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.
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.
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.