The Justin Timberlake Twins

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.

________________________________________________________________

This has been discussed in the comments as a given, but we have never put up evidence of Justin Timberlake being a set of twins. So without introduction, I will get right into it.

They are hard to tell apart, so I will do facial splits after this. Twin #1 is the one we think of as the friendly one:

Twin two is the performer – that is, Twin One above does interviews and the other one below stage performances. He is indeed a gifted performer, but he’s not that bad in interviews either – just a little more laid back.

You can see why we call one the “friendly” one. With twins this seems a recurring theme – one is outgoing and engaging, the other less so.

Now for some facial splits, as I know my readers love that. However, with these guys, as hard as they are to tell apart, I think it is necessary.

As you can see, when the nose is aligned, all other features fall out of sync.

Again, and the same result. (These photos can all be clipped should any of you want to duplicate these results. Just remember to set the pupils at common distance before comparing. And beware the ears, as they can be deceptive. (In this case, twin #2 does have slightly higher ears.)

Both twins profess to be close personal friends with Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon, and maybe that is true. Maybe Fallon does not know they are twins, but I suspect as a show biz insider he is in on the game with all these people. I wonder if, when Timberlake is on, both twins show up, one to perform, the other to sit?

Below are two shots of each of them on the Tonight Show. See if you can tell which is which.

It’s not easy to tell right off, is it. Hint: One of them is a little more friendly and engaging.

About Mark Tokarski

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

30 Responses to The Justin Timberlake Twins

  1. To add to this, Twin #1 is the Timberlake that all the girls love. He’s funnier, and I would argue, more laid back than Twin #2. He is the one you see in movies like Alpha Dog and Friends With Benefits.

    Twin #2 is the great singer and dancer. His interviews appear more try-hard. His jokes seem to fall flat compared to his twin. I believe that is because Twin #1 sets such a high standard in interviews, it is difficult for his brother to match it. There is often a sadness in his eyes, and I suspect that comes with the pressure of trying to match his brother’s personality, which must be a large burden for him.

    Jessica Biel may be twins herself, but we haven’t found evidence for that yet. So at the moment, she appears to be one woman who’s job it is to be the “wife” of both twins for continuity purposes. Previous relationships for Timberlake include Cameron Diaz (who I’m confident is twins herself) and Britney Spears (who also might be twins). Fake fake fake!

    Like

  2. Intelligence is always prepared for this kind of stuff, by creating storylines that will show up on Google in place of websites like this. If you Google “Justin Timberlake Twins”, the 1st page is loaded with a fake rumor that Timberlake and Biel are expecting twins. We know this is nonsense, since Biel is a beard for the twins.

    When you Google “Justin Timberlake brother” you get this weird story line about him having a “secret brother”.

    http://www.vh1.com/news/33141/justin-timberlake-younger-brother-jonathan/

    The brother looks nothing like him, and the look on Timberlake’s face does not look very brotherly, almost suspicious.

    Like

    • Nasty business there, a 30 second ad that you cannot kill unless you leave the site. I keep a towel on hand for such rudeness, and cover my screen till it goes away.

      You’re right – that is an odd look on Timberland’s face. I am not going back to the site, as I might get pre-rolled again, but was JT PhotoShopped in?

      Like

  3. Tyrone says:

    What I’m getting from this entertainer series is that twins, obviously, would be a boon to those creating a multi-faceted performer- One has certain talents and the other compliments those talents with others, but together they make for one huge star- Having two people work the same persona also helps crowd out interlopers who may not have the proper breeding- As well, these twins fill up the amount of time most people have for entertainment consumption- Real talent remains on the fringe-

    The Timberlake model, like others on this list, seems to me to be based on the original golden age of television template of Sammy Davis Jr. as the all purpose entertainer- Singer, dancer, actor, raconteur, political gadfly- And the question has to be asked in light of Frank being outed as a pair: What about Sammy? The glass eye could be a huge hurdle, or it could be the prosthetic marker that the other twin also wears to hide the fact that this persona is played by twins-
    In the 60’s and 70’s, Sammy was EVERYWHERE!*- And he was, to my spotty memory, fairly consistent with his shtick- Voice, which was at times very powerful, the fake laughter, which was embarrassing, the cocksure but self-effacing actor/comedian- So, if twins, the one did all of the TV spots and the other was the one kissing Nixon’s ass and being a credit to his race in the eyes of Queen Elizabeth II, an apparent fan- He might also be the famous shutterbug, taking pictures in places, and of people, where other Intel assets couldn’t go-

    *This was the era when young people’s entertainment began to compartmentalize specific talents- Like the bands had one drummer, one bass, one lead guitar and one rhythm guitar, multi-talented performers were of an older style- Neil Diamond might have been a triple threat if he hadn’t come to life in the late sixties- As it was, he was known as a singer/songwriter, which is as far as the multi-tasking would go at that time- People like Sammy were the parent’s concern- A lonely kid with a cheap guitar did not need to be Eddie Cantor or Danny Kaye- He need only be able to pose like Jimmy Page with a loud phallic guitar- Another way to keep ambitious low breds from challenging the chosen few- Today, this Sammy styled persona is back on the menu and specialists have to be content with YouTube-

    Liked by 1 person

    • You and I may be the only readers here who remember Sammy Davis, Jr., except perhaps Annette. I remember him hugging Nixon, coming on stage when MLK faked his death to calm down the ghettos, being part of the rat pack … There are surely enough useable photos to out him if he was fake. That would be fun. I’ll put it on the docket.

