Dumpster diving

I am going to post a video here for viewing beneath the fold, but I want to emphasize – IT IS TRASH! In my “Response…” piece posted yesterday I mentioned that Dallas Goldbug is a noise maker, deliberately putting out crappy work in order to discredit good work. So, too, is the guy called “Jungle Surfer,” who made this video.

It has also been suggested that the work we do here is slippery and not credible, possibly aimed at discrediting similar work. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to highlight the difference between fake comparisons that manipulate the images in order to force a desired outcome, and our approach, which ensures the faces are accurately compared by means to a common measurement, pupil distance, so that they can be properly compared. I suppose you could also call that a manipulation if you wanted to, but I just call it part of the careful methodology we’ve developed.

In the video, he claims that Princess Diana faked her death, is a “tranny” (that sort of talk is all over the disinfo sites these days), and is now David Furnish who married to Elton John. What a load of … 

But Princess Diana is an interesting topic. No way was she a commoner, and I frankly don’t see any resemblance between Charles and her two sons, Harry and William. What the royal marriage did, whether by fake or real paternity, was to insert those two into the bloodline to allow one to succeed to the throne, the other as insurance. That done, the marriage dissolved. Did Diana fake her death? It’s fishy, but I am averse to paying too much attention to the British royal family. They’re weird.

Here is what you get after you do the necessary adjusting, that is, placing the pupils at equal distance in each of the faces being compared:

dianadavid-2

Our skulls are fully formed by late teens, and the distance between our eye pupils will not change after that, so that it can be used as a basis for comparison. Age then is not a factor – I have seen perfect alignment between a high school photo and a 70-year old man. With myself, I got perfect alignment in a photo from 1980 and another from 2015, 35 years apart.

After adjusting to level the eyes and setting pupil distance, I ran the comparison, or face chop. In the chop I reset the eyes to one inch. If they are the same person, the other features should line up.

didav-2

Note the differences! Chins are not a reliable indicator as they move with the mouth, but here we have both with smiles of the same width, and the chins do not line up. The distance from bottom of nose to top of lip differs, so the mouths do not align. The ears are placed at different heights on the skull. The nose is off, though not by much.

What does this “prove”? Two different people, that is clear. But what if we had better alignment? That would mean that I have to go get more photos, expand the field, start looking at timelines, read all of the Wikipedia nonsense … it becomes a project. Good alignment of face chops is an indicator, but not enough evidence on its own.

I love this work, if it sounds like I complain, but projects are draining.

What does it tell me? Two different people, as if I didn’t know that anyway. What Surfer has done here is some non-credible work designed to catch suggestible people, and to tar some good work that is being done in this field by this website and others. There are a lot of disinfo sites out there, a lot of people like Surfer running little psyops on us.

Here is his video.

Surfer superimposes faces, Furnish over Di and back again. Notice how he has to set the faces to different sizes in order to fudge a match. But even without the necessary sizing, it doesn’t work. It’s not even close.

About Mark Tokarski

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

18 Responses to Dumpster diving

  1. annspinwall4 says:

    this is such rubbish, this “work” by JungleSurfer doesn’t deserve a comment…totally stupid…just for grins I will check the YT site and see what others are saying

    Like

    • It was this guy, or someone like him, that did the original Bill Hicks/Alex Jones comparison, which turned out to be accurate, a throwaway, I suppose. I call that “planting seeds of truth to grow bullshit,” or using one accurate comparison to be followed by nonsense. I would imagine he was given the Hicks/Jones information by insiders and instructed to spread as much garbage to follow it as possible.

      Like

  2. A good clue as to what videos are disinfo (hint:98% of them) is that lately they’ve been including words in the title like “obvious”, “proof”, “100%”, etc. Those are dangerous words to use and they use them purposely while showing questionable evidence. The goal is to give the impression that anybody who believes it’s 100% proof is a fool, thus discrediting the entire concept.

    There should always be a balance.

    Like

  3. stevie says:

    have you ever checked out bankofspirit youtube’s channel?
    if so, what is your thoughts on this guy?
    he has prince charles as keith richards and lady di as keith richards wife patti hansen

    Like

  4. stevie says:

    my comment on nfl super bowl being scripted was a better comment than anybody else’s comments on the subject (inside baseball comments exempted)
    is that proof enough?

    Like

    • Some pretty bad work there. We did some serious work on Farrakhan and his origins last year. It is not herbie Hancock. There is no rigor to the facial work, just overlays and music, as if we are supposed to infer accuracy by power of suggestion. It is nonsense, and sorry, Stevie, you’re gone.

