Saturday 12 May 2012

More on the "Fourth" Secret of Fatima

In my book Unveiling the Apocalypse, I go into some detail about the various pieces of evidence which point to the existence of a hidden text related to the Third Secret of Fatima. Indeed many Fatima experts believe that the Third Secret was comprised of two distinct parts, one of which is still being suppressed by the Church. Archbishop Loris Capovilla, the private secretary to Pope John XXIII, and first hand witness to the first opening of the secret in 1959, has ignited this debate once again in a recent interview with the Catholic News Service (CNS). As of 10th May, 2012, Archbishop Capovilla has apparently hinted yet again at the existence of another text related to the Third Secret, albeit in rather typically guarded language:

Speaking to Catholic News Service, Archbishop Capovilla, now 96, dismisses reports that he told an Italian writer in 2006 that part of the secret remains unpublished. He says that he noticed no discrepancy between the published version and the original.

Yet he qualifies his statement with a rare admission of doubt about his own remarkable memory. "I remember a bit," he says, "but you will understand, after so many years I wouldn't know how to reconstruct (the secret) fully."

Nor does he rule out the presence of such a document elsewhere in the archives of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, often referred to as "the Holy Office."

"At the Holy Office there must be a kilometer of paper regarding Fatima," the archbishop says. "I don't deny that there may be something else, but I don't know it."

The above statement is very carefully worded. Upon first reading, it could be interpreted that Capovilla is claiming that Solideo Paolini fabricated the material concerning a hidden portion of the Third Secret during his interviews with the elderly Archbishop in 2006, in which he was alleged to have confirmed the existence of this "hidden" text. Yet we when examine his statement more closely, we find that Capovilla's statement is rather more nuanced. The exaxt words use by Capovilla was that he did not tell Paolini that a part of the secret remains unpublished - which appears to be a carefully chosen phrase. And when we look at Paolini's testimony, we find that this statement is quite correct. Archbishop Capovilla never at any stage explicitly informed the investigator of the existence of a hidden part of the Third Secret, but was rather more cunning in his assertions. Instead, it seems that the Archbishop deliberately guided Paolini to evidence that would lead him to form his own conclusions.
First off, we need to understand that Capovilla is a very old hand in Vatican politics, and fully knows how to manoeuvre in such situations so as to be able to placate the opposition in the hierarchy, while at the same time not compromising the truth of the Fatima apparitions, through the careful use of diplomatically evasive language. We find these same political wiles to be fully present in his interview with Paolini, which is recounted in the below material taken from The Fatima Network:

I went to visit Archbishop Capovilla at his house in Sotto il Monte, the small town, as I said before. I knew him because he was the Pontifical Bishop Delegate of the Marian Sanctuary of Loreto, which is near my house. I live, in fact, in the Marche, an eastern region of Italy — so we started talking about his presence in Loreto. I reminded him of his stay there during the eighties, so he received me with great courtesy and helpfulness. So I said to him: “Your Excellency, the reason for my visit is due to the fact that I am a Fatima researcher.” He was nodding his head, as if to say “I understand”, so I continued: “Since you are a first class source of information, I would like to ask you some questions.” He then said immediately, “No, look, also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially, I will limit myself to what has been said.”
Now, this brings up a very well known problem regarding the so-called official version on Fatima. If they said everything on it, absolutely — and not only relatively, as I will explain afterwards — why then does a key witness tell me, in some way, that he is bound to talk only about what has been officially revealed? If we know everything about it because it has been publicly revealed, then I should not feel bound not to talk about it. If instead I feel bound by an official revelation, then this means that not everything has been said, in the whole sense of the word. Let’s examine again the words of Archbishop Capovilla: “No, look, also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially …” What imprecisions could have anything to do with what has been revealed officially? Maybe these “imprecisions”, when using the language style of the Roman Curia, which is a diplomatic way of speaking, mean instead the “discrepancies” that could emerge between his testimony and the official version? This would be like saying that the official version is wrong!

Archbishop Capovilla continued: “Also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially, I will limit myself to what has been said… Even if I should know something else…”; and when saying these last words he smiled openly. But what were these “other things”? Is there something more then? He continued, “Even if I should know something else… I must limit myself to what is said in the official documents…” The logical meaning of this last sentence is that there is something more besides what has been officially revealed, no matter what you think these “other things” might be or look like...