      Like

    • daddie_o says:

      Imagine being Sammy’s twin after his brother lost his eye in a car accident. “Sorry about this, Manny, but we’re going to have to take your eye out, too.”

      Like

  4. annspinwall4 says:

    I remember him, but wasn’t a fan so I never paid much attention….it would be fun to find out if he was a twin. Mark, I like you comment from a few weeks ago…it might be easier to consider they are all twins (not a completely accurate quote, but you probably remember the one I refer to)

    Like

  5. daddie_o says:

    Mark, I don’t know where you seem to have gotten the idea that your audience doesn’t like the facial splits. Maybe you’re getting private messages with people complaining, but I for one like them. I find them clear and convincing. So I would say don’t hold back with those because you think we think they’re tedious or something.

    Like

    • I was reamed pretty good about them by Mathis and another person at the conference, both of whom I respect, and I catch some ridicule on Fakeologist. I finally decided I had to go my way no matter the opinions of others. Kind of like what life is anyway.

      Like

      • daddie_o says:

        I think as your method has become more refined since August it has also become more convincing. It’s also interesting that your findings mesh with that woman who has spent 30 years trying to authenticate photos on how to tell twins apart…

        And screw Fakeologist. If you let your site become overrun with shills, what does that say about your site?

        Like

        • The whole Clues Fakeologist realm seems like a good source of information and disinformation at once. And I am sensitive to Goldbug-like criticism, the reason Goldbug is there, to blackwash honest people.

          Like

          • daddie_o says:

            Clues forum, yes, for the most part good info. Fakeologist, not so much. Or rather, the best info they provide seems to be linked to from other sites. I honestly haven’t tried listening to any of their podcasts…I don’t really care to listen to people prattle on for hours. I’d rather read something or watch a documentary.

            Like

  6. daddie_o says:

    I just let this comment on your Reddit post on the Timberlake twins, but I’ll put it here because it’s relevant. It concerns the technology of cloning or twinning. Straight said to someone that he doesn’t think it’s cloning, but some way through IVF to increase chances of twins. Here is my response:

    I don’t know if it’s more realistic than cloning. Maybe it just depends on how you want to define cloning.

    We usually think of cloning as taking the cell from somebody and using the DNA to create a copy. But that’s not the only definition of cloning. According to this website (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningornot/), it is possible to extract an embryo, separate it into individual cells and grow them as separate embryos and then re-implant those embryos or implant them in a surrogate (see scenario 2 in the link). It can even be done for more than twins and the example they give is 16 duplicates. This method is called ‘artificial embryo twinning’ and the method was first demonstrated in 1885!(http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/clonezone/)

    Note that this is different from the ‘Dolly the sheep’ style cloning from a mature cell, which is what we usually think of when we think of cloning (that’s called somatic cell nuclear transfer).

    What you’re suggesting is that maybe they have some special technology to increase the possibility that the embryo created by the IVF process splits itself.

    Anyway, a little google hunt shows that regular IVF itself raises the chances of having identical twins by quite a lot: from 0.25-0.5 percent to something like 3 percent. In those cases, the split occurs after implantation in the womb.

    So maybe they figured out some cocktail of hormones to increase the chances. But my vote goes to artificial embryo twinning. Since it is an established and tried-and-true method, I don’t see why they wouldn’t use it.

    Now imagine this twisted little scenario: maybe instead of implanting twins into a single fetus (possibly the mother’s), they make a bunch of copies (up to 16) and implant them into many different women, one embryo per mother. Then they pick the ones that look the most alike and they are chosen for special training, etc. Don’t know what happens to the others. I rather doubt it, but at this point…who knows? Brave New World, indeed.

    Like

    • This is intriguing, to say the least. I think I am beginning now to understand the true nature of the Mouseketeers.

      Like

    • Good stuff as always.

      You’re right, when I think of cloning, I think of Arnold in the 6th Day. But you know what, I think most people do too, and that’s why they use that misdirection.

      I am hesitant on the subject altogether due to what I noted about Dolly the Sheep using Wiki Numerology. But embryonic twinning could explain the sheer number of twins we are seeing. Since there are so many (and so many with talent and looks), there must be a very, very high success rate.

      Will look into this more later today.

      Like

      • daddie_o says:

        Yes, I agree about the misdirection. I think there is quite a bit. It took a bit of digging to get to this method. At first it seemed like either it’s IVF or full-on somatic cell transfer cloning (or something new-fangled with stem cells). Plus we are led to believe it is only something they do on animals (or something they only can do with animals). I also saw some rather high rates given for natural rate of identical twins on several websites (like 3-6% instead of 0.25-.5%).

