Factory humans?

Note to Readers: Much of the work we have done here at this blog over the last six months has uncovered twins. We have found them in movies and music even a set of twins playing the part of Mark David Chapman, John Lennon’s fake murderer. The reason we identify them as twins is because even as they play the same person in public, they each have unique distinguishing features that set them apart.

In the comparisons that follow, we are not dealing with twins. These people appear more to be replicas. They cannot be twins because of age and time differences.

We assert that a true doppelgänger is so rare that it would be impossible to find your own without traveling the globe and doing a face-to-face search – an effort taking years. [See the latest mathematical extrapolation on the likelihood of a doppelgänger here.) Your best bet would be to look in your own family tree, and even there you will only get hints of resemblance.

However, we find that they turn up in Hollywood with unusual frequency. This website offers a large number of people who look-alike in many ways, but usually after a little effort, differences are easily apparent. But there are some, like Matt Damon/Hillary Swank, Jamie Pressly/Margot Robbie, for instance, where the resemblance is so striking as to suggest a family tie, perhaps a twin.

And that is where our research appears to be leading us – family ties. At the very end of this post is a brief outline of the blood relationships for Mathew Paige Damon – while I cannot vouch for the research behind it, it is suggestive. Some researchers try to downplay this information, saying we can all trace our genealogy back to a couple of apes or seven European women or Attila the Hun. We are not saying that  – we are saying that among our celebrities, musicians, high level politicians and corporate executives, there are common bloodlines that go back perhaps twenty or thirty  generations, and that further … if a new star happens on the scene, like Jennifer Lawrence, she was (they were) probably not only trained for that role, but also bred.

There is some sort of gene splicing/replication process at work to produce people like the six below. This will be a recurring feature at this blog as we push forward. We are but oarsmen pulling on the oars in darkness, not knowing what the sunrise will reveal.

_______________________________________________________________

woodruff-4

Woodruff

We have been on the trail of Judy Woodruff ever since I watched some of the PBS coverage of one of the 2016 nominating conventions. As I looked at that pretty, aging face I thought “You used to be someone else, didn’t you.”

That’s not a new insight – we are finding that everyone who occupies a prominent slot in news used to be someone else. These revelations surprise us too. My own first discovery, that actor Brandon DeWilde became “progressive” radio host Thom Hartmann (both names obviously fake), was as much a shock to me as anyone.

So please don’t imagine as we unveil our discoveries here that we know where this path leads. And before I forget, I am fully aware of the normal reaction to our work:

“I do not believe it to be true, therfore, it is not true.”

Just a reminder to those of you who react in that manner:

The absence of a curious and inquisitive nature and failure to develop imagination are not the hallmarks of intelligence. Quite the opposite.

There is a smugness in our propaganda-soaked culture that looking away from things that ought to stimulate curiosity and wonder is a sign of superior intelligence. It is not.

Judy Woodruff is a puzzle. She is no journalist. None of those TV faces are. They are all actors. But the answer came back to me in a list of potential Zombies from Straight, that the world-famous singer Dalida bore a strong resemble to Woodruff. Knowing nothing of Dalida, I ran a quick photo comparison.

That is as clean and pure as it ever gets. The differences – Dalida’s larger and seemingly different-shaped eyes are due to makeup. She is also younger than Woodruff in the photograph, so there has been some narrowing of the eye socket in the older woman. The eyebrows are a makeup effect. The hard-wired features, nose, mouth, eye level, skull shape and chin are dead-on. Even dimples and posture point to these being the same person.

But there is a problem: Dalida was born on 1/17/33 and faked her death on 5/3/87. (Numerologists – Intel markers on both dates!) If she became Woodruff, that would make Woodruff 83 years old. Woodruff is not that old – she appears late sixties to mid-seventies at the most. There is also career overlap: Woodruff was apparently appearing in public as early as 1984, three years before Dalida’s death. (Those public appearances are according to Wikipedia, so might be misdirection.)

Dalida, real (or first fake) name Yolanda Cristina Gigliotti, was born in Egypt but was Italian and French. She performed and recorded in more than ten languages. She was a French citizen by marriage.

Of course, all of that could be fake. The 1933 birth year is a tell. She might have been a Mata Hari-like spy, as I suspect  Jayne Mansfield was before her fake death. In the end, all I have is a photo match-up of two people who look exactly alike, both of whom are prominent. And it has to come to rest there. I do not claim they are the same person. The evidence does not support that conclusion.

