Resolving the Tokarski Phenomenon

pjimage

Preface: Before I begin, I would like to introduce myself to Piece of Mindful readers, since this is my first post. Mark personally asked me to give writing a chance, and I am more than happy to oblige him. A little about myself…I will be 30 years old in a matter of days, I have a Bachelor’s degree in Economics (graduated summa cum laude), and I possess knowledge in a wide variety of areas due to a lifelong passion for interesting information. Those who know me often say that I should sign up to be on “Jeopardy!”. In terms of Myers-Briggs personality types, the best fit for me is INTP, “The Logician” or “The Thinker”. I have always had a great admiration for the Sherlock Holmes character, and I apologize in advance for the number of times I will likely reference Holmes in making a point. My mind works very much like Holmes’s does in the stories. I refrain from social life to a large extent (by choice), and I am almost completely unplugged from modern popular culture. Although I own a TV, I rarely watch it. The only radio I listen to is BBC World News, and I do not follow any modern pop music. The only form of media I am interested in is film, and I have always been a big fan of Stanley Kubrick. This is all I will bore you with about myself…

My purpose in this particular article is resolving what I will call the Tokarski Phenomenon, named after the owner of this blog Mark Tokarski and his extensive catalog of work surrounding facial alignment. Just so that it is clear what I mean when I say “the Tokarski Phenomenon”, I would like to define the term. The Tokarski Phenomenon is defined as the excessive preponderance of facial alignment doppelgängers amongst Western public figures. Whether we are talking about “batches” such as the Damon Batch and Katy Perry Batch or the “twins” that Mark has written about extensively, the underlying phenomenon is basically a prevalence of facial alignment doppelgängers amongst public figures far outside of that which statistical norms would forecast. In this article, I will not only show that existing explanations (both common and uncommon) for this phenomenon are wholly inadequate, but I will also provide a strong case for the true explanation for this curiosity termed “the Tokarski Phenomenon”.

The existing explanations for the Tokarski Phenomenon fall into two buckets, as I referenced, both common and uncommon. The first, which I will call the “common-man” explanation, is that there is a Golden Ratio that naturally selects these people for their prominent positions. We are told that the only reason the person in question became a successful public figure is BECAUSE they possess this exact facial alignment. For Golden Ratio proponents, we must imagine that acting auditions amount to the Casting Director pulling out his caliper and marking down the facial measurements down to the millimeter, and making decisions thusly. This picture is as absurd as it sounds. Mark has termed Golden Ratio as simplistic and said that it “eliminates the need to think a little harder”. I could not agree more. Mark has roughly calculated the odds of perfect alignment of 7 facial features being around 1 in 10 million. If we imagine a lottery with a jackpot designed to hit once in every 10 million tickets, then we imagine a drawing where 10 million tickets were sold, but suddenly there were DOZENS of unconnected winners! And it turned out they all worked in the same job industry! The lottery commission would immediately know that they had been scammed, and refuse to pay out. This is what we witness with the prevalence of facial doppelgängers in public figures, but the average person does not care to think a little bit harder about what this implies. As Sherlock Holmes would say, “You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear.”

We could also envision the lottery pulling duplicates of the exact same set of 7 winning lottery numbers (each with 1 in 10 million odds) upwards of 30 times in a single year. This would be so statistically improbable that it is essentially impossible to be caused by random chance. The fallacy being made by the average person here is to confuse attractiveness with facial doppelgängers. Attractiveness is relatively common. I am sure every reader knows at least a few people who would be widely considered attractive. Attractiveness is the lesser lottery prize…matching a few numbers or the Powerball. Facial doppelgängers are the statistical equivalent of the jackpot. Do not confuse the two. Mark has astutely pointed out that Matt Damon is not particularly attractive. If there were a single face type that Hollywood was longing to match, there is no reason it should be particularly his face. Having upwards of a dozen faces perfectly matching to the Damon template is a statistical oddity completely off the charts. Having such a small subset of people as public figures contain a such a high percentage of matching doppelgängers is also a statistical oddity completely off the charts. Golden Ratio, as an explanation unto itself, is for those who do not wish to actually think about this problem…it explains nothing.

