Robert De De Niro Niro

This was some of our very early work, before we had fully understood angular distortion produced by head angles. Taking that into account, this was just a mistake.

The amount of unfounded criticism we are getting for our facial splits is interesting, as no one is arguing about the alignment or incredible resemblance between, say, Janis Joplin and Amy Goodman, the laid back twin. What we get instead is that

  • Millions of people look alike. (False – faces are like snowflakes, extremely rare for two to match exactly).
  • We are poor readers of facial characteristics. (False.) While some people are unable to distinguish faces due to “prosopagnosia,” most of us instantly recognize people we know, even distant acquaintances not seen in years, based on facial features as assembled by our brains. Where we stumble is not recognition, but remembering names.
  • Our measurements are wrong because they are of opposite sides of faces. (False. We are not matching faces, but alignment facial features as they exhibit on one side of the face versus the other – lips, nose, chin, skull shape, etc.).
  • Internet photos are distorted*. (We can spot those quite easily. Most photos we use are cropped in the center, so that corner distortion is not an issue. We don’t use corners.)
  • We fudge the results to make them work. (False. It either works or not on a comparison. If a chin is off by an half inch, or a nose misses by a quarter inch, we may suspect relatives, even twins, but do not monkey with those results. Amy Goodman, as we showed you with her alongside Janis Joplin, happened that way the first time. It was perfect all on its own. We had looked and looked for Joplin, knowing she was, like most musicians and actors who die young, still alive. We compared her to many others before the Goodman matter settled it beyond question.
  • One guy, a Brit, came in to tell us that we were obviously wrong about the Taylor Swift twins because cameras use “anamorphic or cylindrical lenses.” (But no, in fact, once you see that Swift is twins, it is very easy to see in a wide array of photos, as one has a longer chin.)

It is all nonsense. You want to have at us? Duplicate our work. We give you the tools and photos and tell you exactly how to do it. Tell us WHY we are wrong. Do not come here all-knowing about what we are doing to tell us we are all wrong because you don’t like the results having never spent two minutes yourself doing it compared to our hundreds of hours.

Then, of course, is the inference that because I have provided EVIDENCE and trust myself and my work and that of my colleague MH, that I am in a “descent.” In other words, gone mad. What arrogance! What hubris! I am clear-headed, happy in my skin and life, and further I know I am sane because I know what is not sane. The inability to properly reason is an aspect of muddleheadedness, and our critics suffer from that. Not us. People who can look at photos as below and not instantly see the differences are … well, not insane, but my god, pasty-faced slow.

Anyway, Robert De Niro is twins. This one is so easy I am going to eschew face splitting and show you how to tell just by powers of observation. Here he is with his twin.

Eear  Measurement

I went ahead and drew the lines that give away the game. I should have made it harder for you. Disregarding the lines, one has a longer face (left), one has more arched eyebrows (right), and the distance from top of eyebrow to tip of nose is much longer on one (left). But you would all argue about that, and say you just cannot see any difference, as each photo is labeled “Robert De Niro”, so there ya go, they are both Robert De Niro.

The easy-to-see difference is in the height of the ears, the guy on the left having ears about an inch an and half higher. Look at where the bottom of the ear is in relation to the mouth! The mole! The guy on the left is older, and so has longer lobes, but even that growth does not begin to drop down far enough to match the guy on the right. Facial angle does not solve that riddle, as it is not enough to cause that much difference by distortion.

So I expect to hear that the guy on the left must have had plastic surgery, and that ears can be placed anywhere on the head within a range. So the guy on the right is younger, has not yet had plastic surgery, and the guy on the left has. Right? It’s actually pretty common in Hollywood.

Anticipating that, I grabbed photos of them at the same age. Both men played Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather, Part II.

Eear  Measurement 2

There ya go. Same age, same movie, circa 1973 or so. No plastic surgery. These are twins, perhaps fraternal, or brothers who look a lot alike. There are two Robert De Niros.

You might suggest I be a little less testy in tone, and honestly I would. As I like to say, stupidity cannot be cured, but ignorance can. And the criticisms we are receiving are ignorant, not stupid. But I get a little tired of it, as there is no effort from the critics, just smug dismissal. And while I don’t mind stupidity and know ignorance is curable, smugness just drives me buggy. Hours of work here, a wave of the hand there. What chutzpah!**


*In doing the most recent comparison of Bill Hicks and Alex Jones, which again showed they are the same person, I went to videos of each and did a screen grab from there. It makes for grainier results, but the distortions that appeared recently on Jones’ photos is not there in the videos. They have monkeyed with them since the hoax was exposed to make them harder to compare.

**Hollywood director Raoul Walsh is quoted as saying “You can really double anybody. If the action is good enough, it can be a monkey with top-hat and spats.” They really don’t have to try very hard, twins don’t have to look at all alike, to fool us. Once the expectation is set in our minds that the person we see is the person we are being told we see, we do not question inconsistencies.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American wilderness, Twins and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Robert De De Niro Niro

  1. nathan says:

    much more prominent cheekbones on the don corleone to the right. mind blown…i always thought he looked a little different in the godfather ii from one scene to the next but of course it never occurred to me that it was two different people, because, as you said…once we expect that who we are told we’re looking at is who we’re looking at, we generally don’t question it.