Woodruff is a fake, this I know. All of TV news is fake, and so are the people who deliver it. If Dalida was a spook, as I suspect, her premature death was surely fake. But I can go no further. My evidence, the photo match-up, is not enough to make them the same person.

It brought to mind another matchup – Inger Stevens was a Swedish-born actress who faked her death in 1970. One of our commenters here (and a potential contributor) brought to the fore the fact that another actress, Emma Thompson, bore a striking resemble to Stevens.

That is not an absolutely perfect match-up, but goodness is it ever close. And from these two we do not have a few years timing problem – it is a generational problem. Stevens was born in 1934, Thompson 1959.

I cannot mathematically discount the mere coincidental doppelgänger possibility. But I suggest that it is highly improbable that these match-ups are coincidental. The doppelgänger effect makes sense only when applied to seven billion humans. Here we are dealing with a very small pool, a few thousand celebrities. That means matchups like this are too incredibly unlikely to be coincidental. They point at some other phenomenon in the backdrop.

I will offer one more, and this is something I read about and then found to be available on the Internet. So there is that.

Jennifer Lawrence (a twin) rocketed to fame based on a movie appearance or two.  Like so many of our other stars, Matt Damon for one,  it is the davidcrosby effect. Her genes, her relatives and connections propelled her to fame, and not true talent. These people stumble on the scene as fully-formed stars, and it is suggested to us in every quarter that they are very talented.

For example, this is an entry from Wikipedia about Jennifer Lawrence:

In 2012 Rolling Stone called her “the most talented young actress in America.”[3] Donald Sutherland has compared her craft to Laurence Olivier and believes that she is an “exquisite and brilliant actor.”[108] Director David O. Russell has praised her effortless acting that make her performances look easy.[109]

She might be the real deal, but as with David Crosby, fame is guaranteed with or without true talent. I link her to power of suggestion. She’s just another actress.

Now it gets interesting – here is a match-up between Lawrence (Twin One) and a younger British actress Helen Mirren. (This is an Internet story, not original with us.)

That face split is done based on pupil distance. It is not merely a strong resemblance. It is more like a replica.

Something is up here. Given the small population of the players above, six people, five of them famous actresses and one a fake journalist (also an actress), we are looking at some sort of factory that is producing twins, clones, assembly line humans. I urge you read again Tyrone’s piece from yesterday, Bill Graham presents, to get a whiff of what we are dancing about here at this blog.

I emphasize, that we are in unknown territory, pushing forward in darkness. We are curious, inquisitive and have active imaginations. We do not fear the catcalls from the peanut gallery. I suggest that readers join us in our search for truth. We don’t know where it leads. We only know it is something worth the journey.

___________________

*The passage below was grabbed from the book Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda, by Carl James, available for free download here. I read it while traveling recently, and do not vouch for its contents. But it is full of fun movie/TV fan-type trivia. (From memory, I think this is on page 155.)

damon-geneology

About Mark Tokarski

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

52 Responses to Factory humans?

  1. tyronemccloskey says:

    The Lawrence template is popular, perhaps- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xc8Znaig18

    Like

    • For the record, I have never used the term Illuminati. If a term is needed, try “schmucks.”

      Like

      • tyronemccloskey says:

        I don’t use the ‘I’ word either but the westernization of the Middle East back then would startle the schmucks who have only known post 911 lies- I take this video to be an attempt to marry lunacy with legitimate questions about blood lines- There will be more giveaways and heavy handed hints ahead but captioned in Icke-isms-

        Like

        • I agree … Intel creates noise, blackwashes, sends out agents like Ickes to discredit honest people in search of truth. Mere use of the term “Illuminati” has a blackwashing effect. People love to toss it like a knife whenever something that confounds their indoctrination comes up. These are people born in to positions of advantage, and with or without talent are able to achieve high public profiles, move governments and armies to do their bidding, become movie stars and musicians and corporate executives without the usual 10,000 hours that Malcolm Gladwell talks about. They are mere humans, and schmucks, but they own the reality of most other humans in our land, in Western Civ.

          Think if it as a Monopoly game where once you achieve and advantageous position on the board, the game is yours.

          Like

  2. depatridge says:

    Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog and commented:

    A great piece Mark

    Like

  3. daddieuhoh says:

    I honestly did not think I could get more gobsmacked by your research. Wow. And it just gets creepier and creepier. And the oarsmen metaphor was beautiful. Onward!!