...Going on with Archbishop Capovilla, he then said to me: “You write the questions and send them to me, and I will answer them. I will search through my documents, if I still have them, because, you know, I donated everything to the museum… and I will send you something I have, maybe a phrase…”; and when he said this he smiled, like he did when he said “even if I should know something else”. His expression was evident, his face was clear, by looking at him there were no doubts what he was thinking of. “You write to me…”

Before leaving him, I asked Archbishop Capovilla whether he had any reservation or request that I keep everything he said to me as confidential and reserved, just as a private conversation to help a Fatima researcher like me in his own studies, but not to be published or the source of it to be publicly revealed. But he replied that it was fine, that I could print or use it as I wished, and so I did, and in doing that I was totally loyal to him.

Once back home, I sent the written questions to Archbishop Capovilla, as agreed, and on July 18th he sent me back a small package...

...there were [...] interesting details in the answers he sent me by mail. All the documents sent to me by Archbishop Capovilla I have forwarded to Mr. Socci, who used them in his book. And among those documents there was one in particular, even if not the only one, which got my attention. Archbishop Capovilla sent me his reserved notes dated May 17, 1967 — 40 years ago, so very close to the facts we are discussing today, when Mons. Capovilla was quite young. Those documents had his seal on them, his personal bishop’s seal; it was a very detailed and precise document, written by his own hand and containing dates, events and locations.

In these reserved notes, he certifies that Pope Paul VI read the Secret in the afternoon of Thursday, June 27, 1963, and that this Secret was held in the Papal apartments, and specifically in a drawer of the desk called “Barbarigo”, in the actual bedroom of the Pope. Meanwhile the official document published by the Vatican in the year 2000, entitled “The Message of Fatima”, stated that Pope Paul VI read the Third Secret, together with Cardinal Angelo dell’Acqua, on March 27, 1965, and sent back the envelope to the archives of the Holy Office, with the decision of not publishing it.

What a discrepancy we have here! Archbishop Capovilla says that Pope Paul VI read it in the afternoon of June 27, 1963, while the official document published by the Vatican says that he read it on March 27, 1965! Two different dates! But there’s more: two different locations in which the Third Secret was being kept! According to the booklet “The Message of Fatima”, the Third Secret had been kept at the Holy Office archives, taken from there and given to Pope Paul VI just to read it, and then brought back to the archives. In the secret notes of Archbishop Capovilla, instead, we read that Pope Paul VI didn’t get the Secret from the Holy See archives, but he took it out of the desk of his own apartment, where the document was being held since the very beginning; while the Vatican booklet states that Pope Paul VI sent it back to the Holy See Archives. There are therefore huge discrepancies of dates and locations! It is the same discrepancy that will happen also with John Paul II, both for dates and locations of when and where he read the Third Secret.

In an interview with the Italian magazine Famiglia Cristiana, in fact, Cardinal Bertone has recently said that the theory of the Secret being held in the Pope’s apartments was just pure fabrication, a lie. But then, Your Eminence, if these are all fantasies, then Archbishop Capovilla has lied to me! He must have forged an official document 40 years ago! We will get back to this point later, but I just want to specify that Archbishop Capovilla already talked about this thing, but now it is proved by written documents, detailed and original.

I immediately called Archbishop Capovilla, thanking him for his quick answers to my questions, and I spoke to him about this incredible discrepancy. He answered saying, “Well, but I spoke the truth, I’m still lucid, you know?!” So I said, “Of course, Excellency, but how do you explain this certified discrepancy?” He then started to talk about something else, but I asked him again: “All right, Excellency, but I am referring to an official written document of the Vatican, which is obviously based on archive documents!” So he answered, “But I justify…” As if to say, we both tell the truth, me and Cardinal Bertone — this was the sense of his reply!

And then he continued with this telling phrase: “Maybe the Bertone package was not the same as the Capovilla package!” — meaning the envelope and the text that Cardinal Bertone speaks of is not the same as the one Capovilla speaks about! So I immediately interrupted him and asked: “So both dates are true because of the Third Secret there are two texts?” He remained silent for a while, a brief and telling pause; it was evident that Archbishop Capovilla was thinking about it, so his answer was well reflected upon and thought about, it was not a rushed reply. After that pause of silence, the Archbishop answered me this way: “Per l’appunto”, which in Italian means “Precisely so”, “It is as you said”!!!