The next explanation, the uncommon one, would fall into the Miles Mathis category of “The Families”. We are told that familial relations cause the facial doppelgängers. Since they are 4th cousins (or whatever), their faces align. This also does not hold water. Facial alignment does not run in extended families. My facial alignment is nothing like that of my cousins, or even my own brother. Mark has pointed out that the only time he has randomly found this kind of alignment in a family was between a father and a daughter. This means that we are left with the confounding idea that although these doppelgängers have the facial alignment that you might find between siblings, they are at best distantly related cousins. You might say, “Well maybe they ARE siblings!” but I remind you that these people look nothing alike…aside from their facial alignment. This makes the familial explanation wholly inadequate. Some factor is causing a facial alignment to the level of a sibling relationship (or more) in a set of essentially unrelated individuals, yet unlike siblings they otherwise bear no resemblance to each other whatsoever. This is remarkable and confounding. Familial relationships do not explain the Tokarski Phenomenon, even if we were to consider a vast conspiracy whereby these people actually ARE siblings. We would see far more resemblance beyond the facial alignment in that case, but in reality we do not.

pjimage

If neither existing explanation actually holds for the Tokarski Phenomenon, then what are we left with?  We are left only with genetic engineering. And do not forget, as Holmes would say, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” This is where I must explain how I came upon the absolutely flawless facial alignment seen in the main photograph of the article. When one thinks of genetic engineering, who is the most concrete example from which to work? For me, I immediately think of Paris Jackson, daughter of Michael Jackson.

pjimage (1)

Let me clue you in on something in the photograph above…that man could not have fathered that girl. For starters, the skin color, eye color, and nose shape are all dramatically different. Even in the most unlikely genetic lottery, he cannot possibly naturally be her biological father. Yet, according to the official story, we are told he IS her biological father. Both Paris and Michael have publicly insisted upon it. You might say, “Well, she must have been fathered by someone else”, but why should we believe that? Paris has been very open about conspiracies in her own right. She believes her father was murdered, yet she insists that Michael Jackson is her biological father. I am not the first person to suggest that Paris was genetically engineered; a simple search turns up numerous major articles on the subject. The idea is that Michael oversaw her creation as a human. We can imagine that Michael was the basis for at least some of the genes, and was able to select as many modifications as possible make her perfect. This fits absolutely perfectly with Michael Jackson’s known personality and obsession with his appearance. He essentially wanted his own perfect doll as a daughter, and he made this come true through genetic engineering. This would explain both of their insistences upon a biological relation, even in the face of the dramatic differences between them.

The most remarkable thing about the face match presented in this article (which is between Paris Jackson and Olivia Wilde, for the record) is that it was my FIRST attempt to make such a match between two people! This should be a 1 in 10 million proposition, yet I nailed it on the first attempt by simply narrowing my focus on someone genetically engineered. Voila! Paris Jackson here is matched with Olivia Wilde (real name Olivia Cockburn), and I chose Olivia Wilde on sheer intuition. Now, you might think I am just really good at analyzing faces, but trust me…I am not THAT good. This is an absolutely flawless match, with alignment of the eyes, nose, lips, ears, chin, and hair line. Perfect. When we research Olivia Wilde (Olivia Cockburn), we find exactly the elite background that we would expect. Both of her parents have their own Wikipedia pages (Edit: and two of her grandparents! Her grandfather was a propagandist!!), and are what would be considered “connected”. I also encourage you to find a photo of Olivia with her parents. She does not resemble them and is several magnitudes more attractive than they are. We can envision these wealthy, well-connected parents seeking out a chance to make their child stunningly beautiful if such an opportunity were offered. This is the same opportunity that Michael Jackson took advantage of.

Paris Jackson is the lens by which all aspects of the Tokarski Phenomenon can be put into focus. She is clear proof that genetic engineering can edit polygenic traits such as skin color, and should leave no doubt that genetic engineering can modify traits such as facial alignment. Why do the “batches” and “twins” align with each other so perfectly? Identical gene sequences were inserted into their genome for facial alignment. This kind of technology in use would greatly increase the probability of a specific facial alignment appearing frequently in public figures. It would also explain why none of these people look anything alike otherwise. The largest batches, such as Damon and Katy Perry, are no doubt a product of the same “maker”. The batch itself implies that the same genes were inserted, so they are essentially all the same “brand” of face. Cases of mere twins might be competitors, or more simply just a custom job. The Damon face is the generic model, the Jeep of genetically engineered faces. Twins would then be the cutting edge technology, the Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bomber of genetically engineered faces. All features of the Tokarski Phenomenon can be explained by genetic engineering, and it is impossible to explain the Tokarski Phenomenon without genetic engineering. It would actually be quite simple to conceal such a technology…one covert clinic per continent, or even a public genetic clinic doing legitimate work like checking for genetic diseases could act as a cover for this much more significant technology. Such technologies are currently available to and known by the public, and it is not wild to think that this technology may have existed for significantly longer than the public has been aware.

