The Jennifer Aniston’s – Bokanovsky Brats?

After review (2/14/17) I could not duplicate the original results – in fact, all of the Aniston’s blended into one. Using Photoshop layering techniques, I found that the eyes, nose and mouth aligned quite well for photos I originally thought were different people. Project failed.


Twin One and Twin Two

It has gotten to a point now where I think the word “twins” needs to be set aside, replaced by “replicas” or another idea: Bokanovsky Brats. Here’s a passage from Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley:

“One egg, one embryo, one adult – normality. But a bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide. From eight to ninety-six buds, and every bud will grow into a perfectly formed embryo, and every embryo into a full-sized adult.”

We long ago began to notice that many (if not most) Hollywood stars were twins. We had no idea how this was being accomplished. Were they scouting the landscape? Using some method of in vitro fertilization? The biggest shock of all was yet to come, as Straight put forth the Matt Damon Batch. There he found near-perfect facial alignment between Damon and ten A-List Hollywood stars. After that I added two more – Tom Brady and David Beckham, expanding this process, whatever it is, into sports.

Anyway, Jennifer Aniston is twins. (Yawn.) Of course she is. I never doubted. I would have been disappointed were she not.

Here is Twin One:


I did some random searching, and found this twin starred in Friends, Horrible Bosses, We’re the Millers, and The Break-Up.From this I gather that is this the one we know best, and that the other is sitting in for award shows, interviews, and other public appearances. They do, after all, look very much alike.

Here is Twin Two:


Just looking at them it is hard to distinguish, so is it any wonder we cannot see that they are twins in their solo public appearances?

I did some face chops to highlight the differences:

In almost all of their public appearances, their ears are covered. That is one of the primary differences. If you count clockwise above and check out chop #1, 2 and 4, you’ll see that the ears are at different heights.

I tried to get some profiles for comparison, and they all ended up being of Twin One. It is very difficult to find profile shots of them – there are 693 pages of Aniston photos at Getty, but I just don’t have time to look through all of them. So I decided to do a gif overlaying two of the faces as follows:

I know they are not both directly facing the camera, but it is easier to see the alignment differences with these two photos. (They are also used in Chop #1 above.)  In the following gif, pay close attention to those eyes and noses – the twin on the right has a slightly wider nose. Also note the ears – though the twin on the left is looking downward, slightly elevating her ears, there is still a difference in ear height even noticeable to the naked eye. (I left the closing shot showing eye difference at five seconds, so that you can see two sets of eyes looking at you.)


aniston-movie-friendsFinally, I found the photo on the left when looking at photos of her during her Friends run – see if you can guess which twin it is.

If you said neither, you’re right. This might be a body double, a third Bokanovsky Brat, or perhaps they use stand-ins on the sets so that the actors can take breaks while the others rehearse. That one threw me a curve ball.

So, we are proud to welcome Jennifer Aniston to the Honor Roll of Twins, Replicas, Bokanovsky Brats … whatever.

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.

5 Responses to The Jennifer Aniston’s – Bokanovsky Brats?

  1. daddieuhoh says:

    I think ‘Bokanovsky Brats’ is brilliantly droll, yet I hesitate to borrow a term from a famous spook novel. We know how they love to borrow from and pay homage to their past projects. So I don’t think we should associate ourselves with that. Here is what I wrote about this in my comment on the Miley Cyrus twins:

    “[Huxley] may have taken the name [Bokanovsky] from French politician, Mason, and one world government supporter, Maurice (Moise) Bokanowski…. Wikipedia says “the novel anticipates developments in reproductive technology, sleep-learning, psychological manipulation, and classical conditioning that combine profoundly to change society.” Was he anticipating them, or was he telling us the (partial) truth about our world disguised as metaphor and dressed up as science fiction?

    “Brave New World is taught to us as some kind of indictment or criticism of social trends and totalitarian society. And it could be read as such. But that doesn’t mean that was its intention. The story takes place in The World State (a one world government). We must remember that at this time in history, Eugenics was all the rage–especially among social reformers allied with the Progressive movement in the US and the Fabian Society in the UK. (And I suppose other movements in other countries that I’m not familiar with.) So in fact the type of social engineering going on in Brave New World was arguably just a kind of extension of the goals and aims of progressive reformers of the time.

    “On the wikipedia page on BNW, it says that the character of Mustapha Mond (Resident World Controller of Western Europe) is based on Sir Alfred Mond. It says that Huxley visitied Mond’s ammonium nitrate plant in Billingham-on-Tees shortly before writing the novel, and it made a great impression on him. We might think that if Huxley’s named this character after Mond and that the novel was supposed to be a critique of totalitarianism, that his visit would have made a very bad impression on him. But just the opposite: it says that Huxley hailed the plant as a ‘triumphant embodiment’ of the principles of planning, an ‘ordered universe in the midst of the larger world of planless incoherence.'”

    Two final comments: as described, the Bokanovsky process is not quite the same as embryo splitting. Second, the Bokanovsky process also included a genetic manipulation to create different classes of workers or citizens who were properly suited (or stunted) to their role in the Brave New World. I don’t think we are implying that this is what’s going on here, so it might confuse the issue to refer to this as Bokanovsky.


    • I was being tongue-in-cheek regarding Bokanovsky. There is something going in here … sometheeeeeng, but I do not have a clue what. There are too damned many twins, beautiful people-type twins (Chapman aside) for a natural occurrence process. The replicas don’t fit the twin mold – they are more like carbon copies.

      We are closer now than before, but miles to go.


  2. tyronemccloskey says:

    How about we call twins and replicants “embryo chops”- (Yawn indeed)


    • Embryo chips? Or just “Chips”, as in “off the old block”? If we can identify a batch, “batch bitches”? “Batch babies”? And for Mark David Chapman, “botched batch”? Somehow, “bastard” needs to fit in. It belongs.

      That’s all I got.


      • tyronemccloskey says:

        Acronyms needed- For example, an engineered twin would be an Embryo Chopped Haploidic Obstetric, or “Echo”…. (resting comfortably)


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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