My Sunday morning … wasted efforts and ramblings

Martin Sheen flipped

A reader suggested that I take a look at Charlie Sheen as being a Matt Damon Batch member, and I didn’t have to look long. There are certain characteristics that immediately jump out at me, among them the part on the left side of the head, the square jaw, and what has to be considered ruggedly handsome features of leading man quality.

But alas, it is not to be … as seen below. I have reverted to face chops as I am currently in the process of reading about several other topics that have gripped my interest not involving photography, and anyway, I am making another point here. Here is the face chop using the photo above, and our old friend Matt Damon.

Martin Sheen Damon


Martin SheenAs you can see, there is no alignment, only strong resemblance.

But that is OK as the photo I opened with is not of Charlie Sheen, but rather his father Martin.

It is from his Apocalypse Now days, but I had to go a step further with it and flip it to place the hair part on the left side. I was toying with the idea that Martin and Charlie are mirror images.

Charlie Sheen, to my surprise, is not a Matt Damon Batch fit. See below.


The lips are too thin, the nose too long and more pointed. The eyes and chins do not line up.

Here is a comparison of Martin Sheen as he looks today (unflipped) and Charlie.





There is a very strong, ‘almost’ match-up, but not quite. The resemblance between these two is remarkable, but they are not quite replicas. Below is another of Martin’s sons, Emilio Estevez.


We don’t have to go far with this to see that Emilio, while somewhat resembling his father, is more like a normal offspring, carrying forward some features and probably incorporating others from his mother’s side, Janet Sheen. Look at how close-set the eyes are. I have rarely seen two eyes that close together.


Someone else suggested that Pierce Brosnan was a good candidate for the Matt Damon Batch, and indeed he is … but just not quite. And then I thought that the quality of the eyes might make Brosnan and Charlie Sheen a matchup, and again, not quite.





But oh so close. Another commenter suggested there were other batches besides the Matt Damon one, and this maybe a portal into that. These are remarkable (but not quite) match-ups.

But then again, it may be the Golden Ratio of what we regard as attractive features in men.

What to make of all of this? It is this: I get up too early in the morning, have too much time on my hands. Today I am going to watch football even as I have just learned from our friend Maarten that in the legal proceeding Meyer v Belichick, the court ruled that fans are only entitled to be spectators, but regarding the honesty of a sporting contest, we have no power in the matter. Our ticket is to sit in a stadium seat, nothing more. Meyers had sued the New England Patriots over the Spygate affair claiming that New York Jets season ticket holders were deprived of a fair contest. So what, ruled the court.

Speaking of Pierce Brosnan, did any readers besides me see the movie Mamma Mia? We lived in Bozeman at the time, and went with some friends to see it. I was just going along for the ride and had no clue what I was in for, and was shocked when Amanda Seyfried, running down to the Mediterranean in the opening scenes, started singing! A musical! I had been lured to watch a musical! (I came away certain that Meryl Streep was lip syncing.)

But more to the point, Brosnan took on a singing role in the movie. He too should have lip synced.


I could not decide as I watched the movie that day whether Brosnan was singing … or was in labor and giving birth.

31 thoughts on “My Sunday morning … wasted efforts and ramblings

  1. Annette – I did not notice Martin’s and Emilio’s eyes so close together. That’s a good observation.

    Who is to know, however, with Hollywood families, what is real. Charlie’s alleged cocaine use and hookers could be just part of his bad boy image. His appearance on Alex Jones and subsequent blow up in a New York hotel with hookers and cocaine look to me to be scripted.


      1. Oh, interesting and you are correct on that point…but he certainly doesn’t have the affectation of being gay, but anything is possible.


  2. Charlie is also alleged to be an abuser of Corey Hamm. And yes the hoooker deal is cover for the sodomite/paedo deal. Alex Jones appears again in the mix. Martin is a fanatic of all things catholic. Hangs out with Jesuits. Most children of Ho::ywood & military lineages are abused. Helps in their ability to get with the program(s). It does not take long to see patterns. Over & over the same themes, names, faces, gangs keep circulating.


  3. Richard Gere in Breathless is the golden ratio of everything a woman needs despises wants in a man. Golden ratio of stud. Haven’t seen it? Explains my leg up. Seen it but didn’t get it? Explains my two legs up. Only Ron Jeremys throw wrench into Breathless Geres. Charlie Sheen wracked his looks from smoking meth. Think poetic duh winning tiger blood rants scripted? Think not.
    The addiction lies during intercourse between making perfect sense & everyone loving it. How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop. Don’t ask oh Do tell. Cue up Charlie Sheen pic or scene from No Man’s Land and you will see the God of Bratpack. Today Chuck is either bad doppleganger or Charlie totally chucked himself with or without his hairpiece. No they don’t make ’em like Breathless Gere or No Man’s Land Charlie anymore. And never to late to take notes.