There are many more questions that I do not explore here. WHO is doing this? WHY are they doing it? These are excellent questions, and I encourage people to comment with their thoughts in that area. Is it simply elites seeking to engineer a Nietzschean Superman? Rogue scientists seeking profits? Or is it an extraterrestrial species that has been genetically engineering humans for millions of years? The possibilities are numerous, and I have no data to theorize in these areas. For as Holmes would say, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” All that seems certain is that these public figures are genetically modified humans. They are GMO. Perhaps we should lobby to put a sticker on them.

82 thoughts on “Resolving the Tokarski Phenomenon

    1. Straight, when he was a writer here, used a high school or college yearbook and used that as a basis for calculation. He thought the odds of alignment were more like 3500 to one, still high enough that you’re not going to see it more than once in your lifetime. When you place it within the pool of famous people, given that there are probably only maybe a few thousand of them, and given that familial relationships do not produce lookalikes, and that good looking people are not selected by some golden rule, I think it is a valid argument to suggest some kind of genetic engineering is going on. I have only once com across two people that lined up exactly, a father and daughter. That was probably my 1 in 3500 moment.

      Like

      1. I think 1 in 3500 is probably the kind where you think to yourself it’s a really decent match (4/7), but a true 7-point match really is up towards the millions, and these are of the dead-on match variety. As you’ve said, when they line up…they line up. Why does MJ’s likely engineered offspring exactly align with the offspring of two average-looking members of the British aristocracy? In the context of your existing work (and other existing work), it is meaningful.

        Like

      2. While I acknowledge that direct familial relationship would increase those odds. In people who are not >10% blood-related, there is no way it is 1 in 3500 for a 7-point match. I think the argument still holds whether the true calculation came out to 1 in 3.4 million (or whatever) for a true 7-point match in unrelated people.

        Like

        1. I have wondered the same thing, Maarten. My speculation is hardly grounded in scientific knowledge. But genetic modification of plants does not merely affect the outward appearance, and I would assume the same is true of human genetic engineering. Genetic factors obviously influence intelligence, temperament and other interior traits. Is it outlandish to assume people controlling this technology combine genetics with upbringing in a controlled environment to produce personalities ideally suited to many different roles in society beyond docile manual laborer?

          I know for a fact that not all famous actors are descended from royalty or have elite family connections. Considering the sheer volume of quality actors needed to feed the propaganda beast, this wouldn’t be possible. But long-term A-list stars like, say, Robert Redford or Warren Beatty, need to be more than just decent actors and pretty faces. Their personal lives (fictionalized or otherande) are woven into the whole of the propaganda fabric. It’s a level of worldwide attention (and deception) that most people in their right minds would not want–for themselves or their progeny.

          And this brings me to another question I’ve had. How many royal or elite families, highly educated in the way the world works, really WANT to turn their kids into propaganda puppets? They don’t need money and can hardly be enthralled by the praise and adoration of the common rabble they hold in contempt. If I were an elite, I might feel a bit mortified if my offspring became the next Elvis Presley or Tom Cruise. But a genetically modified creature I’d scraped off a little DNA for? Sure, why not.

          Liked by 1 person

      3. The lottery example really does hold to this point. A match of 4 numbers is 1 in 36,000, but a match of 5 numbers is 1 in 11 million. This match is of the latter variety, as are many of the matches in your work, Mark.

        Like

  1. Where is the idea coming from a Hollywood director chooses his actors from a pile of open applications?

    What about the idea the pre-selection of available actors is already done by lower ranking casting bureaus and thus the non-golden ratio ones are filtered out leaving a by definition biased (data selection) group?

