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.
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.” Donald Sutherland has compared her craft to Laurence Olivier and believes that she is an “exquisite and brilliant actor.” Director David O. Russell has praised her effortless acting that make her performances look easy.
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.)