    1. Richard Gere rhymes with queer. What was that Dutch saying? If it rhymes, it’s the truth? I believe it in this case.
      I prefer “beauty is truth, truth beauty”. J. Keats


      1. Jackie last time I cruised Sunset Strip on way to see Kiss @ L.A. Forum 08/25/96 it wasn’t exactly on the down low while Viper Room waitresses clamored fot more stiff drink orders some liked the Bars Ho Ho’s and some liked Ding Dong’s. If you haven’t heard eMneM believes most all Hollywood is gay. So I think Rich Queer or Dickie Queer is more hip rhyme. Speaking of which anybody Sheen Chuck?


  4. Charlie Sheen was incredible looking in the early 80s. By Wall Street it was fading but even the cameo in Ferris Bueller he was fantastic looking. Very old Hollywood leading man type of looks. There was a piece in the LA weekly a few years ago about his best friend who died. The article alluded to the fact that Charlie had been involved with men. Anytime Kelly Preston is involved in someone’s love life you have to be suspicious of their sexuality.


    1. Mark thank you again for your mind blowing site and all its riches unearthed and explored. Mr. Townsend thank you for getting my point. I also had not considered the Kelly Preston angle. S. Volpetti touch in cheek I used terms handful of plain or peanut M&M’s in reference to Piece of Mindful having all but proven MM is committee.


      1. Well, Rico, a court of jury would never convict on hearsay. Kevin Starr has some excellent papers still there, are you saying he’s one of the committee?


        1. I am currently enmeshed in the electric universe and its many advocates, and none so far have mentioned MM, who claims to be the originator of breathtaking revisionism in astrophysics as well as quantum mechanics. But those ideas originated somewhere, and he is claiming they are his. I don’t think so.

          I submitted a paper to MM (McCartney twins) and he refused to publish it. I took it to mean the paper was not well written (it was not), and accepted it and moved on. Kevin’s work was well written and was published. Neither of these matters has any bearing on whether or bot MM is a front for a committee. It merely means he can both walk and chew gum. I personally don’t find the “committee” aspect important. It is only the output that mattrs, and much of it is very good.


          1. MM being the sole originator of deep scientific work, like physics and such, is not credible IMHO, unless he is truly a genius, which I doubt. He is an artist and liberal arts major. His paintings may not even be his work.


          2. Mark, I also think MM is being fed this stuff. Otherwise he won’t be allowed to publish his other stuff. And he probably is being paid to do so. Depending on traffic. That’s why he was so emotional about this many comments on Josh’s site. Same thing with Simon Shack and his Tychos. I recently read the latest Dan Brown which I bought for one cent + 3 Eur delivery. It wasn’t even boring. He writes this time a lot about artificial intelligence, bit coins, dark web, quantum computers, transgender and transhumanism, etc. He was also fed to write all this IMO. And he came out of nowhere just a few years ago, his first book being a bestseller.


  5. All this talk about MM being a committee or not is useless speculation imho.

    It is speculative as it is impossible to prove it; we don’t have insights in the email traffic of Miles Mathis. The same speculation can be made about anyone, even the writers here at POM. Are all the posts written here the sole work of the authors, or are we also “briefed” by “others” to write what we write about? So it backfires too.

    It is also useless, because it is irrelevant. If there are other people behind a name or not, is not relevant for the points/arguments made. What is relevant are two major questions:
    1 – What are the premises on which Miles Mathis (committee or not) is basing his arguments?
    2 – What are the data points used to support a theory and how are these points (allegedly) acquired?

    On point 1:
    Miles Mathis has made clear in many of his science papers that he bases his arguments on the early quantum physicists. He quotes Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck and others as serious, credible sources, but then says “they were corrupted by later scientists and their work was changed”. His work was basically saying: let me rewrite their equations and ideas into something different.

    It is this point why I criticize his science papers; he comes stepping in half way. Instead of going back to the real basis; the question if this whole psience of quantum (and related “theoretical”) physics is true or not, he assumes it is.

    What a real revisionist scientist (trained as such or not) would do is drawing a clear line between empirical (=testable) science and “theoretical” (=non-testable) science. That is the final baseline, the benchmark.

    On point 2:
    Miles Mathis has admitted (in his “pi=4” paper) that one data point he uses to build his shaky (see point 1) theories on, is a statement by Wernher von Braun, the Nazi (which is not the point here) “scientist” who was brought to the US in Operation Paperclip to work with… (and that is one of the points) Walt Disney, starting “the Space Age” (the main point).

    But there are problems and have been for a long time, and insiders know that. Both in rocket science and quantum mechanics, big problems have cropped up in the vicinity of pi, although no one before me thought to queston pi itself. In the space program, the engineers began seeing real-life failures of the equations from the beginning. In the late 1950s, the American program headed by Werner [sic] von Braun began admitting major equation failures.

    Rockets simply weren’t where they were supposed to be, but only when curved trajectories were involved. The first rockets to orbit the earth were late by huge amounts, indicating the equations were wrong by something over 20%. The Russians found the same problem.

    What this proves is that MM does not question the whole foundation of that so-called Space Age. He has published papers about SpaceX and some of the NASA stuff where he rejects those particular things, but he -again- doesn’t question the basis; is Space Travel possible anyway? He makes the dangerous assumption that it is.

