Little Dabs of Paint …?

Before I begin, let’s get one thing straight.  Ol’ Maarten here is all boy. Don’t you forget it …

That being said … I wear makeup.  Just once a year, mind you, and it is for professional purposes only, for a couple hours only, and with the lightest application only.  A makeup artist takes about ten minutes with me and each of my co-workers, laying on just enough foundation and powder to undo the effects of bright spotlights.

Over the years, I have consistently noticed three things about my experiences: 

1. People at home who know me personally, when seeing see me on camera, do not realize that I am wearing makeup.  They just say that I look healthy and a little tanned.

2. People who see me exclusively in those few hours when I am made up don’t recognize me otherwise when they pass me in the halls of the conference center or stand next to me in an elevator.

3. Every year some person or another mistakes me for a certain co-worker who is of similar age and height (but who looks quite different from me).

Curiously, makeup makes me look more like my own self and less like my own self at one and the same time.

These observations put me in mind of the old Victorian-era doggerel against the rising fad of lipstick and rouge:

Little grains of powder,
Little dabs of paint
Make a girl’s complexion
Look like what it ain’t.

 We have become inured to the artificiality of cosmetics.  If you can reset your aesthetic sensibilities for the human face, you quickly realize just how clownish the average American woman is expected to look in order to be considered presentable in society. Instead, we have trained ourselves not to notice makeup—to expect it—even to be revulsed if a woman goes into public without having “her face on.”

One indicator of our skewed sensibilities: a popular theme for clickbait is “Celebrities Who Are Unrecognizable Without Makeup.”  I have clicked through a few of these listicles to the end.  The photos are selected, of course, for maximum contrast between the celebrity’s bare face and her made-up look. The difference can be striking.

For example, look at this photo of Sofia Vergara without makeup, from


Here is a side-by-side from the same website:


Curiously, in the purported “without” photos, Sofia is quite clearly wearing some makeup.  I’m no expert, but I would say she has on a light base of foundation with a touch of blush and maybe a little eye liner.  But we have been trained not to notice that low level of cosmetological intervention.   To our eyes, it is a bare face.

I think she looks nicer without the clownface goop, though many other celebs come off pretty bad au naturel.  Here’s a purported with/without look at supermodel Tyra Banks:


Apparently, a skilled cosmetologist can turn a Nosferatu into a Nefertiti.

So … just how effective can little grains of powder and little dabs of paint be in making a girl’s complexion look like what it ain’t?

Take a look at this video on YouTube:

Can makeup make one person look like several completely different people?  Have a gander:

Can makeup make lots of different people look the same?  Here are twenty contestants for the Miss Korea pageant (with a nod to Daddie for posting this link in a comment some time back:


Can makeup work to make one person look like one particular famous person?  Judging by the number of Britney Spears makeup tutorials on YouTube, the answer seems to be yes.  Here’s one to consider:

You can find step-by-step routines to transform plain Janes into famous cover girls like Kate Moss and Pamela Anderson. Mind you, these transformations are achieved simply with powders and paints.  Think of how much greater a resemblance could be achieved with tinted contact lenses, hair dye, boob jobs, and other judicious plastic surgery.  Anyone could be made to look like anyone else (with limits, of course, set by large discrepancies in height, weight, or facial hair … but not gender).

*          *          *

What’s my point????

Miles Mathis has made a slam-dunk case for the covert use of twins in the field of entertainment, and in particular Elvis Aron Presley and Paul/Mike McCartney.  Mark Tokarski and the working group here at Piece of Mindful have made similar discoveries about Janis Joplin, Taylor Swift, and Jennifer Lawrence, among others.

Beyond that, Mark and company have noted the uncanny facial similarities among current Hollywood A-listers.  Straight demonstrated that Matt Damon’s kisser matches up with a score of other big-name actors. 

My own very limited experience with makeup got me thinking … Do they actually need twins to swap in and out of a celebrity persona?

Twins have got to be hard to manage.  You would have two big personalities to massage and motivate at the same time, all the time. One slip-up and the cover is blown.  The 2006 film The Prestige does a good job of documenting just how tricky managing a set of interchanging twins would be.  The unevenness in the careers of Presley, McCartney, and Joplin suggest to me that at some point one or both twins proved uncooperative, and events had to be ginned up to cover up the crisis.

Plus, twins are genetically quite rare.  We have hypothesized the existence of some hidden medical technology that allows the elite family lines to spawn twins easily for their little feats of jiggery-pokery.  But maybe the modern Hollywood Bokanovsky doesn’t need bottles full of fetuses; maybe all he needs is jars of powder and paint … and a gullible public that can’t tell when a whole lot of makeup has been applied to a face.

In that case, you don’t need twins to share a superstar persona like Jennifer Aniston.  Sisters would do.  Maybe even cousins.  Maybe even unrelated people with similar facial structure.