    Like

  4. Jennifer Lawrence is the tip of the iceberg. Here’s an example of just how many factory celebrities we’re dealing with. Is it just secret family relations, or is it more?

    A few of these I think are actual identical twins given two different personalities, like Will Ferrell and Chad Smith.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maarten Rossaert says:

      I’m not on Pinterest, so I can’t access this site fully. But the left-hand column of comparisons seems like a ton of grist for the IVF mill …

      Like

    • daddieuhoh says:

      Didn’t they do a drum battle on one of those late night talk shows?

      Like

    • daddieuhoh says:

      I’ve been thinking more about this post on ‘factory humans.’ I think it’s important, and part of the reason it’s important is that it throws a bit of a monkey wrench in the whole Zombie hypothesis. If people born a generation or more apart (where we know it can’t be fudged) can look so similar and have so much common facial alignment, then maybe some (or all?) of the zombies you’re uncovered can be explained by this other unknown process that is creating these doppelgangers?

      In other words, it could be a classic case of spuriousness, where we think X causes Y but in fact it’s this other unobserved factor, call it C, that is causing both X and Y. The hypothesis for why contemporary famous people have so much facial alignment with (apparently) ‘fake dead’ celebrities despite the odds is that the fake dead people went into hiding and were then re-assigned to a new project with a new identity and enough plastic surgery to mask themselves where necessary. But what if the faces align so well because both the old and new celebrity ‘zombies’ are simply bred from the same stock of embryos or generated by the same CGI template or whatever it is that is going on here that we don’t understand — this other unobserved factor, C.

      Like

      • Yep. This whole project is taking us places we did not anticipate. The key is to keep an open mind and not to be married to certain outcomes and results.

        Like

      • tyronemccloskey says:

        How long will male sperm keep? Over several generations? Is, say, George VI still impregnating his illegitimate great-great grand nieces? Do Keira Knightly and Natalie Portman have the same father, I don’t know…Edward VII? Portman’s stated father was a fertility doctor guy- Maybe that’s why he poses as her father- He was instrumental in hatching her- When did the world first know about freezing the essence of such Majesty? This may be factor ‘C’-

        Like

        • daddieuhoh says:

          It’s possible. But someone would have to re-do the math of facial alignment to see the likelihood of 7 matches between step-siblings of the same sex. My sense of things is that siblings often look quite different from each other. And that’s when they have the same mom. Even if they could freeze sperm and re-impregnate different women down the generations, I don’t think we’d get so many people who look so similar and, more importantly, who have such nicely aligned facial features. We can talk pie in the sky all day long, but eventually we have to come to term with the cold, hard numbers that Mark and Straight have laid down. And those numbers do not, in my opinion, point to a common font of sperm. (But again, we’d have to re-run the numbers for step-siblings.)

          In one of my comments awhile ago on artificial embryo splitting/twinning, I mentioned that they had (publicly) discovered this back in the 1880s. And as far as I can tell we don’t have solid evidence of a high occurrence of twins being born before that time. Anyway I wouldn’t take paintings and portraits as solid evidence. Dalida seems to be the earliest AFAIK, but there might be others. So that takes us back to (allegedly) 1933. Other Zombies apparently go back to that year as well.

          But given the generational gaps, that would mean that not only had they figured out how to do successful IVF with split embryos, they also had figured out how to freeze/preserve the embryos for later. (At this stage, they would not have had to figure out how to unfreeze them and use them. That could have been figured out later when we see virtual clones being born.) This is still well ahead of the dates when any of this technology became public knowledge with potential human applications.

          I think womb environment epigenetics could explain why people born to different mothers but with identical genetic material can turn out with as many differences as we see (say Dr. Phil and Freddie Mercury), while still having such an otherwise inexplicably similar facial alignment.

          Like

  5. mbutterfield says:

    Reminds me of the movie “The Island”.

    Like

  6. You may be underestimating the amount of cosmetic surgery. If you look at ‘Miss Korea’ types, all with plastic surgery to Europeanise them, they all look the same. (Not just a cliche). At any time there’s a typically desirable look, for example with nose shape, and presuambly there might be convergence to it. Same with make up — many of the female examples are very heavily made-up. Worth a mention.