    I am not dismissing “genetic engineering”, but knowing these sci-fi stories come from a bunch of proven liars about exactly that kind of bluff (Nukes, Space travel, vaccines, cancer research, fantastical novels, etc.), I wouldn’t put too much trust in their statements. I’d rather buy a second hand Bulgarian car tbh.

    Like

    1. Gaia, are you saying the whole field of genetics and DNA testing and genomes and such is suspect in your view? I’m neutral, just curious.

      Like

      1. Suspect I would say is every science (or scientism?!) that is presented to us as working, but is in the hands of a select group of white coats with “magic”, “special”, “secret” language and knowledge.

        That is where I see the analogy with Nukes and Space travel.

        I am not using one faulty claim (belief in Nukes) as an argument, ScottRC. It is just to paint the bunch of psyopaths that has fooled us over and over. I am not claiming “wrong in one, wrong in all”.

        Where exactly lie the lines of science (proven genetic engineering) vs. scientism (stories as genetically modified humans) is an interesting area to explore.

        Just supposing the latter is a fait accompli I find, knowing what we all should know now, a tricky decision imho.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Exactly so, Scott. Gaia is a troll (whether he admits it or not) and is unwelcome in my comments sections. He will come in and fuel every possible doubt he can muster without displaying even the slightest interest in the content itself. As you point out, he came here to reiterate the idea of pre-selection even though I have shown this explains absolutely nothing, and amounts to believing that the Tokarski Phenomenon is all a fantastic coincidence of selecting exactly that face type because it is exactly that face type. Gaia exists to undermine every post here, and he is very quickly wearing out his welcome.

            Like

    2. Gia
      Some people who say nukes are real also say there are genetically engineered humans exist, so the concept of genetically engineered humans is suspect? And some believers in, or liars about, other subjects like vaccines, cancer research, etc., also claim to believe in genetically engineering, so they are probably wrong or lying?

      I think I prefer the OP’s approach to the question. If I had to judge the likelihood of every theory based on whether or not a significant number of people who say they accept it also say they accept theories I do not accept… well, that doesn’t seem like a viable way to construct a worldview.

      Like

  2. In Brave New World, the reason for Bokanovsky’s Process was to produce a reliable supply of semi- or unskilled labor, physiologically equipped for different kinds of manual work, but mentally diminished to the degree necessary so as not to be dissatisfied with the tedium. It was reserved for the lower classes of workers. There was a clear economic motivation in Huxley’s fictional world.

    In all the discussions of look-alikes, I have never seen anyone address the question of why “they” would want to go to the trouble of cloning a class of celebrities. What’s the motivation?

    To produce a reliable supply of pretty people? They ain’t doing that with Matt Damon. To keep the limelight roles of popular media “all in the family”? That can be done full well without genetic engineering. Normal reproduction produces a nice bell curve of human beauty all on its own, with enough specimens anywhere along the curve to fill every conceivable role in the entertainment industry. Why play with DNA? That costs some coin.

    Someone offer me the why …

    Like

    1. This is a terrific question. It assumes an ulterior motive, though. It could be as simple as elites wanting to engineer a truly superior human being. The Damon batch could be so common because it is the go-to template of genetic sequences for facial symmetry that they have on file. If you want more custom work, it is more difficult and more expensive. There are even wilder theories (extraterrestrial), and I should point out that Paris has an “alien” tattoo. Interesting. In terms of this being done for an ulterior motive, I agree this is hard to understand…but there are other ways to look at it.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Since we stand on different sides of the curtain, I don’t think it necessary to explain why they do things. Why JFK? Why Waco? Why Columbine? We are not privy to inside knowledge about why.

      We can speculate. I suspect it is part of TIC, total information control. Every aspect of our electronic media is in some form under control. Maybe entertainment is considered less important than news or schooling, but nothing escapes. All “stars” are preapproved. Fame is handed out, not earned. If they have the ability to manufacture stars, then it just means a tighter hold on that aspect of our lives.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. I keep thinking about the “why” question, even though Mark is correct that the “why” will be forever beyond our purview.