    The only way to support (or reject) a theory about an electric universe is to have data from that universe. So Space Data. Do we have that? I don’t think so, but Miles Mathis needs to rely on that assumption in order to be able to present his theory. Without data, his idea is a mere hypothesis that cannot be proven.

    That was also the main discussion with his supporters; Vexman, Josh and especially Jared Magneson. All three of them, but the latter in particular, refused to ask these basal questions and (need to!) assume that Space Travel is possible (to answer question 2) and that quantum physics in its essence is a correct, empirical science (for question 1).

    Josh’s August post on his blog is about Space Travel and he doesn’t take any position there, it basically is a collection of quotes by contributors on his blog. Again, what we have seen here, is Jared Magneson becoming hostile when the idea of Space Travel is challenged, Josh even had to moderate the discussion. Magneson even doubts if the Hubble “Space” Telescope is faked!?

    Again, I am not going to speculate about the motives behind this. Other people may describe this behavior as “misdirection”, but for that to be true, there needs to be a conscious decision behind it (“knowing ‘the truth’, but directing consciously in a different direction”). I cannot prove or disprove that there is a conscious decision behind it, so it is useless to speculate about the motives.

    What is not useless is to observe the behavior and challenge it using solid arguments (and watching the other side coming with silly ad hominems), something that also happened with the TYCHOS, where I challenged Simon Shacks assumptions too.


    1. There is a quote that I think I remember reading, but cannot find, attributed to Werner Von Braun I believe, stating essentially that to make it to Earth orbit, a rocket would have to be as tall and as big as the Empire state building to work, or some such. The amount of fuel needed to do a moon shot would have been immense. The rockets used for the fake moon landing and the later space shuttles were clearly not as big as the Empire state building.


      1. Yes, the amount of contradictions in their reports can only be stomached by the most schizophrenic psychopaths possible.

        A funny story is the Vanguard 1, allegedly the oldest man-made object “still in orbit”. The grapefruit, as Chruschev aptly called it, supposedly it is an object of just 1.47 kg/3.2 lbs and 16 cm/6.4″ in diameter!

        The thingy was allegedly launched on March 17 (=11) 1958, after two unsuccessful attempts, but NASA wouldn’t be NASA if they wouldn’t succeed. Called Kaputnik in the American press because of the failures following the “successful” “Sputnik” thingy, supposedly launched by the Soviets.

        The rocket launching this thingy indeed was not “as big as the Empire State Building”, but a mere 23 m/75 ft rocket, the Vanguard

        Ridiculous quotes about this grapefruit:

        The transmitter powered by solar cells transmitted for more than six years. Its signal gradually weakened and was last received at Quito, Ecuador, in May 1964. Since then the spacecraft has been tracked optically from Earth, via telescope.

        The size of a grapefruit, of course!!

        A 10 mW transmitter, powered by a mercury battery, on the 108 MHz band used for International Geophysical Year (IGY) scientific satellites, and a 5 mW, 108.03 MHz transmitter powered by six solar cells were used as part of a radio phase-comparison angle-tracking system.

        10 and 5 milliWatt!

        Wernher von Braun angrily said about the Sputnik launch: “We knew they were going to do it. Vanguard will never make it. We have the hardware on the shelf. We can put up a satellite in 60 days


        On 6 December 1957 the US Navy launched Vanguard TV-3 rocket, carrying a 1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) satellite, from Cape Canaveral. It only reached an altitude of 1.2 meters (4 ft), fell, and exploded. The satellite was blasted off the top of the rocket where it landed in bushes near the pad and began transmitting signals

        1.2 meters! Haha. And first explosions, but satellites come out unharmed and can just transmit signals. Of course.

        The Vanguard’s second stage “””served for decades””” as the Able and Delta second stage for satellite launch vehicles. The AJ10 engine which made up those stages was adapted into the AJ10-137, which was used as the “””Apollo Service Module””” engine. The AJ10-190, adapted from the Apollo spacecraft was “””used””” on the Space Shuttle for orbital maneuvers [impossible; orbits decide, not people playing with computers], and “””will be repurchased for use on NASA’s upcoming Orion spacecraft.“””

        This whole Space Travel is such a ridiculous combination of make-belief and schizophrenic statements.

        And yes, it hurts that that whole thing is fake, but stepping in half-way and basing your whole theories and books on the premise it is real is very, very dangerous…


    1. Gotta love this quote:

      “Stephen Curry says he does not believe humans have been to the moon, a stance which is clearly unsupported by facts and hopefully just a joke.”


      1. Rush Limbaugh had a field day with that one. You have to see the humor in it, as there is no other outlook that is going to do us any good. The American people are hopelessly brainwashed.


  6. When it comes to our recorded historical experiences on the moon, the height of ridiculousness, for me, is Alan Shepard playing golf on the lunar surface:

    “On Feb. 6, 1971 — 47 years ago… — Alan Shepard pulled out a makeshift six-iron he smuggled on board Apollo 14 and hit two golf balls on the lunar surface, becoming the first — and only — person to play golf anywhere other than Earth.”



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 )

Connecting to %s