Note to readers: We are, at this time, four writers on this blog. (We are always on the lookout for new voices, by the way.) Each of us has traveled a different path to develop our own perspectives and voices. I look with great anticipation at what the others might post on any given day. Their thoughts are their own, as are mine. This particular post is a bit reachy, a step into the unknown, and I want it understood at the outset that the others are not part of the process that brings it to the fore. They got their own things going on. MT
This post is a trip into uncharted waters. I am up against a great unknown: ‘They’ appear to be manufacturing stars, musicians, politicians, academicians, scientists, in fact, makeshift people. They are given identities, endowed with unearned expertise and talent, and made to seem a natural result of the ever-ongoing search for talent.
Our friend Straight has a remarkable eye for masks and sees through them with more ease than the average person. This blog benefited tremendously not only with his written posts, but hours of behind-the-scenes help as we tried to pick up on twins, zombies, and other assorted public hoaxes. Yes, we made those rookie mistakes, but we learned so much in the process.
To start, however, I want to review a workup by Straight on facial alignment. At one time I had done a quick and dirty workup, assigning a 10% chance of alignment to perhaps ten facial features – statistically the key is not that any of them line up, but that more than one does. With each lineup we get a compounding of the odds of that happening – one feature is one in ten, two is one in one hundred, etc.
Straight did some more precise work on that, and set aside my guesswork. You can see his work in the post “The Real Math of Facial Alignment.” It is on the menu to the right. Using a sample size of 58 male students, he found that alignment of various features was as follows:
- Eyebrows – 36/58 or 62%
- Chin – 21/58 or 36.2%
- Bottom Lip – 5/58 or 8.62%
- Subnasale – 4/58 or 6.89%
- Top Lip – 3/58 or 5.17%
- Nose Tip – 2/58 or 3.44%
- Bottom of Ears – 2/58 or 3.45%
Multiplying the fractions you get 181,440/2,207,984,167,552 or 1 in 12,169,225 chance that all 7 facial features will align.
Later we found that when dealing with Hollywood stars, everything went out the window. Straight threw us all for a loop with a post he called the “Matt Damon Batch.” He noticed that a large group of A-list stars had features in common, and so using the technology that we were comfortable with at that time, face chops, he ran a bunch of them side-by-side with Matt Damon. The results were astounding. See for yourself. The actors involved were George Clooney, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Vin Diesel, James Franco, Heath Ledger, Rob Lowe, Brad Pitt, Eddie Redmayne and Channing Tatum.
We were aware of several problems, one that people might assume that there was some sort of “golden ratio” at work here with celebrities, which is why they match up so well. (See here for a discussion of the Golden Ratio.) Straight anticipated this – he chose 60 of the top celebrities in movies at the outset, and found the above eleven out of the 60 matched the Damon characteristics.
But he then went further, and went to a group of 40 male models to see if they lined up as did Damon, thereby showing that we are merely dealing with pretty people. He found that they did not match any better with Damon than average people. There’s a very high unlikelihood that anyone taken off the street would have facial features that align with Damon’s as the above group does. Something else is at work, some other selection process. This post will take a stab at identifying that process. These are uncharted waters.
We had an internal debate about the meaning of Straight’s findings. It is still unresolved, but I have thought for quite a while now that we have to move forward with it. I can only think of one way: Take the plunge, make the necessary mistakes, listen to the words of others with better insight, and try to get this thing figured out.
I want to do a random test, and so have selected seven people of note, that is, people who have photos on the Internet, six of them not Hollywood stars. Later we will find near perfect alignment in the Matt Damon Batch, so let’s see what happens with less famous people who are not selected for their lines of work due to good looks. Click on the photo on the right for the name of the candidate.
And, for good measure, one Hollywood star:
As the reader can see, thee is no certainty that we have alignment even as we have reduced the features we are comparing down to mouth, nose, and head size where head size is out of whack. We are ignoring ears, and still on these seven, none align properly.
So what about the Matt Damon Batch? Are they not easy to tell apart? Quite so. I make no claims about these men being the same, or twins, or anything like that. I only notice that among them certain features tend to line up with near precision, so much so that Straight used the word “batch” to describe them, as in test tube babies. That is what I think Straight uncovered. We have hemmed and hawed long enough. Something is going on with these people behind the scenes. They are not accidentals. They didn’t emerge by means of talent or Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule.
Why then, when they each exhibit the same set of eyes, the same hairline, the same nose, the same placement of the mouth, the same general head shape, can we so easily tell them apart? I suggest, for discussion, that we are perhaps looking at the results of gestation with birth mothers with different blood types, different diet, different ethnicities. Even identical twins have a different appearance from one another due to womb experiences. Why not our group?
So that is my initial thrust, and in making it, I am going to change the name given the phenomenon by Straight, the “Matt Damon Batch,” to something I’ve been kicking around – a process described in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World by which people were conceived in test tubes for various purposes, be it plumbing or politics. Huxley named it “Bokanovsky’s Process.” Eggs were fertilized and then split into identical copies of the original. As many as ninety-six copies could be made by this process.
So rather than the Matt Damon Batch, I am going to refer to these people as “Bokanovsky Brats.” It’s a starting point, that’s all. Something is going on here. (There was debate too over use of that name, and I put it forth with the caveat that Josh did not think we should use it, as it implied more than we know. I am using it because as a working theory, nothing more. Go here to read Josh’s take on Bokanovsky.)
First, I’ll review some of Straight’s candidates, and then add a few new ones. More surprises await.