      We know Intelligence owns anyone who is anybody in Hollywood. But the methods of owning people are all flawed, as they must know. Not everyone is motivated by money and power… or at least, not motivated to keep pursuing those things if they’re not on board with the agenda they’re being used to serve. You can use people who are members of elite or royal families, but a) you can’t fill all the important roles in front of and behind the camera exclusively with members of the elite, because only a certain percentage of them will have the talent and inclination to do the work. And what if they decide they hate their families? You can also keep people in line by having something over them–a dirty, shameful, horrific secret, like pedophilia, that would destroy the person’s life if exposed.

      However, I think our leaders understand that fear is not the most effective motivator for long-term obedience. That’s why they go to such great lengths to propagandize us, to convince us we love our enslavement to their system. But they need a fuck-ton of actors, writers, artists and artisans to crank out a constant supply of engaging content that will keep the masses blissfully entertained and numb. They need more such people than they ever have before. It wouldn’t be practical to control all the most successful and powerful entertainers using the traditional methods. But creating human beings who are essentially children of the system itself, and engineering them to happily feed the propaganda machine… well, the question isn’t why, it’s why not?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That puts me in mind of a quote from My Dinner with Andre, where he talks about the inmates building their own prison. Which takes things more in an “organic process” direction.. Away from planning or social engineering, toward it being just the system spontaneously evolving itself.

        Of course it could be a combination vof the two. But which side has the rudder…

        Like

  3. As to why i’d say some of it is for increased sales of movies, products, advertising etc. Consumers crave familiarity. People choose, movies, books, songs, products, brands and Faces they’re familiar with. If these Celebs have that unconscious similar look then that creates a familiarity that many of us can relate to. At some point consumers become briefly tired and oddballs are thrown in for awhile, then back to regular programming and consumption.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Assuming the cloning is for Hollywood consumption is thinking to narrowly. The spook’s can use & abuse these soulless chunks of meat without recourse. Kill one, make another. And cost? Really THEY print the worthless currency for their bankster cousin to ‘loan’ out. Suppose they loan these clones or maybe rent would be a more accurate term. Another assumption is that somehow ALL science is shared w/the outside world. Clues to this cloning lies in the clues given in their media(s) over the past what 80 years? The Zionist have a term for ‘clay men’.

    Like

  5. I’m with Gaia here. All genetic engineering can do is basically what breeders do: inbreeding, which causes lost of alleles and expresses certain attributes and then selection of what is preferable. This works only on species which reproduce frequently which excludes humans. A human being needs about 15-18 years until it can procreate and then it can do so only a couple of times usually producing 1-2 brats every two years. Dogs for instance can procreate after 1-2 years delivering about 6 brats almost every time and then up to 2 times a year. In vitro insemination requires a complicate hormonal therapy, which not always ends successfully and has to be repeated after a break. This are the limits of genetic engineering.
    I know people where the children of one sister look very alike to the other sister or to an aunt or uncle. This similarities just occur occasionally even after some generations and cannot be made on purpose. Also inbreeding always leads to lost of alleles (similar chromosomes) and causes problems, which the elite would prefer to avoid. They probably let some fresh blood in their circles from time to time. Famous people are a small family where everybody ls related to everybody. Some of them look similar because of their family network. No need for genetic manipulation there. Also the good looking ones are as rare there as within the normal people. That’s why there are so many famous ugly actors too.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for the detailed explanation, at least more detail than anyone else, including me, has given. This makes sense indeed.

      Your point about all actors related (all in a loose sense) I share. Miles Mathis and Mark Tokarski have found and identified many more twins than statistically common with “famous” people. The twins could be the result of genetic manipulation, but if that is the case how to explain the domination of twins in the past. Past twins were “luck” or “inbreeding” but modern twins are genetically engineered? Where is that turning point and how to explain this reasonably?

      An unweighted probability analysis is nice as a start, but cannot be the conclusion. “One in 3500”, how is that derived? Why is there no family relation included in this statistic? The probability you look like your grandparents or cousins is much higher than you look like a random person.

      That is even without any (imagined?, propagandized?, real or just bluff?) “genetic manipulation” and inbreeding.

      Also something not to forget with Hollywood actors in general is that they are tiny. Tom Cruise is not really the exception, rather the rule. Especially male actors, of the generation X and older, are very short compared to the mean of the general populus.

      I have shared some videos about this below the latest “Damon Batch” post and they look very fancy and fake, actually.