After this shocking statement I obviously tried to get more information from him, but Archbishop Capovilla interrupted me and said, “Please, let it go; we have got the Gospel, let us think about the Gospel…” It was a diplomatic answer, obviously, to say “Stop, I cannot say anything more.” And this is quite revealing of how he thinks, which is quite common in the Vatican, that the Third Secret is just simply a private revelation, something for fanatics, something that does not pose any obligation on anyone, at all, something that you can believe or not, something you can just ignore if you choose. They think this way because, according to them, we don’t even know what comes from Our Lady and what comes from Sister Lucy, it’s not an important thing, etc.

This answer of his, therefore, made me think that he was trying to get away from a difficult situation, but also made me think that he maybe didn’t consider the Message as authentically supernatural. It is probably due to considerations like the one expressed by Archbishop Capovilla that a certain Party Line has been followed about Fatima.
(See the full text here)

So we can see that during this interview, factually speaking, Archbishop Capovilla did indeed not tell Solideo Paolini that there were two texts of the Third Secret. Rather he presented him with sufficient evidence to allow him to deduce these conclusions for himself. And we can clearly see that the same deftness of diplomatic sensitivity was used in this most recent interview with CNS. Yet the timing of these revelations, just before the the anniversary of the first apparitions on 13th May 1917, gives us reason to ponder as to why this elderly Archbishop would wish to venture into this spiritual minefield yet again. By doing so, he clearly intends to draw attention to this subject once again as an ongoing unresolved affair.
Capovilla then goes on to reaffirm the validity of the text released in the year 2000, but cannot resist to add that there may be another text related to Fatima which is still being kept hidden.
His statement that he would not be able to fully reconstruct the secret which he first read in 1959 is rather telling, since officially speaking, this material has been in the public domain since the year 2000. The implication here is that there is some element to the Third Secret that is not on the official records, and the fact that he states that it would require memory to access the information at hand, suggests that the text he is referring to is presently inaccessible to the public, and was only available to himself through the faculty of memory. Rather teasingly, he then goes on to state that he can't deny that there may be something else, and then includes the familiar sounding words "but I don't know it". This phrase sounds remarkably similar to the the Italian idiom "Nulla so" highlighted by Paolini Solideo and Antonio Socci:

As an answer to my question regarding the existence of an unpublished text of the Third Secret, Archbishop Capovilla wrote these two clear words, written in a good and readable handwriting “Nulla so” — “Nothing I know”!
Now, it is strange in itself that one of the very few living people who know the Third Secret, in answering my questions, says that he doesn’t know if there is anything else unpublished, because if the so-called fourth secret — an expression used by Italian media to ironically call the unpublished part of the Third Secret — does not exist, well he should be the first to know, because he read it in the summer of 1959; so he should not have told me that “he doesn’t know about it”! Instead, he should have said something like “no, it’s everything, there is nothing else”. Saying he doesn’t know anything about it sounds strange in itself, but actually, instead, is quite clear: he knows it very well, he just doesn’t want to talk about it!

Moreover, the expression “Nulla so”, “Nothing I know”, does not exist in Italian. It only exists as an idiomatic and dialectal sentence used in Sicily. In Sicily, there are entire cities or areas under control of the Mafia, the well known criminal organization. If someone speaks to the police about them, they get killed. Therefore the locals are afraid of talking about Mafiosi, and when the police ask them about the hideouts of those criminals, they answer with that expression “Nulla so”, “Nothing I know”, which truly means “I know where they are, but I cannot speak because otherwise they will kill me.” The expression, therefore, means “I cannot talk.”

I don’t want to personally offend anyone with this example, but it was Archbishop Capovilla who used such an expression, as I said; and as Mr. Socci has carefully reported in his book, Capovilla said that to clearly and ironically evoke the so-called “omerta’ siciliana”, the “Sicilian code of Silence”. This code of silence is needed when you must keep something hidden. So that’s why Archbishop Capovilla used that expression, ironically, as a joke, which brings us back to what we said at the beginning: He was not able to speak openly about it!