    Like

    • tyronemccloskey says:

      Celebrity vs. celebrity is a sticky wicket- Agencies run stables of talent and a popular template like Natalie Portman will require other agencies to acquire a Portman-esque type to compete within the incessant trending that show biz engineers- Since all of the studios are just arms of the same octopus, outliers aren’t allowed- Every arm will produce similar product and that requires similar actors- Plus, certain material requires a certain type of actor- Scheduling difficulties require backup options-
      Are some of the look-a-likes related? Certainly, but not necessarily twins and maybe not even from the same IVF batch- Twins as we have seen get only one persona at a time- The Nat may be twins, but they share only one persona- Knightly (great name) might be twins, too, but same thing- One persona- Are those two cousins? I’d bet a season’s worth of Irish Coffees that they are-

      Like

    • Thanks for letting us know about the Miss Korea lookalikes. Looking at the before and after pictures here: http://www.lollipop.sg/content/miss-korea-2013-contestants-and-after-make-0

      I don’t think it is plastic surgery (because in the before pictures they all look different), rather it is makeup, lighting, and angles. Since they are all being done up by the same makeup artist, the same lighting, the same set, and the same photographer with similar angles on the same day, it makes sense they look alike.

      However in the photos above, you can see by the backgrounds that the pictures are not being taken on the same day. They are being taken by different photographers, in different lighting, and at different angles. You can say Hollywood prefers a certain “look”, but how much of that has to do with the talent available to them from bloodlines? What came first, the chicken or the egg?

      Over the the JonBennet subreddit, makeup was the first subject brought up regarding the twins. I did some matchups on before and after for extreme contour (the type of extreme makeup that drag queens use), and the only real alignment difference we see is with the lips due to liberal use of lipstick. And even that is obvious if you know what you’re looking for.

      As for plastic surgery, I plan a post in the future showing the differences. I have noticed that in many celebrity before and after plastic surgery pictures, they actually use different twins. Sneaky sneaky.

      Like

    • While I’m here, may I make another point. Quite difficult to get across, though. When I recognise a face it seems to be a holistic process – the whole size, shape, relationship of details, mobility (maybe) come into it. But there’s no vocabulary to cover it. Thus e.g. Amanda Seyfried has a pixy-like face, something to do with they eyes being set at some angle, and the smile related to it; for my taste she doesn’t look like ‘Dakota Fanning’ to me – the whole snapshot is different. But it’s hard to put this into words. And photos of course are 2-D and blank out a lot of 3-D info available in real life.

      Like

      • Well sure, of all those pictures you picked the two that looked least like. It’s not even our list. Why are you cherrypicking?

        You are pretty new here and you have already tried to plant two seeds of doubt in the same blog post. You ignored my reply to your Korea post when I provided before and after pictures showing that it is more makeup and lighting than plastic surgery.

        What exactly are your motivations for being here?

        Like

        • I’m not convinced by the examples here. 2-D analysis is all very well, but people have 3-D faces. Exactly what are your motivations for ignoring this obvious point?
          .
          A lot of the work I’ve seen on faces is unconvincing; and seems to be yet another time-wasting detour, like the flat earth videos which started being mass produced about a year (or more) ago. I’m interested in truth.

          Like

          • Interesting you mention flat earth. Strike two.

            Like

          • daddieuhoh says:

            Let’s see, you reply to comment asking why you didn’t reply to a previous point by asking them why they didn’t reply to the point you subsequently made? Let’s go in order of points raised and questions asked: you answer the Korean model point first, then you can demand that straight will answer you.

            As for the ineffable, hard-to-put-into-words ‘pixie’ point you made. Of course what you say is true. But it is bypasses the math and extremely low chances of finding so many matches, as if those arguments don’t exist and aren’t relevant here. So, yes, there are ‘ineffable’ qualities to faces. So what? Are you saying the fact that one person looks like a pixie (or whatever) to you while another doesn’t voids the math of facial alignment that Mark and straight have been working on? You talk about proportions and differences between different features. But what you fail to realize is that is exactly what they are doing with their facial analysis. If you eyes remain at the same level but the ears and mouth and nose all change position, then that necessarily means the distances between all those features will change, too.

            As for 3-D vs. 2-D: again, your point is irrelevant to the math of facial alignment and the extremely low chances of finding matches on all those 2-D characteristics.