      Like

  5. Jack says:

    Surely there’s one decider on whether someone is a “tranny” or not? Men have an Adam’s apple, women don’t. I’ve not seen one photo of Diana with one, nor Furnish without one, where you can see the neck clearly.

    Like

    • You’re right. I did not even think of looking below the face, hung up on the attacks we’ve endured on our methods. Good input.

      Like

    • Vexman says:

      Jack and everybody else wondering about the Adam’s apple – an Adam’s apple is formed when testosterone causes thickening of the thyroid cartilage in the neck; such thickening is also part of the voice changing process when puberty kicks in with boys turning to men. Consequently, if any “Diana” would change her sex and started taking artificial testosterone hormone, she would not only have grown Adam’s apple but facial hair and more muscle tissue as well. That’s the influence of testosterone on human body.

      Adam’s apple cannot be a definite marker to differentiate tranny within the picture according to the size of it, unless you are sure that you are looking at a picture of a particular “Diana” within the period, before (s)he started transforming into a male (on high testosterone input). Only in that particular period in time you would not be able to notice enlarged Adam’s apple on her.

      It’s different with trannies, who switch sex from male to female, with them Adam’s apple would remain / is enlarged until surgically corrected. So again, it cannot be a definite marker, as you could notice such individual and his Adam’s apple only before he was operated on to partially/surgically re-size it (and becoming a she, fully transited).

      Like

  6. JoAnn vR says:

    Good call on J.S., Mark. I was beginning to think it was just me! No other commentor has brought up the fact that EVERYONE is transgender to this guy . I occasionally check him out for the entertainment value (his take on “McCartney ” is hilarious) – but I surely don’t take him seriously. I wonder if he’ll get more outlandish or not when he (she) figures out plp are onto him..

    Like

    • I did not see his take on McCartney and don’t want to go looking for it – can you fill me in?

      Like

    • JoAnn vR says:

      Easy enough , Mark. Faul McCartney is transgender, + his new wife Nancy is, also! Actually, I give him a bit of credit for his “research”- he does pick out the correlating photos, spends some time trying to convince us, etc. And- Faul DOES look feminized in some pics…but another commentor brought up a good point. Perhaps all that soy- based, vegetarian diet contributes to this? But – J.S. doesn’t dane to respond, so there u are…but I plug him in when I need a good laugh.

      Like

  7. tyronemccloskey says:

    Speaking of outlandish- To explain the twins phenomenon, trannies like Beyoncé and Amal Clooney are having them out in the open- (This comment is for amusement purposes only) https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/george-amal-clooney-reportedly-expecting-201000891.html?ref=gs

    Like

  8. Fergie says:

    Hey POM gang.

    Quick question. I saw something on here the other day….either in a post or in comments, I can’t remember which post or whether it was the post or comments, but I think it was daddieuhoh, where you said that the PUA (pick up artist) phenom was a psyop.

    I wanted to ask for some follow-up. I had some interactions with the early guys in that world, and it felt real to me.

    I appreciate the psyop logic, because it does seem like TPTB want to foment discord between men and women. And I’m increasingly getting the feeling that a lot of these internet subcultures may actually be psyops.

    But….when I orginally encountered the PUAs very early on, my impression was that this was the internet organically at work. Nerdy wannabe pickup artists were A/B testing various pickup approaches and sharing the results online. And they learned that the conventional wisdom was wrong. Women actually DIDN’T want sensitive listeners, their protestations notwithstanding. The modern, feminist, conventional wisdom peddled in women’s magazines and therapists offices was just wrong, and the conventional wisdom of our great-grandfathers was right.

    The “neg,” a playful insult intended to make her think the guy can take her or leave her because he’s such a catch/so used to beautiful women/etc. does in fact work. It felt like there was a real, hard-won, field-tested, conventional-wisdom-busting, set of ideas in this subculture.

    Maybe it was later infiltrated and exaggerated by TPTB to sow discord between the sexes? But some of these early pioneers seemed legit to me—nerds who had deconstructred the “how to seduce women” algorhythm.

    So, that’s my question. On what basis do we think the PUA subculture is a psyop?

    Thank you.

    Like

  9. nakedname says:

    I think the PUA was a psyop. If you recall it was the same time the women received the opposite set of instructions via “The Rules”. Women were told to act like a lady, not care too much about men, schedule real dates in advance and not settle for less. Two sides set up against each other. Every date I went on from then on has had this subtext of who is winning the game.

    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