Another telling piece of information can be found in Capovilla's statement that he wouldn't be able to "reconstruct the secret fully" from memory, which implicitly suggests that there is some element to the secret not commonly available. Surely Archbishop Capovilla would not have to be able to reconstruct the secret from memory if it was already freely accessible to everyone after the Vatican
published it in the year 2000.
In my next post, I will detail how there appears to be yet more evidence to explain why this so-called "hidden text" of the Third Secret may have been suppressed by the Church. Evidence which concurs with my suggestion that the "hidden text" may have explicitly mentioned the turn of the millennium, and which was perceived to have failed to materialise at the appointed time by the Church hierarchy (hence Capovilla's reservations that the text in question may have been a figment of Sr Lucia's imagination). As I suggest in the book (as well as the earlier post The "Fourth" Secret of Fatima), the real reason that this hidden portion of the Third Secret was suppressed was because it specifically mentioned an exact date. I argue that this "hidden text" highlighted the turn of the millennium as a prophetic turning point - as the time when Satan would be cast from his adversarial role in the heavenly court to be confined to the earthly sphere, after his hundred years of power. Yet because none of the Signs in the Sky given at this time to indicate the opening of the sixth seal were recognised by the appropriate authorities, it seems that the fulfilment of this prophecy has been greatly overlooked.


Jamey said...

Hope this isn't blasphemous but I thought it funny, I read a reflection on St Michael casting Satan and his minions to earth, the person commented along the lines, "Great thanks for that."

Emmett, Sr Lucia mentioned that a greater war than that of WWI could happen in the next popes pontificate, are you aware of any sources proclaiming this before WWII, or is it a case of prophecy after the fact. It does seem difficult finding verifiable specific prophecies that were eventually fulfilled. Ned Dougherty's 9/11 prediction is probably the best in modern times, and also Cardinal Pacelli quoting Sr Lucia's warnings of the Blessed Mother in the suicide of altering the faith in its liturgy, theology and soul.

Anne said...

I remember reading at the time when the 3rd Secret of Fatima was exposed by Cardinal Bertone, I thought...mmm was that it? Surely there would have been more 'gravitas' to its contents? I found it too ordinary, rather stale, there may be something else behind the scenes that he is not telling us about, I thought? Then later on I heard that the journalist Socci and others where after him for wanting to reveal more details to the Secret. I believe that there must be a whole lot more information that we don't know about and it may well be too dangerous to expose and detrimental to the Church.

Thank you for an excellent post.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Jamey,

That is funny!

No, the first time that Sr Lucia mentioned this was in the publication of the Second Secret in 1941, and by then WWII was well under way. So this leaves it open to the criticism of being "vaticinium ex eventu". But Sr Lucia tells us that she recieved the secrets in 1917 along with Jacinta and Francisco, at the exact same time as the October Revolution which seen the rise of the Soviet Union. And the fact that the Second Secret concerned the threat posed by Russia helps to put this timing into perspective. Also, if Sr Lucia was making the Second Secret up, she surely would have said that the war would break out during the pontificate of Pius XII rather than Pius XI - since officially WWII began at the invasion of Poland during 1939. But it has been noted that the aurora borealis mentioned in the Second Secret occurred in Jan 1938 - which was during the pontificate of Pius XI, and Hitler annexed Austria just over two months later in Mar 1938 - which many would argue marked the true beginning of WWII. But if she was making it up "ex eventu", it would have been far easier to say that it would break out during the pontificate of Pius XII. Instead, she stuck with the original wording, which from a prophetic viewpoint - in relation to the timing of the aurora and the annexation of Austria, is far more significant.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Anne,

The vision of the Third Secret of Fatima published in 2000 is a deeply symbolic and highly important private revelation, but as you say, there is nothing in it that would warrant the refusal to publish it by 1960 - the date specified by Sr Lucia. Why would the Church refuse to publish this particular part of the secret, and in doing so, generating the massive amount of hype that surrounded it until its publication? I'll attempt to answer these questions in my next post.

joerusso777 said...