            Like

          • Unfortunately, your mathematical material isn’t convincing, for several reasons: [1] There’s no allowance for the effects of make-up, shadows, things like hair length, changes in skin depth with feeding etc; [2] Nobody seems to realise many of these things are hard to measure – there is an imprecision about them which you haven’t allowed for; [3] Nobody seems to have done controlled experiments on photos of the same person at different times, where there presumably should be no doubt.
            . . . However, in a way these comments are missing the point, since it’s clear many of the people here are not very scientifically-minded. But there you go.

            Like

          • Even if we did all those things tomorrow, you still wouldn’t find it convincing. You would find something else to poke us with.

            Again, I repeat, I do not believe you are a genuine poster.

            Like

          • You’re clearly not a ‘genuine poster’. You can’t take serious criticism.
            http://www.big-lies.org — have some fun

            Like

          • Yeah, I saw your site. Who knows if it’s yours or not. You say “since 1997”, Whois says since 2012/2013. That’s suspicious since your website template looks like 1997, yet you are savvy enough to have switched domains or hosting (if you really have been online since 1997). How have you not upgraded it? There are a million free templates out there.

            Some stuff is on point with where we’re at, and other stuff is unusually backwards for somebody visiting this blog (or that could be on purpose, who knows). I’d suggest you familiarize yourself with Miles Mathis. You might be surprised to hear that David Irving is actually Jewish, and most of the deaths you hear about on the news are fake.

            Your shadow, hair length, and skin changes argument makes no sense for what we are doing with alignment based on bone structure. Your appeal to “scientific method” seems like hot air. We have done photos of the same person many, many times if you bothered to look. Your “serious criticism” melts under the microscope. I’m sorry I don’t buy your character.

            Like

          • Oh, well. There’s obviously no point spending time on someone who thinks scientific method is hot air (among other things). I would advise you either to sharpen up or do soemthing else, but I don’t know your funding or whatever. So i won’t.

            Like

          • You’ve been in a process of degrading for some comments now. There seems to be two views, one that you’re a spook, but your temperament is not unwavering in purpose as spooks usually are. You have gone emotional in us. Spooks usually don’t have emotions, as they are just punching keys in their basements.

            The other view is that you like to be right and don’t like getting pushback. You might just try settling down. You’ve made some points, but don’t pay attention to responses to your points, which are specific. You leave that avenue and try a new tack, change the subject and move on to a new criticism. We tend to take you less seriously when you cannot stay on point.

            Like

          • daddieuhoh says:

            That site looks like it was specifically designed to discredit conspiracy theorists. Anybody taking a link to that would immediately think: “I knew it! These conspiracy theorists are just weird freaks living in their mom’s basement. Can’t even put together a proper website.”

            Like

          • daddieuhoh says:

            I’m going to answer your 3 points and then ignore you from now on. It’s clear you are just trying to waste our time and spread FUD based on worthless arguments.

            [1] There’s no allowance for the effects of make-up, shadows, things like hair length, changes in skin depth with feeding etc;

            The probabilities that Mark and Straight calculated for facial alignment on the 7 features they look at are completely unaffected by this. And if they were, it would actually make their findings more conservative, because it would lead to LESS matches due to these effects. Do you even think before you start typing, or do you just put into words whatever diarrhea comes out of your “brain”?

            [2] Nobody seems to realise many of these things are hard to measure – there is an imprecision about them which you haven’t allowed for;

            Again, any imprecision is going to bias the results to be more conservative, because it means there will be more mismatches. Anyway, as far as I can tell, you have never tried to do any of “these things” (I assume you mean facial alignment matches), so you actually have no clue what degree of imprecision there is. As always, just talking out of your ass trying to discredit a work based on a sound methodology. If you think it’s imprecise, then you need to work with the method and show us where and how and how much it’s imprecise rather than throwing out half-assed accusations.

            [3] Nobody seems to have done controlled experiments on photos of the same person at different times, where there presumably should be no doubt.

            As somebody has already pointed out — they have done tons of photo splits of the same person at a different time. You can even see this in some of the posts here if you actually bothered to look. And guess what? The same person at different times comes up with a match. Except in the case of twins when you don’t realize you’re actually matching different people.

            So you’ve shown yourself to be either a dumb or dishonest critic (your choice) who has not carefully reviewed the work you are criticizing. Please go away and leave us alone. We don’t want the site to be dragged down to the level of intelligence (in both senses) displayed in your comments.

