Note to Reader: This blog post has been put “under review” as we have had growing pains in developing the technology we use to identify twins, replicas and zombies. The eyes behind the technology are getting better, so as you read this piece note that if you are troubled by its conclusions that we will be looking at it in more depth and with better eyes. For the time being, it is speculation.
Further research 2/17, this post was mistaken. I’d like to make it go away but my conscience makes it stay. _____________________________________________________________
Here we go again, more twins.
First, a brief discussion of twinning. Straightfromthedevilsmouth left an interesting comment under the De Niro post. He referred us to this article from Wired. It says that there are about 605,000 famous people in the world, judging by Wikipedia living person entries. That is about .000086% of the world population, and extrapolating to the U.S., means that about 27,350 of us are famous. That’s qualifies as a very rough guess.
Other sources tell me that twins occur in about 2% of the population, so that of our 27,350 famous people, there should be 547 twins, or 274 sets, assuming no triplets or quadruplets.
Now, judging from 1) the grocery store, 2) the post office, 3) Target, and 4) COSTCO, it is my judgment that, even though many of us are reasonably attractive, perhaps only one in fifty of us is good looking in the movie/rock star sense. That means that of the 274 sets of twins in our famous population, 6 sets would be good looking.
However, MH and I have a list of 42 potential twins sets, of which we have so far confirmed, to our satisfaction, that 19 are indeed twins! Another 15 need to be investigated.
This is way, way out of whack! My speculation, and we seem headed in this general direction, is that the population of people who are “famous,” who are mostly related to one another, and usually having royal ancestry. So they could well be the product of selective breeding. (There is also, perhaps, a drug regimen to enhance the possibility of twins.)
If this is the case, then it might not be out-of-bounds to speculate that the five children that Angelina and Brad Pitt have adopted are part of a selective breeding pool, and though we only see five at a time, there well might be five more twins behind close doors. They take them out for public viewing five at a time. In Hollywood, twins are never seen together.
That is just speculation, of course, but this is not: Brad Pitt has an identical twin. Here are all the photos of Brad that we have looked at:
Can you spot the two that are different from the other six? It is not easy, I guarantee. I will make it easier here by narrowing the field to four:
Again, I have given away the game by use of the (red) lines to delineate relative ear height. (The yellow line merely lines up the eyes.) The two in the middle have markedly higher ears than the other two, and are the second Brad Pitt, not seen as often as the first. Let’s call the four Brad Pitts 1, 2, 3 and 4, left to right.
Here are some face splits. I believe in this technology – it is the only way I could pick out the ringers in the above eight. Only then did I notice that ear height differed.
These are, left to right, 4/3, 1/2, 1/4, and 2/3.
1/4 is a match, as is 2/3. Those are the third and fourth face splits, left to right. 4/3 and 1/2, the first and second, look reasonably close, but do not match because of slight facial differences (mostly seen in the noses), and, of course, the ears give away the game.
Which one is sleeping with Angelina Jolie? Do you really want to know the answer? If not, stop reading, right now.
OK. Ready? Neither is sleeping with Angelina. Both the Pitt twins and Angelina all go home to separate bungalows each evening, and the five (if not ten) kids are taken back to the star breeding compound. Pairing in Hollywood is a press agent matter, mates assigned to one another for certain durations. Then they break up and re-pair. So Brad and Angelina have never been Bradgelina, and certainly not BradBradgelina.
That’s how I see it, anyway.