter of his book. (The rest of his book does not deal with this theme – that is, the authenticity of the Secret that had already been published on April 27, 2010, by the website Tradition in Action – but rather the more or less known and controversial generalities about Fatima and the Third Secret in particular).

The publication of Zavala's book, on the officially chosen date of March 21 of this year, has been informative and a potential bomb that should become a benchmark in the future. Indeed, in the Secret it is said verbatim "If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed."

The question would be to know precisely the time "from which" the 69 weeks should begin to be counted. In the recent past some (including myself, with doubts) believed that this date would have been April 27, 2010, when the photograph of the Secret appeared on the Tradition in Action site. But in reality, it must be said that the Secret says that "this order is announced," and the question comes to mind whether that date would be that of the publication of the photograph of the Secret on a website with rather limited repercussions. Should it be taken as the starting point of the countdown to the terrible "prophesied" disaster? As I said, I believed then that it could be so.

But, the passing of time revealed that this was not the case. Actually, one thing is the appearance of the photograph of the Secret on the Internet; another thing is to say "this order is announced." So now, we return to the same question: Could the starting point of the countdown be the publication of a book that has had more media reverberations than its mere appearance on the Internet? But does this suffice to say that the Secret has been announced?

Of course, every day the Secret is having more repercussions in the media, as we can gather below. But is it enough to say that "the order has been announced?" (I think the word "order" could be a cryptic reference to Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks. In the translation of some Bibles at least, the word "order" is used.) In fact, in addition to the immediate publication in Amor de la Verdad of this news in the post "Confirmed: The authenticity of the Third Secret of Fatima" (three days after the publication of the book), it was also published previously in the blog of the well-known Vaticanist Marco Tosatti.

Our Lady of Fatima

The Secret, Zavala's book and the interview with Slocker is also discussed in the blog Acta Apostaticae Sedis. There are references to the vaticanist Roberto de Mattei who, without denying the Secret posted in the blog of Tosatti, now authenticated, simply states, "I am not going to enter into the problem of the Third Secret. It seems to me that what we know is even more impressive." A nice way to shrug it off and speak in generalities, not daring to register the simple fact: The Secret has been authenticated by an eminent "handwriting expert." He also cites the words "Penance, penance, penance" in the Vatican Secret as if he were to continue to treasure the discredited Secret published by the Vatican in 2000 – for example, discredited by Socci in his book The Fourth Secret.

I believe it is one more way to resist the facts and cling to theories that are very beautiful, but that perhaps have no basis in the facts.

Nonetheless, since that date there have been articles published on the topic like those on Tradition in Action, especially the very important one written by the editor of that site that claims – in my opinion, successfully – to have deciphered the Secret and restored it to its original state by returning some words to their original position. Based on it, we endorsed that article in the post presenting what the author calls a deciphered reading of the Secret.

Perhaps some may ask why we have these confusions and deciphered letters. These are the facts: A photograph of the possible Third Secret was published on the Internet, without knowing the source of who sent it and why he did so. Further, we must note something important that perhaps many are not aware of: The photograph had also been published a week before April 27 in Spanish on an American site that is clearly anti-Catholic, heretical, and perhaps atheist and gnostic, which published something perfectly blasphemous and heretical that in itself discredits the Catholic Faith.

In fact, this site titled Fatima Movement, which seems to be supported by Freemasonry, posted the following barbarous proposition: "The Virgin Mary is God and a Person of the Holy Trinity." But, the Secret cannot have been created by this site precisely because it is impossible for anyone to have made the handwriting of the Secret so perfectly that it could pass the rigorous test of an expert handwriting analysis like the one done in Spain recently.

With this, the puzzle pieces fit together. My hypothesis – without proof, but plausible – is this: Someone anonymously sends the ALTERED Secret (moving around words with a technique similar to photoshop). The alteration raises skepticism in the reader with good faith. This Secret is also published on a traditionalist (but not sedevacantist) Catholic website, which is strongly critical of the current Roman See, widely spread in the USA. A few days before, it is also published, albeit altered, on a Masonic site that seeks to discredit the Catholic Faith by promoting that the Virgin Mary is God and a Person of the Holy Trinity (remember the Protestant saying "Catholics adore Mary").

All this serves to discredit the real Secret and a true understanding of Fatima (before the publicized modernist understanding of the Vatican). With all this, in passing, the fake Vatican Secret of the year 2000 is reinforced – at a time when it was in question for its obvious failures.

But the question is: Who has been the author of this somewhat Machiavellian operation? The answer, in my opinion, is this: The only one who could do it is one who was custodian of it in the Vatican. And he was also the one who has benefited from all this mess because his "theological declaration" guaranteed the false Secret published by the Vatican in the year 2000. The proof of the nine is to check if this person has been characterized in the past by a cunning and duplicity like this in yet other matters, in similar operations (Mass of 1962 to be recognized as extraordinary). Capisci? [Do you understand (that he is Ratzinger – NDR)?] Bingo!

Moreover, no one could say that all the Vatican Council heads have hidden the Third Secret. He can truthfully say: "I have published it." Is this a conspiracy theory? This can only be said by those who are so blind that they do not believe in the conspiracies in our present world. Especially in the matter of Fatima, and for many reasons, as the readers of this blog well know.

This being said, I go on to present the very interesting interview of Zavala with Begoña Slocker de Arce, who, as you know, was the handwriting analysis expert, who has definitively judged – supported by colleagues and eminent personalities in the field – that the hand that wrote this Third Secret is the same one that in 1941 wrote the first and second Secrets recorded in the Third Memoir of Fatima. That person is Lucía dos Santos.