This may be a little off topic but I came across these videos which are extremely interesting. The first one is pretty long but very informative, and has to do with the new world order. He is a Protestant so towards the end there is a couple Catholic jabs, but he doesn't view the Church in the same light as most Anti Catholic folks do, which is nice for a change. Now the second and 3rd videos have to do with genetic code altering. After watching all of these especially at the last video, your findings on the cell phones and mark of the beast makes for an interesting combination if at the least just something to think about.

First: 2hr. video-

second: 1st of a 2 part interview(25 to 30 min a piece-

3rd: 2nd part of the video-

Now to clarify, I am 100% Catholic and don't accept some of his theological views, ie the Rapture and such, but as you do sometimes as well, I think we can learn some things from other folks as well. Enjoy. I hope you at least check out the 2nd and 3rd videos as well.

God Bless

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks for that Joe! Sounds interesting - I'll have to take a look...

jac said...

... "I believe that there must be a whole lot more information that we don't know about and it may well be too dangerous to expose and detrimental to the Church"...

Anne, you are right. I would add "detrimental to the post VatII conciliar Church"
The Pope John prophesied "a new Pentecost, a springtime for the Church" and what did we get instead? The Apostasy almost everywhere.
So it is highly probable that Pope John deemed not opportune to reveal the (hidden) part of the 3rd Secret because it dealt precisely with the Apostasy in the ChurcH

Jamey said...

joerusso777 I agree there is some interesting work outside Catholic circles. A few years back I came across a book (Christ and the Maya Calendar: 2012 and The Coming of Antichrist by Robert Powell) a part of which detailed a Russian Orthodox mystic who in the late 1800s predicted around 2000 Europe would be one (EU) and around this time the Antichrist would incarnate. Unfortunately I dont have the book handy or can find the specific reference online. From memory the mystic that made the prediction was Vladimir Solovyov.

Solovyov also said the person who becomes the Antichrist will write a book along the lines "The Open Way to World Peace and Welfare".

Much of Powell's book contains new age terminology, he is a practicing Catholic but also part of the Rudolf Steiner Anthroposophical tradition, they have some interesting ideas but others that are also dangerous (ie reincarnation and universal salvation).

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Jamey,

I have that book as well, its very esoteric, but worth reading if you're not easily taken in by New Age syncreticism (which I know you're not of course!). Steiner believed that Ahriman (the Zoroasterian equivalent of Satan) would incarnate after 1998 (666 x 3).
Solovyov converted to Catholicism. It was in reference to Solovyov's highly influential work "A Short Story of the Antichrist" that Cardinal Giacomo Biffi famously claimed in March 2000 that the Antichrist was already among us.

Solovyov finished this work at Easter 1900, and died shortly after - you can find it online at this link:

Solovyov's fictional tale places the reign of the Antichrist at the turn of the 21st century.

It makes you wonder what kind of information Card. Biffi was privy to - the hidden text of the Third Secret perhaps? I've been meaning to get around to this subject in a blog post for a while now.

Jamey said...

Thanks Emmett, I may have even thrown that book out so I am glad you posted that information.

I wasn't aware Solovyov became Catholic.I know the Orthodox have had their share of holy men (eg St Seraphim of Sarov).

What did you make of the "Apocalypse Code" that is one day of Christ's time on earth corresponds with 29.5 years of world history?

I am really not sure what to make of Rudolf Steiner, he was a brilliant person with contributions in so many areas and even one of his strident critics noted him as "hyper-intelligent". Steiner said that Catholic dogma's are a dead corpse and that Jesus incarnated every 100 years - in an earlier time period he could have found himself tied to a stake. He was a lifelong celibate and a third of his lectures were on Christ. He could well have been a good willed person with some special gifts who had a level of diabolical disorientation, he doesnt strike me as a charlatan.

He also has had some hits prophetically, eg predicting the rise of the beast in 1933 (Hitler), and that there would be a mass dissapearance of bees in about 80 years (he said this in 1923). An out there man "Der Doktor" he predicted in a future epoch that man will be able to fly and will have no need for food as he will live of the Christ impulse! One woman in his movement Judith Von Halle has what appears to be genuine stigmata.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Solovyov's work is very important. He was a friend and peer of Dostoyevsky, and has become one of the most influential figures in Catholic eschatological thought. A true visionary. B16 even goes into some depth on the "Short Story of the Antichrist" in his first volume of "Jesus of Nazareth" (pp30-41).
The Orthodox have a few incorruptibles of their own. I believe that Christians outside of Catholicism are deficeint, but they are still capable of holiness - which is especially true of our closest and eldest brothers in the faith.