        Like

        • Even if they were knocking out twins at 3-6%, it still wouldn’t be enough to cover what we are seeing.

          I like the embryonic splitting hypothesis. Make identical twins at will.

          As for your 16 embryo idea, that could explain the body doubles we see that don’t look as alike. When you consider how small a pool they have to choose from (you can’t just pick a girl off the street and ask her to do a photoshoot stepping in for Beyonce), it would make sense. But where do they keep all these twins? Are they out and about? Does that explain why some celebrities look so close alike (Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel) rather than just being cousins?

          Like

      • daddie_o says:

        Here are the first few hits for a search using the terms: artificial embryo twinning humans

        Seems like splitting would be a good word to add to that search.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569010000403

        http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humclon.html

        http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/3/497.long

        According to these papers, the technology to do embryonic twinning in humans is relatively recent. But who knows what kinds of technological advances were made much earlier that we don’t know about?

        Like

      • daddie_o says:

        There is actually a brief mention of it in the wickedpedia entry on cloning:

        “Artificial embryo splitting or embryo twinning, a technique that creates monozygotic twins from a single embryo, is not considered in the same fashion as other methods of cloning. During that procedure, an donor embryo is split in two distinct embryos, that can then be transferred via embryo transfer. It is optimally performed at the 6- to 8-cell stage, where it can be used as an expansion of IVF to increase the number of available embryos. If both embryos are successful, it gives rise to monozygotic (identical) twins.”

        See? It’s not really cloning. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Also note that there is no wickedpedia entry on embryonic splitting/twinning. Interesting.

        Like

  7. Tyrone McCloskey says:

    Daddie_o sez:
    “Now imagine this twisted little scenario: maybe instead of implanting twins into a single fetus (possibly the mother’s), they make a bunch of copies (up to 16) and implant them into many different women, one embryo per mother. Then they pick the ones that look the most alike and they are chosen for special training, etc. Don’t know what happens to the others. I rather doubt it, but at this point…who knows? Brave New World, indeed.”

    This is big- This may be the explanation for why there were so many Paul’s in the pre-fame era- Short ones, shy ones, boisterous ones, smart-asses, cute, and Mike-

    As for the discards, they are probably reassigned- They were born into it and never leave- The Halliday guy at Paul’s old house might be an example of one of these batch cookies with an assignment – He’s since been removed from sight but might have the best Paul autograph style and so is signing memorabilia at another safe house until he can go outside again-

    As I harp on bastards so much, it’s possible the mothers are elite bastards and possibly discards from earlier twinning batches- They may be carrying the illegitimate legacies of their second or third cousins, once removed, to term-

    This will require further contemplation-

    Like

    • Just something I stumbled on a while back – Mark David Chapman, the supposed killer of John Lennon, is twins. These are not terribly handsome people, so they could be the discards you talk about, assigned the low-level task of pretending to be in prison for a non-existent crime.

      Like

      • Tyrone McCloskey says:

        Chapman(s) would be a photo-model and interviewee from time to time but nothing more- He probably does data entry in some Intel basement to make his nut- The twins are an insurance policy should one go down before they close that psy-op- (Hell, maybe the first one did go down and they are using the surviving twin which would explain the mismatch)
        A hatchling like that, without looks or talent, would have to play a villain, not an entertainer-Therefore, he won’t be popping up as a pundit- His sole purpose above board would be to solidify his crime as real history- Down below, he’s a faceless, well paid, cog-

        Speaking of shut downs, they just can’t let Manson go, probably in order to age his fans and detractors so there will be few left who remember the impact of that theater piece when they close that out- Since MM’s epic, they have been working hard to keep the myth alive- The Duchovney series and lately People magazine- That article further tarred and feathered Dennis Wilson, implying that Wilson somehow enabled Manson- Since he’s “dead” they can let him have it- But that begs the question, what and who are The Beach Boys? They are still here, largely intact for an oldies act- Maybe Manson is why they are still needed-

        Like

        • The Mathis impact, all underground and never acknowledged, is palpable. The guy singlehandedly generated the OJ TV series we recently endured too. But don’t sell yourself short, as JFKTV to me was as well written as the Mathis paper. Both papers, to me, broke that case and set me free, and I thank you both.

          Like

          • Tyrone McCloskey says:

            De nada-

            Like

          • As far as I can tell, Tyrone, you do not often check email, so I am contacting you via comments here,

            You are an independent thinker with excellent observational and reasoning skills. I would like for you to be a “Contributor” on the blog. Think of it as a no-boss position that pays nothing. You would not be under any pressure to write, as I know you are busy with jobs and other things. You do not need to master blogging skills, as you will have me and others to help you. Your anonymity would be protected – that is, even if someone hacked the blog, your information would not be in there to steal. You would be any name you choose to be, and can even forego having an email address too. (The blog has never been hacked, but our writing is getting bolder.)

            If you agree to this proposition, I will set up a contributor’s account for you with a name of your choosing, and a brief few words about yourself, or none. Once set up I will give you the information necessary for access.

            I await your decision.

            Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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