Look again at Mark’s lineups for Aniston Twin One:


Are those all one and the same woman?  Or maybe non-twin sisters who have undergone the same makeup routine?

Here’s Mark’s lineup of Aniston Twin Two:


While the eye-to-chin height may be the same across the lineup, the gestalt of the faces varies considerably.  The fourth Twin Two looks like a different woman from the fifth and sixth Twin Two.  I don’t think they are sisters or even cousins.  I think they are women with similar basic facial structures who have been made up to look like *Jennifer Aniston.  (I use the asterisk to denote a stage persona who can be played by different performers.  Like the clown in the opera Pagliacci.)

If *Jennifer Aniston and *Jennifer Lawrence are not actual people, but elaborate makeup routines, then you wouldn’t need twins at all.  Standing in the Burbank unemployment line is an endless supply of A-list wannabes, and it would be no trick to find twenty ingénues who are a close match for facial structure.  The rest could be filled in with cosmetics and some voice coaching. If need be, a plastic surgeon could be called in for a little nip and tuck.  Maybe, just maybe, this is why so many starlets with perfectly lovely figures go out and get breast implants: that way they set an artificial standard for their replacements to match easily with their own boob jobs, instead of allowing for the normal variations that are found with natural feminine endowments.

It would work for male actors and entertainers, too.  Since we don’t notice makeup anymore, not even on men, the fellas could just as well be switched in and out as need be.

You don’t need to worry about *Jennifer Aniston dying in an accident or wanting to leave showbiz to be a mommy … or even aging at a normal pace. (Scroll through this:

Lots of gals—and guys—can get dolled up for the role in question, for as long as that persona’s makeup routine is still making profits at the box office.  AND still distracting the populace from noticing their mental and emotional imprisonment.

Occam’s Razor is often misused, but it just might apply here.  When it comes to the welter of celebrity twinning … Why suspect genetics when it could be just cosmetics?  Why posit clones when it might be just clowns?


16 thoughts on “Little Dabs of Paint …?

  1. Great stuff! This aligns with the cattle call option that was probably used for the Bieber 15 minutes-
    Jennifer Aniston, public persona does exist in one person for certain: A friend of mine was set to work on a JA movie but after ten rancorous days of diva fits, she got him and his crew and the director fired- Even the head of the studio came to the set to try and placate her- The movie was finally made with a whole other group of people and like all her movies, it was met with utter indifference- But, she’s clearly powerful and so her inexplicable career continues-
    That said, its pretty much a slam dunk that this maniac is not allowed near the press or the talk shows- That is where her doubles come in and would explain the obvious differences in the Jennifer’s deployed for publicity purposes-


  2. Maarten- You’ve touched on a conclusion I was debating myself. Twins really AREN’T as common as we may think, + I’ve suspected doubles were used more often. Having counted 6 Paul McCartney doubles while researching, I tend to think his ugly brother was just that- not his twin, just a bit younger brother. An interesting + thought -provoking post-thx!


    1. That hypothesis does indeed simplify what appears to be a hornet’s nest … to use make up and body doubles. However, I have to dispute it as a false dichotomy, an either/or when the answer is “both.” With the McCartney’s we saw elaborate staging, but first found the boys dressed as twins at a very young age, our original clue. Later on we saw them use the guy called “Mike McGear” to allow Mike McCartney to exit his life to play the part of Paul, and Jane Asher as a beard dating both twins to allow them to enter and exit the shoes of “Paul.” But make no mistake, they were/are twins. At the very same time, all of the Beatles had body doubles, as that is a price of fame. But bd’s are only useful for brief intervals, to be seen in public as a distraction while the real person is elsewhere, a way of doing the “look here, not there” routine. A body double cannot do a convincing interview, or perform on stage or in a movie. A twin or replica can.

      I’ll add two more elements to make the whole issue even more complex, substitution and zombies. Take Palema Courson, for example, becoming Barbara Walters. For that to work required some physical resemblance, but more importantly, the real Barbara Walters had to exit the public eye first. The public quickly forgets, so when Courson stepped in as Walters a few years later, we made the switch in our mind. Courson no longer resembled Walters. Courson became Walters. With Zombies, a formerly well-known person disappears via fake death, and after a period of years reappears as an entirely new invention … Brandon DeWilde/Thom Hartmann, Bobby Fuller/Bill O’Reilly, Freddie Mercury/Dr. Phil, Joplin/Goodman. Note for the last two, we were also dealing with twins.

      So I urge that we follow Einstein’s maxim, that things should be made as simple as possible, but not more so.


      1. Agreed. It is a both/and, not an either/or. As I mentioned above, the case for twins is a slam dunk for certain entertainers, like McCartney and Joplin. The point of this piece is to lend support to the broader idea that different individuals step into the role of a particular persona. It’s the how-to that might get in the way of some readers accepting the pervasive evidence.