And if you do not like that this is a confirmed fact. Well, then, c'est a vous, it's up to you to explain the facts in a better way. It would not be honorable for you to just shrug it off and confine yourself to "despise what you do not know."


The Third Secret of Fatima:
Interview with the Analyst Who Confirmed its Authenticity

José María Zavala

She is one of the most renowned handwriting experts in Spain and abroad. Begoña Slocker de Arce, a consultant [forensic document analyst] for Courts of Justice, has studied one of the most important documents in the History of the Church – the supposed unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima – in this year of 2017 that celebrates the 100th year anniversary of the May 13 apparition.

Her impeccable 24-page report, which is fully reproduced in my book The Best Kept Secret of Fatima, whose fourth edition the Grupo Planeta is already preparing for release in just one month, makes a surprising conclusion: Sister Lucia de Fatima wrote a document, until now almost unknown [published here], in which the Virgin prophesies the apostasy in the Church starting from the very top, and the existence of a Pope under the control of Satan. Below follows an interview with Slocker de Arce:

Begona de Arce

Handwriting expert Begoña Slocker de Arce

Question: Did you have knowledge about the Fatima apparitions of Fatima that could have influenced you in preparing your report?

Answer: Like anyone educated in a Catholic school, I knew about the apparition of the Virgin to the little shepherds, but had no other information that could have interested me over the years. That is why I was under no influence whatsoever in undertaking this work, whether in favor of its [the letter's] authenticity or against it. I warned you of this presupposition from the beginning and you agreed without putting conditions.

Q. As a well-known handwriting expert both inside and outside of Spain, did you ever fear that your report on the unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima might in some way affect your untarnished reputation?

A: When I learned that my analysis would be published in full, I had a moment of fear when I realized that it was going to be examined under magnifying glasses by experts of all kinds, coming under the judgment of professional colleagues. But, I also knew that, after having carried out my analysis rigorously and honestly, they [the other analysts] could add little to the arguments I set out in it. The data I give are correct regarding the study of a comparison. In fact, I have only received words of congratulation for my prudence based on comparative data.

Q: How many years have you been practicing your profession? Where did you study and who were your best teachers? When and why did you decide to start your own graphology center?

A: I have been practicing the profession of graphologist-handwriting expert for more than 25 years. My father, Luis Pérez Slocker, was a graphologist and handwriting expert since 1954; he was a student of Maite Ras, who introduced this science in Spain. It was my father who advised me to get my degree at the Spanish Society of Graphology under the teacher Mauricio Xandró, who died two years ago, the last of a generation of great teachers like Augusto Vels, Max Pulver (Switzerland), Rafael Shermann (Germany) and Matilde Ras, who introduced Graphology in Spain. I say Graphology, because the Handwriting Analysis is one branch of it. Let me add that in a handwriting analysis, graphology is not used. The Graphological Center was founded because, as the work increased along with the number of specialties in this science, I had to separate it by areas and, then, set out the different specialties and find qualified professionals for each one.

Q: Can you name one of the most famous issues that has required your intervention as an expert?

A: My professional secrecy does not permit to speak about things I have done. For me, each case is the most important and, once done, the only thing that matters to me is to be confident about what I did - either for the good or the bad - according to my professional ethics.

Q: What made you finally decide to face the difficult challenge of verifying the authenticity of a document of such importance?

A: I had already participated with you in another of your books, in which you showed your respect for my work, not changing a comma of the report that I made for Las mentiras de ZP [The lies of ZP] on the personality of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, where I affirm that he does not lie, but that he believes in his own lies. This gave me confidence in you, because I knew that you would not manipulate my analysis. And indeed, it has not been done in this case: My analysis is exactly as I gave it to you.

Jose Maria Zavala

José Maria Zavala showing his book
The Best Kept Secret of Fatima

Q: Why are you so sure that the document of the unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima was written, like the first two secrets, by the same hand of Sister Lucia?

A: So sure? I only know that my work is done with rigor, with all the knowledge I have placed at the service of the analysis. I think it is impossible to write two identical letters, since we have life, movement and this is what causes the writing of the same person to have certain differences when writing the same letter. We also have personal characteristics that come from our unconscious and that are impossible for another writer to reproduce. Speed is very important because it is very difficult to imitate the slant, the cohesion... These are characteristics that a counterfeiter cannot maintain in more than six consecutive lines because the unconscious part betrays him and the hand movement obeys the brain – not our intentions. The document we have studied is a clear case where all these factors are positive, never with sufficient differences to doubt its authenticity.

Q: Are there other renowned experts like you who support your conclusion? Who are they?

A: After I finished working with my usual team, to which Lorena Gilaranz, an analyst for the courts of justice, belongs, I went to two of the most prestigious experts, my colleagues, who approved it. I also received the support of the Spanish Society of Graphology.

Q: Did it take you many hours to produce your large report? What process was followed? Did it require anyone's help?

A: The analysis was arduous, since we were working with letters from another time. We examined each one of them to recognize the changes in both documents. We worked on the analysis day and night until it was delivered, making it clear that the result was not influenced by my reputation or any other area. As I say in the report, other types of tests could be made on the originals [if they were known], which in my opinion would only reinforce what I have presented following my knowledge and understanding.


Blason de Charlemagne
Follow us

Posted May 11, 2017

The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA

Related Works of Interest

Volume I

A_Offend1.gif - 23346 Bytes
Volume II

Animus Injuriandi II
Volume III

Volume IV

A_Offend1.gif - 23346 Bytes
Volume V

Animus Injuriandi II
Volume VI

destructio dei
Volume VII

fumus satanae
Volume VIII

Volume IX

volume 10
Volume X

Volume XI

A_hp.gif - 30629 Bytes
Special Edition