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.
Let’s begin.
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.
Piece of Mindful 
you’re friend says it is much simpler, they are all just from similar bloodlines
Click to access damon.pdf
LikeLike
We think there is more to the story. We don’t have the answer yet, but this is far from case closed. We think the truth might lead to some pretty weird places.
LikeLike
That really cannot be it. For instance I come from a family of four brothers. Same mom and dad, all four boys. We don’t begin to line up in the same manner that these people do.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure. Within a non-inbred family (which I assume is the case for you), such a different appearance is quite normal. I see this in my wider family, too.
But look at the Habsburgs as an example of the opposite end. Even in the “sugarcoated” paintings of earlier monarchs, you can see striking similarities, and the same birth defects.
With continuous inbreeding over centuries, those difference average out. And [Sarcasm Mode On], the risk of genetic/psychic defects increases exponentially … [Sarcasm Mode Off]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alignment of facial features is key here, not family resemblence. It cannot be happenstance because these are all people of mediocre abilities elected for high profile lives.
See if this Garner video creeps you out as it did me, and pick up in something at the beginning that is a tell of sorts:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading MM’s stuff, they seem to be all related, somehow. And descendant of the English (so-called) peerage. And beside mediocre abilities, a certain look-alike might play a role in selecting a kid from the “family” for a celebrity-career.
Reminds me on the elite guard of Prussian king Frederick II., called “The Long Fellows” (my translation). He selected recruits taller than 6 ft., to impress visitors and foes.
With the rise of breech-loaders and cartridge loaded firearms, size mattered much less…
Might look at the video at home, but from the initial image, it looks exactly like the stuff that caused me to abandon TV etc. all together …
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll brief you on it so you can avoid watching it: She starts out by saying she does not have feminine curves, so they have to be manufactured for her. She says due to childbirth. She then tells of a gastrointestinal emergency at the Oscars where her costume, just a dress from outer appearances, is actually metal and is holding her tightly together, including a strap that has to be unfastened through her privates. She had to have assistance from a friend to get her business done.
I think she is saying more than she is saying, that’s all. I saw this months ago and it stuck in my mind. I record the Fallon show, and see the same recycled guests day in and out, no real talent passing by, so rarely watch it, but for some reason this gal piqued my interest. Maybe I am internally wired to spot fraud. Maybe I am gay.
LikeLike
The first thing that struck me watching this video of J Garner was that the full shot right at the start looked to me like the image of Julianne Moore, which could bring us back to Marilyn Monroe. Then I got to Dallas Buyers Club, where Garner played a key role – was that just plain sight stuff again,? like the Constant Gardener is to current events with pharma corruption angle..
After reading all the comments I went to the Archon post which got me to thinking about the fairly recent movie Stan & Ollie & the so-realistic mask & fatsuit worn by John C Reilly. So, are they putting in plain sight (every time they use an actor in this way – fake teeth, fake face, etc – how easy it is for them to create & change personas with silicon (pun intended), on top of the bokanowsky angle..
Thank you again for the work you do. Gets me thinking every time..
LikeLike
Mark, I have tried to share this video with you several times. Listen to what Trump says about giving birth. https://youtu.be/aSXG9pq1lmo
LikeLike
???
LikeLike
Mark, I think I read too much into his comments. Here’s a longer version, he probably made a mistake. https://youtu.be/vbcbkgdVths
I apologise.
LikeLike
I believe that in the movie Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, at the camp of demigods there were a few celebrity kids. This is a relevant video until 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cPl4WWX3Ko . Maybe that movie tells many interesting things in a symbolic manner.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I believe that your theory and Mathis’ theory are the closest to the truth. Maybe we have a combination of both theories (bloodlines with some breeding program/technique). To give another movie example, in the movie Dune we have a sisterhood that sometimes selects initiates to marry certain elite people. In ancient times we had sacred prostitution and other priestess orders (maybe the female illuminati of Michael Tsarion). Now experts question many aspects of sacred prostitution. But maybe it was something that they don’t expect. Maybe it has to do with some elite practices (breeding program), but it got distorted (probably intentionally) in the ancient sources. I should add that the girls from these sisterhoods were probably from elite families (all priests or priestesses with higher ranks were from elite families).
It is good that your theory has a mathematical basis. The mathematical basis doesn’t have to be complicated. In fact it is much better when it is not complicated and relies on a few clear assumptions. Your analysis with 7 variables is definitely better than dallasgoldbug guy. The analysis makes the research more objective. Of course this type of analysis can be combined with other types of research (genealogy, media fakery etc).