        We don’t need to suppose “Illuminati clones,” as the DBA pysop proposes. And we don’t need to hypothesize hidden techniques of twinning zygotes or hidden communities of Intel families with twins and triplets being cultivated for entertainment careers. “They” learned long ago that they can switch different people in and out of a role, and we the people just play along and pretend not to notice the differences in physiognomy, height, talent, or posture. A little dab of paint just makes the charade that much easier to fob off on us.


    2. One other matter that Mathis addressed in the Elvis and Lennon matters – each performer had public figures known as “impersonators.” These are people who dressed like the original, trained their voices to sound like the original, adopted the mannerisms, and whom we instantly recognize without any effort at all not to be the original.


      1. Btw- Gave u “disinfo!” You were right -site is Macca Lives, not (if u ever dig that up again) as stated in an earlier post.


        1. Now that I know what lies underneath, I really don’t have any interest – these are professionals churning the issue as misdirection and distraction. The Beatles were a psyop, and the band members (six and counting) are/were actors and huge phonies. I don’t believe they wrote their own music, I think their studio work was a collaboration of professionals with the Beatles fronting for the entire operation, much like the Monkees, much like just about every group of that era. “Paul” recently said in a Rolling Stone interview that he confides in his wife and his brother. Outsiders are to think Mike McGear, but we know who his brother is that her refers to: Paul, or possibly his real name, John Halliday.


        2. By the way, this link is to a YouTube of the Beatles at work in the Abbey Road studio. I have watched a couple of these with a skeptical eye, as it is meant to appear candid, but the presence of a camera changes everything. They know. I watched Macca closely, maybe not this one, but in another, and I saw no evidence he actually played the instruments as he wandered around and amused himself. In one I saw, with his back to us, he is playing bass left handed, and I spotted what I thought was playacting with someone else off camera doing the actual work. His hands are not seen actually playing piano. These b/w “candid” films are part of the psyop. (You should be linked to others as you watch this one.)


          1. At mark 14:19 he takes a few short seconds to show first chords of “Let it be” on Rhodes (keyboard) to Billy Preston, yet the camera is to far away to be able to say if it was actually him playing. I still think all those actors had to play their instruments to an extent. In this video it seems as if “Lennon” could actually play his guitar with some feeling to it even…


          2. And George too – problem is that Macca is right handed so with a camera there he either hides behind keyboard or has back to it. At the very end they are doing a lead in to For You Blue and it appears that Macca is whipping it up on the piano, but no visible fingers on keys to prove it.

            I don’t doubt he developed in abilities over the decades, but at that point I don’t see it AND, the finished product of Get Back was never demonstrated in all of the candid camera business. They just play it back over speakers towards the end. I think their talents were heavily augmented at that time.


          3. I agree. That was the only reason I was watching it till the end, just to hear Get Back played as a session take, but no such luck for me. Although the sound recorded in this video is mostly synced, there are some sections where comments are overdubbed. It is as well amazing how mis-tuned their guitars were, George was tuning most of the playing session but with no luck with it, it’s either his guitar that’s useless / sloppy manufactured (which would be strange, using an awful guitar, as money was not a problem considering their fame at that point in time) or his hearing abilities were very limited. Lennon’s guitar is a bit better in that regard, but still, it is a recording session so you ought to have your instruments tuned to a point of acceptable threshold. And that is not the case here, which makes me wonder above all if it was actually recorded where they want us to actually believe. Most probably, it was not the case here, Beatles tracks recorded show much much sharper guitar tuning than what they appear to be able to manifest. And I always thought Macca was left-handed just like Hendrix, it just so confusing to realize it as not true in Macca’s case…


    3. My social/professional network is probably larger than most, and I probably have more knowledge of the family situations of my acquaintances than most, for various reasons. Even so, I know exactly two sets of twins out of my thousands of current contacts. Twins are rare.

      On the other hand, In the holiday season just past, I met the two adult daughters of a couple I know. The young women are ten years apart in age. But after the separate introductions, when they sat down next to each other, I could not tell them apart. I remarked on this and the family laughed: they obviously experience this reaction all the time.

      For entertainment “twins,” siblings will suffice; and with cosmetics, sometimes even strangers.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I would be very pleased if it could be reduced to that. All of this photo analysis, hundreds of hours, would have been wasted effort, but also a learning trip too. But I am not convinced that makeup overcomes all, as you say. I know they are good with it. On SNL they get away with makeup and some mannerisms and voice patterns, but no one is fooled. No one is fooled by professional impersonators or tribute bands. But the “twins” we have uncovered fool us thoroughly, and it takes a whole lotta screen gazing to tell them apart.

        PS: The only impersonation I ever saw that I thought was good enough to fool people was Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles.


  3. There’s also enough evidence of hidden twins to know that this is by definition more prevalent than we think. Officially neither Elvis nor McCartney are twins, and 95% of people would never believe it, and yet those characters were each played by twins. So now we know. It doesn’t mean they are all twins, but it does mean that the powers that be have figured out how to run that con and use twins to their advantage.


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