“I’m sorry, Conspiro, I’ve taken valuable time away from your self-professed mastery of facial recognition in exposing the Tate=Hearst coverup, what with your undoubtedly inspiring skills with MS Paint and low rez pictures from the Internet.”
I clipped that comment from the tool otherwise known as Monty, a man who professes superhuman abilities in philosophy, mathematics, physics, politics, and now photo analysis, and who otherwise cannot tie his shoes. But we are traveling today across Wyoming, so I thought this a good opportunity to explain why I tend to trust results I am getting from facial plate comparison of photographs.
Some time ago I took time to write about probability, an aspect of statistics that Monty has likely mastered too. That’s the essence of facial plate matchups. While I cannot cite actual numbers, I think we can all agree that most people have different noses, for example. It is more likely that siblings will have similar noses, though not identical. Even identical twins, each affected by environmental factors, tend to grow in differing directions.
But suppose we do find two people who have identical noses, no matter how improbable. Is then the distance between the nose and upper lips the same? How about between there and the eye lash? What about size and shape of the skull, height of the ears? Is the chin a double or single? Are the lips of the same texture and width?
For two different people, even identical twins, the odds of a matchup in all these aspects of facial plate appearance are beyond astronomical. It is far more likely, if we have a matchup in all factors, that we are dealing with the same person.
Thus the person to the left here, said to be Sharon Tate on the left and Patti Tate on the right, siblings born years apart, are actually one and the same person, Sharon. Knowing that, we can then conclude she did not die as advertised in 1969, and from their your house of cards tumbles. You’ve got a problem.
Or, you can do what Monty did – just assert that I am a hack, that the photos are low resolution, or whatever other comical form your denial takes on.
I am somewhat concerned … This technology is not hard to master. It relies on two factors – one to find photos where the subject heads are in similar alignment, straight up and on being the best but not essential. The other is to adjust each photo so that the pupils are at the exact same distance apart. That is critical – that factor, a mathematical constant, does not change over our adult lives and is unaffected by plastic surgery. It is gold.
Suppose a lot of people start doing this – I am OK with that as others will improve on the technology. What I am concerned about is that we be monkeying with Internet photos, and sunglasses will soon be everywhere, distortions of facial features and copyright infringement demands that photos be taken down, fair use be damned. This technology is, in fact, an excellent tool for uncovering secrets, and the people keeping the secrets will not be happy.
They have power, I do not. I only have my brain. So I suggest to all reading this that you immediately download and preserve all photos of interest of suspect personalities, either impersonators or zombies. We can use them privately if public sphere censorship happens. We can still search for truth.
That is, after all, all I am doing.