I wonder if you paid attention to the evolution of dallasgoldbug (and others like him) and the tranny investigations. Especially in relation to your work. They probably monitor the internet to see the research of various people. If something comes that threatens their position (even if it is small), maybe they assign certain people to a blackwash operation or flooding the internet with something similar to the honest research.
In the end I believe that you do honest research. You always try to improve an be careful (very important signs of honest research).
LikeLike
The tranny stuff puts me off – not that we don’t encounter one now and again, but like everything with DGB, it’s way overboard. But he is very effective – and yet, also, when someone immediately comes at me with a DGB assertion (“Isn’t Dallas Goldbug doing this too?”) I take it to mean that I have encountered yet another spook. DGB is put there for that purpose, and they use him accordingly.
LikeLike
In the reboot of Battlestar Gallactica, the synthetic humans known as Cyborgs were running breeding farms to cross pollinate humans with the synths. The humans found out about it from one of the breedees, a woman strapped in on life support, her sole purpose was to gestate the hybrids. Rows of beds rigged for this purpose ran on throughout the building. The Captain orders all of them blown sky high.
Ugh. But, perhaps a nod to some process ongoing in meat space. They do like to tip their hand from time to time to see who’s paying attention.
PS- I just finished reading a Vanity Fair article (Know you enemies, I say) about Emma Watson, the girl in the Harry Potter stuff. She’s now sporting an androgynous look and being mentored by Gloria Steinem. Ugh.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dawkins and Watson match perfectly. Her shoulder line fits with his sweater/shirt line. Her hair, suspicious, is where his shirt line should be. I should have known Dawkins was a player. They even match dimples. Is this some kind of Jerry Lewis joke on me?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This has been floating on the net for a few years. It’s probably total PS, but it also tips off that the kind of science Dawkins spews is no better or worse than magic. Mucho Kaka and De Grasse Fed Tyson Chicken are of the same set of gate keepers that buttress the thing in the wheel chair. All magic, in my view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tyrone, why are they promoting militant atheism with Dawkins? What are they hiding?
LikeLike
Straight- The punch line is that they are trying to suppress imagination, and the freedom from state indexed thought crimes that a healthy imagination acquires through regular use. The rank materialism of state authority is being promoted by Dawkins, et al, to take the mystery and wonder about what may be post-death experience away from the collective imagination. You aren’t supposed to believe anything without state approval. That’s the objective. According to the atheist agenda, one is daft and in need of psychiatric evaluation if one believes in an afterlife. To help sell this, they have caricatured religion as primitive superstition or virulently racist to make fence sitters run to “Science” for answers (Actually, emotional relief, as the bullshit mysticism of quantum physics, i.e., has no more basis in reality that the divine right of kings) Transcendence of death frees the mind, to an extent, from worrying too much about the here and now of the state’s demands for compliance. Appealing to a “higher authority” is antithetical to atheism and the materialist state of consumption we find ourselves resisting.
I seriously doubt that Dawkins believes a word he says and has proven that with his flip flop on the “junk DNA” theory. It’s truly astonishing, as Fetzer would say, that the mediaeval mysticism that ruled with impunity in the middle ages at the behest of the state has now been completely inverted where dust unto dust is all you get from them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Funny all this comes up at a time when I’ve been experiencing spiritualism, wondering about death and all that it entails. Belief in afterlife is so harmless, as we are either wrong and will never know it, or in for a pleasant surprise. Here I had decided to believe that the whole planet is a loony bin just testing our mettle, teaching us how to be patient and kind in the face of the opposite, nurturing kindness and love and growing in spiritual depth. Dawkins comes along and insists that we die, and that is it, that there is no meaning to life. That does indeed take the fun out of this crazy fucking planet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I elected to avoid the Tyson matter to avoid crosssing race, making it an even harder sale. But I am suspicious … he is too glib, too funny, to be real. He said on one podcast, about how humans are designed, that the designer screwed up by putting a recreation area right in the middle of a waste dump. No scientist will come up with that!
But I want to deal with Tyson and Sagan both, as I think they are both fakes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like Tyson had been listening to Robin Williams with the recreation area and a waste site or was it vice versa?
LikeLike
It cannot be obvious to me alone that this is a case of Photoshopping features of one person on to the other. That is not Watson’s nose on her face but Dawkin’s nose (or some nose) being used on both photos. I suggest that may be why some of these actors features are aligning so well for you and why the kind of research you’re doing is faulty; you’re basing it on photos manufactured by an industry that uses a broad brush to retweek every inch of a photo before it gets published.
I agree that there is all kinds of manipulation in our culture and some real nasty people in high places, further, I feel your heart is in the right place and respect what you’re doing and agree you are on to something with some of your findings such as, Charlie Rose, O’Rylie, Bruce Lee and Hartmann. Anyway, just my two cents, for tonight.