Numbers are important for interpreting the Bible, and the "Apocalypse Code" is intriguing, but I don't think that we have the length of time Steiner foresees. If the Antichrist is alive today, then his entire purpose is to destroy humanity - the diametric opposite of the salvific work of Christ. Just as Satan sought the destruction of humanity from the beginning (John 8:44), this will be the ultimate goal of his servant the Antichrist. So if he is alive today (which of course I don't know for certain - and we must take into consideration that every generation of Christians has expected the end to come during their own lifetime), then the end of the world may take place within a normal human lifespan, counting from the turn of the millennium. And this length of time depends on whether you consider this to be the date of the birth of the Antichrist, or (far more likely) the date when Satan transfers to him his great power and authority (Rev 13:2).

Steiner does seem to have been capable of prophetic foresight, and I'm sure he was genuine about his beliefs, but I'm not entirely comfortable with this movement. You own assessment of him seems to be spot-on.
Stigmata is one of the extraordinary phenomena that is capable of the preternatural (angels/demons). Only genuine physical healing is attributable to the supernatural - so if Von Halle's wounds are geniune I would say they are of demonic origin, given her heterodox beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Now this is from memory, and now washed off wiki, but, "in 1968, In Stern magazine, then Cardinal Ratzinger, commenting on the third secret of Fatima stated, 'What if the ocean turned to steam, and inundated all the land? What purpose would it serve to tell mankind?"

ok, that is a bad translation of a poorly remembered comment by our good Pope. I'm sure one of you can search for the veracity of this.

good blog!

Anonymous said...

(Stern is a German publication).

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Anon,

That mostly sounds like the "extract" of the Third Secret that was supposedly leaked to the editor of Neues Europa magazine in 1963. The Neues Europa text is rather strangely very similar to Akita. It doesn't claim to quote the secret verbatim, but rather the "essential points" of the original. A portion of it runs as follows:

"‘A great punishment shall come to all mankind, not today as yet, nor even tomorrow, but in the second half of the 20th Century. What I have already made known at La Salette through the children Melanie and Maximin, I repeat today before you. Mankind has not developed as God expected. Mankind has gone astray and has trampled underfoot the gifts which were given it. There is no order in anything. Even in the highest positions, it is satan who governs and decides how affairs are to be conducted. He will even know how to find his way to the highest positions in the Church. He will succeed in sowing confusion in the minds of the great scientists who invent arms, with which half of humanity can be destroyed in a few minutes.
If mankind does not refrain from wrongdoing and be converted, I shall be forced to let fall My Son’s arm. If those at the top, in the world and in the Church, do not oppose these ways, it is I who shall do so, and I shall pray God My Father to visit His justice on mankind.
"‘There will also come a time of the hardest trials for the Church. Cardinals will be against Cardinals and bishops against bishops. Satan will put himself in their midst. In Rome, also, there will be big changes. What is rotten will fall, and what will fall must not be maintained. The Church will be darkened and the world plunged into confusion.
"‘God will punish men still more powerfully and harshly than He did by means of the Flood, and the great and powerful will perish just as much as the small and the weak.
"‘The greatest World War will happen in the second half of the 20th Century. Then fire and smoke will fall from the sky, and the waters of the oceans will be turned to steam, hurling their foam towards the sky; and all that is standing will be cast down. Millions and millions of men will lose their lives from one hour to the next, and those who remain living will envy those who are dead. There will be tribulation as far as the eye can see, and misery all over the earth and desolation in every country."

If there was mention of this in Stern magazine in 1968, I doubt the comments were made by Ratzinger, who would have been a professor in Tubingen at this stage. To my knowledge, the only public comments made by Ratzinger on Fatima was in Jesus magazine in 1984. It sounds like a mixture of Neues Europa with the words of John Paul II during the Fulda conference in 1980:

"On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this: if there is a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish, truly the publication of such a message is no longer something to be so much desired."