            Like

          • I don’t know if any serious people read these posts, but let me just make a few further points.
            [1] It’s obvious that eye/brain coordination which leads to reliable identification is a valuable skill; as in allowing for lighting, contrast, reflected/ diffused light etc, as a relatively simple example.
            [2] I don’t know if anyone has solved the question of how (for example) different typefaces can be interpreted – same word, different typefaces. Or how the Platonic thing of an ‘ideal type’ (that was a theory, obviously not right) works – how can species of tree, or animals, be recognised as the same?
            [3] There’s maybe a subjective element: I’d have thought it obvious that the Helen Mirren picture and the other one (can’t be bothered to look) were different people; maybe some people can’t tell, perhaps expectedly – e.g. blacks may recognise a different type of face, whites may not identify Chinese people well
            [3] You don’t even seem to have heard of double and triple- blind experiments.

            Like

          • Again you ignore all the replies as if they don’t exist. Your first two points have nothing to do with the type of facial alignment we use. I question if you even understand what we are doing.

            You can’t be bothered to scroll up the page to learn that the other person is famous actress Jennifer Lawrence? If you would have, you would realize that we know they are different people. The point was that the facial alignment matches up so well, beyond all statistical probability.

            You learn about double-blind experiments in the most basic research courses in college, what’s your point? Why is that necessary here? I no longer think you are a spook, I think you are a bot.

            Like

          • daddieuhoh says:

            He’s worse than ‘Stephen’ at fakeologist.

            Like

          • Now you are sounding more like spook than troll. The object of spooks here has always been to create doubt, nothing more. Under any circumstances, you’re done now. I’ll review your comments later to see which, if any, will survive. Good bye.

            Like

          • Thanks to Mark and daddieuhoh for the excellent responses.

            Rerevisionist, instead of replying to my first response to your initial doubt, you decide to move the goalposts to a vague, intangible standard of facial comparison that is impossible to quantify.

            I no longer believe you are a genuine poster.

            Like

          • And then the ad hominem, while ignoring everything else we said.

            Like

          • Sigh. It’s not exactly ad hominem. He insulted me, and I responded. Much as you did.

            Like

  7. Charon says:

    And so we climb aboard our rusty fishing boat, with five or six leaks and the outboard motor we are going to fix one of these days, and using a piece of driftwood because we forgot the oars again we paddle to the other side of the swamp, hoping the convenience store there is still having that sale on Bud Light.

    Like

  8. Anne says:

    When I first looked at the Judy Woodruff photo I thought Helen Hunt, but wiki shows a 17-year age difference and I don’t know when Woodruff came on the scene to know if it’s feasible Hunt could be Woodruff. Judith Light (wiki = 3 years younger) has a similar face, but I don’t have the tech to run the faces through.

    Like

    • Perhaps you are not seeing what we mean by “Zombies.” These are people who fake their death and then re-emerge later in a new identity. Helen Hunt is still alive and is Helen Hunt, and so would not qualify. [Janis Joplin, for example, faked her death in 1970 and then later re-emerged as Amy Goodman. That is the concept.]

      Like

  9. Two more Jennifer Lawrence replicas, Leelee Sobieski and Helen Hunt.

    Like

  10. Gull says:

    1) All very interesting. I’ve read about how DNA is essentially like a programming language. We are like DNA computers…using the double helix and the four DNA letters as code instead of 1s and 0s. There’s that idea that we’re all living inside a computer simulation. Probably (hopefully) a bogus one, but an idea nonetheless. If so, maybe they just reuse a certain “type” for the acting roles.

    There’s also the idea of the elite having hidden tech. And the idea that they might have hidden tech related to twinning, or freezing sperm and embryos, or cloning, or whatever seems plausible.

    These elites also seem to have much more respect for DNA and bloodlines than the rest of us do. They really seem to care what happens to their great great great grandchildren. This extra caring about DNA would seem to go hand in hand with extra knowledge about how to manipulate/preserve/use DNA.

    2) Plastic surgery is also powerful. Tony Robbins once explained that the very highest-end plastic surgeons do things you don’t even notice. Their goal isn’t “eye lifts” or “nose jobs,” but subtle changes to enhance symmetry. They can make little tweaks to dramatically but sort of unnoticeably enhance beauty. (This doesn’t take anything away from the DNA links…it’s just yet another tool that may contribute to certain Hollywood “looks.”)

    3)

    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