LikeLike
If the photos are put out with the knowledge that people like me are going to be using them in this manner, then they are going to an awful lot of trouble for one person. No one else is doing this kind of work, and most people, I have noticed, see what they are told they see, nothing more, nothing less. It is indeed a fake world, nothing in media can be trusted, and that is the sliver of knowledge that keeps me going. I am uncovering things not meant to be uncovered. The only thing we have ever discovered here that was meant to be discovered was Bill Hicks/Alex Jones, put out as low hanging fruit to suck us into a trap. It is meant to discredit everything else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An image search gives this thread from 2012. Someone has found the original of the Dawkin’s photo.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4767944/1/
Anyway, one false positive does not disprove anything, and in this case it does introduce the question: Where are the Bokanovsky’s Babes? A quick re-reading of the first chapter of Brave New World, suggests that male and female should arise in equal numbers.
LikeLike
It is probably right in front of our eyes, and we are dealing with actors, pretty, shallow people, so as I tried to look for similarities in females some months ago, I shelved the whole project as wasteful. The object is to learn what, and forget about the who.
LikeLike
Far from obvious.
What’s weird is that this is going too far for you, but Charlie Rose and Bruce Lee isn’t. Those are much further down the rabbit hole IMO. But we have seen your template many times before on POM.
“I disagree because XYZ, although I agree with ABC.” (ABC being something random but the same or higher degree of conspiracy)
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is something nefarious going on. This and the elite transgender phenomena. Lately, on the interwebs I have noticed this new meme popping up. Fallen Angel Technology. At this point I won’t scoff at anything.
LikeLike
Straight’s original work, the Matt Damon Batch, included James Franco [whose photo sits atop this post, by the way]. As to the others that you mention, my work is to focus on the bigger picture, how this is coming about. There may be things of importance to discover there, though it is a risky venture and easy to speculate too much and too far. I have done some work on our current starlets and found them a diverse bunch, and pulled back. In the end I have to remember that these people are allowed to be “Stars” because they are morally compromised, and so are not worth a lot of time and trouble.
LikeLike
I look forward to your Photoshop work. Everything is there to be discovered.
LikeLike
Mark, consider adding Sam Worthington to this analysis.
LikeLike
Noted. Remind me if you don’t see it.
LikeLike
It works pretty well except for head size, which puts it in question land.
LikeLike
I missed something- Who is Bogey paired with? I don’t recognize the right side face.
LikeLike
MM plus… who? I see Spears, but who are the others? I’m 59. I don’t know all the faces.
LikeLike
I think I see Natalie Wood and Brittney, not sure who Bogey is paired with. You have skills with layers I see. That took me so long to learn. Kudos.
I do hope you are paying attention to details … the eyes have to be set at common distance. And again, we do not know what we are dealing with here, we may be overcomplicating something simple. But the “bloodline” argument, to me, only bears out, if we are even close to the truth, in the original pairing of sperm and egg, while the host mother could be anyone. And that is my working theory, that we are seeing replicas passed through different wombs who impart different traits on them while maintaining the same basic features that we have been taught to accept as our standard for attractiveness. I mean, stop and think, we could easily, by massive suggestion via visual media, think the Pete Rose model to be the standard for an attractive man, rather than Brad Pitt and George Clooney.
I have wandering thoughts too … defective models, what becomes of them? Mark David Chapman? Was James Dean defective? Is that why he was retired so young? Is Kimmel there just to rub our face in it, that any yokel can be famous with the right bloodline? Straight thinks there is a bloodline coming out of the Caribbean that we need to follow, producing perhaps Belafonte, Sosa, and that ilk, athletes, actors, musicians, but of royal lineage.
It’s very confusing, and my way is to let it settle in slowly and listen to what others say and see, as my own insight is just one person with one background. So keep at it please, but try to avoid assuming too much too quickly, and avoid this tendency I see in myself too often of ignoring contrary evidence. I almost included Denzel Washington in this mix, along with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, a huge blunder had I not sat on it and let it percolate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve also noticed a strong resemblance between Marilyn Monroe and Judy Garland, Garland and Britney Spears as well as Anne Hathaway. A few years ago, there was a rumor going around that Liza Minnelli was the biological mother of Britney Spears. The resemblance between Spears and a young Liza Minnelli is quite remarkable. She definitely looks more like Liza than her supposed birth mother, Lynne Spears. Anyway, looks like there is also a “Garland batch” in Hollywood to me.
LikeLike
Musk’s (cough) “wife” in Rockes fantasies piece (photo) has that Garner look too.
LikeLike
The matchup, Talulah Riley and Garner, is not good.
LikeLike
NBA player John Stockton looks the part.
LikeLike