  2. JC says:

    This criticism is so simple, it is stupid. Heads pivot on their neck, chip-up -> chin-down — a simple nod of the head on the C1/occipital bone joint. De Niro has his chin down in the firs photo, chin up in the second. If you can’t even account for the movement of the neck and the head upon it, then you haven’t even graduated from kindergarten in your MS Paint/facial recognition “technology.”

    Find some straight ahead profiles with heads adjusted for atlas and neck pivot. The photo pair you show of Robert De Niro just shows that he is capable of posing with his chin up or chin down. Nothing more, nothing less. For you to assert otherwise just show how phony this all is.


    • You’re wrong, JC. And that matter is addressed in the body of the post. There is not enough angular difference in the photos to give the illusion of an ear being 1.5 inches lower on one than the other. Not even close. You are, again, grab-bagging.


      • JC says:

        And you are impervious to any criticism. Any criticism that does not meet with your preconceived conclusions is immediately dismissed. I’ve worked professionally in Photoshop for almost 30 years, since the first version. I’ve got thousands of hours working on portraits. And I assert you are wrong. But you will never accept a professional judgement, as it doesn’t meet with your conformational bias attitude. Ce la vie.


        • Another JC storm out! You’ll be back.

          Let’s see, you’ve never offered anything substantial in the way of criticism. What you do is ignore the body of evidence presented, and take one facet, usually something obscure, and claim that it negates everything else. (Remember Lennon’s grip on the guitar? Length of fingers? That, you claimed, undid a 60 page paper that you had not read.)

          In this case you claimed the angle of the heads produced a distortion that lowered the ears of one twin by an inch and a half. But anyone looking at it can see the head angles are not different by more than three or four degrees. I told you that. From that you tell me that I dismiss your criticism because it did not meet with my preconceived conclusions, which I did not. I merely said your criticism was ill-founded, overridden by obvious evidence.

          But then there’s your other method of “debate:” you claim expertise over everyone based on this or that specious claim, now thirty years of PhotoShop, and what, owning a guitar? You actually have to put up the goods, JC, to be taken seriously. You never do. You come in all angry and condescending, you grab bag, claim to be an expert, launch into a personal attack, and then you storm out.

          Like I said before, you’re boring, but now I add, you’re a phony. Go play with Kailey.


          • JC says:

            You’re impervious, mark. You wouldn’t know “substantial” if it hit you over the head. But, keep up the ad hominem. If you can’t attack the argument, belittle the person. It’s always been your style.


          • I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone as dense as you. You come in on the attack, engage in ad hominem, put up NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUBSTANCE, insult me, and then accuse me of being impervious.

            I have asked you several times now to leave, and stay gone. You add nothing here, even constructive criticism. If you keep this up, I will ban you. Then you can go back to RD and cry in your beer about how unfair people are to you.


  3. I think we just need to post more photos of each twin. For example with the Swift twins, I can spot them immediately. There are thousands of photos of each twin, each one with the same differences. That wipes out the Photoshop argument since that rests on us only having a few photos.


  4. Tyrone McCloskey says:

    A few thoughts off the top of my pointy little head: I would have trouble with the Bobbii matching moles had I not once seen identical twin girls, about 14 years old, with matching hair, clothes and matching snaggle teeth in their upper dentition- It was quite remarkable as they both had the same unkempt hair, exact matching casual wear and those teeth- I am no expert on anything, let alone twin genetic oddities, but had I not seen this with my own eyes, the matching moles might have given me pause- (It is hard to imagine having one twin cosmetically altered to sport a mole rather than just removing it from the one who does have it naturally-)

    The alleged father of the De Nerii was gay- Yes, gay men have kids, but as I have been compiling notes on possible bastards, this might be another case- Not going to put that in stone, yet-

    That said, the twins are certainly in play in Raging Bull- The lean, mean La Motta of the ring cannot possibly be the fat Jake who was eating the menu at IHOP in prep for the film- The length of the shooting schedule could not possibly support the time to go from boxing trim to heart attack huge- The fat one would be the smoldering young Don Vito- All presence, no fireworks- Monroe Starr of The Last Tycoon would be this twin- The idiot of The Ma Barker Gang was also the idiot in Mean Streets- He’s the lively one- The twins are easy to spot in Taxi Driver- The contemplative Travis has shorter hair than the Are You Talking To Me Travis- In fact the Are You Travis is also the Mohawk Travis and the rest is the Don Vito Bobby-

    They split again in The Deer Hunter- Bearded, haunted by war, Bobby is Don Vito- Russian Roulette Bobby is lively Travis-