My theory is that these are people who had different birth mothers, but are of the same parental strain. In different wombs, the fetus experiences different nutrition, blood type, maternal illnesses and injuries, stress levels, and pressures. These perhaps give shape to a different look for the resulting child. But notice the eyes, the nose, the head shape, and that thing that caught my eye on almost all of Straight’s comparisons: a widow’s peak. It is not so apparent in this guy, Rob Lowe, as others that will follow, but the hairlines are eerily the same on these candidates.
Thinner lips for sure, but the same eyes, nose, hairline, in fact, the same general placement of all features, in this case even the ears. The astute observer might notice that Clooney has a slightly smaller head – this is not known to be the case, as we are only dealing with photos and cannot pay a visit to our stars to take measurements. I would suggest that Clooney’s eyes are set slightly farther apart than Damon’s, so that when I reduce each to one-inch pupil distance, in effect I shrink Clooney’s head a bit.
Russell Crowe expands the field in that we are now dealing with an Australian man, expanding the distribution of fertilized eggs to different continents. Again all features align very well, especially the eyes and hairline. I use them to center everything else, and have been often enough creeped out in this work as I see the very same set of eyes.
This is the last of Straight’s candidates. Hereafter I’ll have new additions. He and I are in touch, he is aware I am doing this work, and will review it. For now, I wanted DiCaprio in the mix for a reason soon apparent.
There was a Miles Mathis paper a while back in which he addressed the notion that Jack Nicholson was Leonardo DiCaprio’s father. Indeed they have a lot in common. DiCaprio can precisely mimic Nicholson’s eyebrow movements. It’s quite interesting. Mathis concluded, correctly in my view, that Nicholson is not DiCaprio’s father, and I do not recall what he speculated thereafter.
Perhaps some reader can supply that link. It was last year some time.
Mathis and his readers are knocking on this door, in my view, not that Jack is Leo’s dad, but rather that Jack and Leo had the same parents, but different birth mothers. Note that the embryos would have been stored and put in service a full generation apart. That is pure speculation, but it is a start, and it is necessary.
A short while back, after the last Superbowl, Damon dressed up like a New England Patriot and appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel Show pretending to be Tom Brady. It was just a publicity stunt. Damon now is on his way out, as he is not aging well, and so is resorting to such antics to keep his name in view. When I saw him come on stage, I instantly knew it was Damon, and for a reason.
Tom Brady is a clone candidate as well, a potential Bokanovsky Brat. This extends our field out of the movie business and into athletics. (Notice how Brady is virtually given stardom based on what are suggested to be exceptional athletic skills, but might be something else entirely: rigged sporting events.)
Something else I noticed that night watching Damon pretending to be Brady:
I wondered over the years watching Kimmel how a guy with so little talent, who cannot sing or act or throw a football, has such a high perch in television (even hosting the Oscars). And the answer is obvious, to me anyway. He was one of the select from that test tube. He and Damon are full brothers with different birth mothers, as I see it.
The male/female bridge has been crossed. Some will suggest “tranny,” but that notion is just another psyop, as I see it. I do note that Hillary Swank has played some masculine parts, as a female pretending to be a male in Boys Don’t Cry and a prize-fighter in Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby. Hmmmm.
It was one of those click-bait web sits that explores stars who resemble one another that suggested Swank could be Matt Damon’s twin. Below is a grab taken from that website. Someone else is curious about this phenomenon too.
Shall we go back in time? Paul Newman (1925-2008) was the heart-throb of the 60s and 70s, and had that set of killer blue eyes. He too appears to be part of this game.
Another from days gone by:
Rock Hudson was given his stardom, and then had to humiliate himself by fake-dying of AIDS, thereby leaving behind the reputation of a closeted gay man. This was done to sell the idea that there really existed a disease called “AIDS.” They needed some high-profile deaths, and Hudson was offered up (along with Freddie Mercury). Perhaps if Hudson is still with us somewhere he can answer a question: Are Bokanovsky Brats even sexual? Do they reproduce? It has been suggested by others in various places that these stars we are given are mules who cannot reproduce and who have only public romances with nothing going on behind closed doors. I do not know, of course.
One step back further in time now:
James Dean would be 86 now if still alive (and if his birthday is accurate), and I suspect he might be. His death was surely faked, it is so common among Hollywood and music stars. But this dates the process – 86 years ago – 1931.
I was relieved to find no other candidates for this process prior to James Dean. My search was not exhaustive, however. As it is, I find it all very discomfiting.
Can anyone guess what comes next? Stop and think about it for a few moments, and it will come to you. Without comment:
Yes, this guy too:
Are Ben and Casey Affleck of the same family, or the same batch?
Just for fun, one more, then I am done.
Is anyone surprised?
Well, that does it for me. I am all Damoned out. I’ve been looking at his face for three days now. I cannot take any more. I am done. Please enjoy the comment section.
Oh, wait, one more thing – a commenter mentioned that facial resemblances like we see here among Matt and his fellow Hollywood stars are merely the result of bloodlines, that is, genes passing down (from one parent only) through the generations are creating virtual lookalikes in children. I mentioned that I had three brothers, all known to be of the same parents, and that our facial features do not begin to line up likes these. And then I remembered: Matt has a brother, Kyle.
I will stop now.
PS: Good lord! Now we are talking incest. Here is Steve Kelly’s comment from the original post:
“Long ago I noticed something “special” about Hilary Swank and actress-turned-pitch-woman for Capital One credit cards, Jennifer Garner. Her “marriage” to Ben Affleck only makes the relationships more suspect in my mind.”
Thinking that Swank and Garner bear a strong resemblance to one another, I decided to run Garner against Matt Damon:
Very good eye, Steve! This, of course, means that Garner and Ben Affleck are nearly lookalikes, and that their marriage was more like a womb reunion. Where does Swank fit in to this mix? She could be just a spare part.