    As lead roles dried up, it appears lively Travis has largely taken over- The need for a young, smoldering De Niro has given way to effective scene stealing- The Analyze movies looks like Lively Bob- Same with the Fockers- The Good Shepherd is contemplative Bob, as would be Ronin- Basically, comedies go to Lively and dramas go to Contemplative- Most are co-star or cameos, but that is how it goes with age- Gene Hackman had the good sense to hang ’em up before it got out of hand- The De Nerii can keep going with such “range”- Pointy Head over and out- urp!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Of course! And a good reason for Intel/entertainment love of twins – they can play wildly divergent roles, as fat and thin guy in Taxi Driver. Now i time to look at other actors who have gained or shed pounds for various roles – Tom Hanks, Mathew McConaughey …


      • Tyrone McCloskey says:

        McConman especially- He’s been a puzzlement since I first saw him in John Sayles “Lone Star”- What took him so long to become a star? And what about Travolta coming and going over the years? An Oscar nominated licensed jumbo jet pilot??? WTF?


        • Add Travolta to the list. My wife thinks twins are rare, and so should be taken with a huge grain of salt. In real life they are indeed. I knew but one set, fraternal, growing up, and had a fraternal set of aunts. Two of my children are twins. But Hollywood and music are rife with them. This needs to be the focus of the endeavor, I think, how they are finding (or producing?) so many twins.


          • In my high school class of 300, we had 2 sets of identical twins and 1 or 2 sets of fraternal twins. That puts it at around 0.5%-0.75%. Google says identical twins are between 0.5%-1% of the population. I like the 0.5% number.

            According this article, .000086% of the population is famous. Or out of 318M people in the USA, 27,348 people. Let’s say 50% of them are identical twins. We have 41,022 people or 13,674 sets of twins (27,348 total people who are identical twins)

            How many people out of 7 billion are a part of the bloodlines? One million? That would make .000142% of the world population. The USA makes up roughly 4.5% of the population. Let’s say the USA has 40% of the famous people in the world. In that case, and using my 50% number from earlier, we have a total of 68,370 famous people in the world. If we assume 50% are twins, we have 34,185 sets of twins.

            Now I used some major assumptions here, but if there are 1,000,000 people who are a part of the “bloodlines” who are allowed to be a celebrity, that would mean somewhere between 3-4% of them are identical twins which doesn’t make sense. We have to assume there are some downright hideous twins, mentally disabled twins, etc. that could never be plausibly famous.

            Now of course my numbers could be off. There might be a much larger sample size of people that they choose from and there might be a much smaller size of celebrities and/or identical twins so that this all makes sense. But I still doubt it because many of these twins appear to be exceptional. What are the odds of finding a set of Brad Pitt twins in a small sample size of ultra-wealthy people, for example, which Mark hasn’t written an article about yet.

            I have no idea what the logistics are, at this point.


          • I think we might be looking at selective breeding, surrogate parents, the ability to induce twins.


          • Indeed.

            Makes me wonder if the Hollywood rent-a-kids are somehow related to this breeding farm.


          • And it ties in with Tyrone’s bastard idea. Instead of bastards, maybe they are all just surrogate children.


          • Think … the children of Robert F. Kennedy, who are probably a collection of his own and Kennedy’s from other parents, the ones who fake died. That is royalty, and not stars, but the principle might be the same – within that class, elective breeding takes place, and drugs are administered to increase the likelihood of twins.


  5. Tyrone McCloskey says:

    Full disclosure: My father had a twin sister*- Twins do happen naturally- He was in show biz- He’s what I call “traffic”- The agents need camouflage, so real people thinking they are part of the “talent-rises-to-the-top” circus get to play along as extras to sell the idea that unconnected talent has a shot- He built sets, so he was one of the “little people”, but he always believed that with the right script, he would elevate to the top as a director- WRONG!
    I’m certain genetic tampering has been around since the sorcerers of ancient Egypt, at least- What’s going on now with in vitro shenanigans isn’t that far removed from “jus primae noctis”, the infusion by bride rape of noble blood into the peasantry- Wikid is leading the charge to call that practice a myth, so you know it was a regular feature of when times were rotten-
    Tampering at the zygote stage may be a real thing- I distrust big science as much as exotic military technology so I can’t say one way or another- Powerful men having many children goes back to the invention of power- I read once long ago that twins do tend to occur in some families, so perhaps twinning families are kept close, whether elite or not, and some form of monetary coercion or other brings the fertile, twin-centric wombs into the fold- It may be more of an inexact science than we realize- I have no patience with cloning theories- Dramatic evidence will be needed and I see none at the moment-
    * Decades later it was discovered that my paternal grandparents weren’t properly married, thus rendering my father and aunt technically bastards- Oh the irony!


  6. This is all interesting. Who knows what happens in Hollywood. I’ve heard we all have someone who looks like us somewhere. 🙂 — Suzanne


    • I think it can be said that we each have people who look enough like us that people might mistake us on a glance, but it is extremely rare to find an absolute doppelgänger. It is so rare that the chances of it happening in the small sphere of Hollywood actors is zero.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s