      Before “we” can establish they genetically engineer actor batches, shouldn’t we know if that technology even exists? I think the crux is in Barbara’s comments about the difference between genetic engineering of animals (mice, flies, etc., a daily practice) and that of humans (which until now merely is an untested hypothesis).

      Like

    2. Barb, if you think genetic engineering isn’t possible on humans, then you just aren’t paying attention. Our entire genome has been sequenced, and this has absolutely nothing to do with how frequently we breed…a puzzling contention there. Your comment tells me that you did not even read the article.

      And Gaia, no…it doesn’t “make sense indeed”. Quite the opposite. Familial explanations quite literally explain nothing of this phenomenon, so your response fuelling this comment is puzzling, especially because your response seems totally unrelated and is your typical schtick to undermine everything. I do not know why you fuel Barb’s comment here…it both doesn’t hold water and doesn’t even reflect having actually read and considered the article. I recommend you think before you fuel comments here, as you do so much on this site. You seem to be doing your thing which amounts to trolling whether you want to call yourself a troll or not. Friendly advice…if all you want is to usurp every comment section with your own ideas that have nothing to do with the merit of the content (and usually try to directly undermine the content), it will wear out very quickly. It has already worn out your welcome in my eyes.

      Like

      1. Mark has roughly calculated the odds of perfect alignment of 7 facial features being around 1 in 10 million. If we imagine a lottery with a jackpot designed to hit once in every 10 million tickets, then we imagine a drawing where 10 million tickets were sold, but suddenly there were DOZENS of unconnected winners! And it turned out they all worked in the same job industry! The lottery commission would immediately know that they had been scammed, and refuse to pay out. This is what we witness with the prevalence of facial doppelgängers in public figures, but the average person does not care to think a little bit harder about what this implies. As Sherlock Holmes would say, “You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear.”

        You may not like it, but I dispute
        1 – a “1 in 10,000,000 chance” – that must be an unweighted probability
        2 – your analogy assumes open access (lottery vs casting process) and a direct relation between winner and chosen actor. Those relations do not exist so the analogy isn’t right:
        a – we know these actors are much more related to each other than they even claim themselves (Miles Mathis, POM)
        b – we should know it is not an open selection process; there is a huge preselection and screening where the ratio of Golden ratio participants will hugely increase. Or in your analogy; those winning tickets were given to the final winners, not acquired by pure chance.
        3 – the lottery commission is who in your analogy? It reads like it is us, the audience. How can that ever be possible? We have no deep insight into that, but we should know it is preselected.
        If the lottery commission is the ‘enemy’; Hollywood studios, then the analogy doesn’t make any sense; why would Hollywood Inc. blow the whistle on a selection process (and possibly genetic make-up on top of that!) they instated themselves?

        You may not like my comments, while other people do. So I won’t hold back, you can shadowban me now as a guest writer, if you please.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I am not going to ban you, but I am going to call you the annoyance and the troll that you are. Matching 4 numbers in the lottery is a 1 in tens of thousands proposition. Matching 5 numbers in a lottery is a 1 in tens of millions proposition. I stand by the strength of my match, and of many of Mark’s matches, and what these things imply. You do not have as many answers as you think you do. You are not as smart as you think you are. All you do is attempt to undermine everyone else so that you can claim to have the answers, but you do not have anywhere near the number of answers that you think you do. Go away, you are an annoying Troll and you are not welcome in the comments of anything I’ve written.

          Like

      2. Fauxlex, is it possible for someone to disagree with you in good faith? Please consider that you may be too quick to assume that anyone with different views has nefarious motives.

        Personally I find that both you and Gaia (and Barb et al) have raised interesting points. Neither of you has put forth any kind of final word on the subject though. I find the point and counterpoint interesting and productive. Even if Gaia WERE definitively a bad faith disruptor, I would rather just see you cooly demolish his ideas, if you can, as opposed to just saying “troll troll troll” over and over. I find it distracting from an otherwise useful discussion.

        Like

        1. It is absolutely okay for someone to disagree with me in good faith. The first comment to this article questioned whether it actually was a 1 in 10 million proposition and I immediately let it through. Gaia is different, he came into immediately fuel preselection and familial explanations basically for the sake of being able to claim he was right and I was wrong. This is his game. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else, even when he has absolutely no reason to be calling into question someone else’s argument. Whether he is intentionally a troll or not, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck. He is a troll and an annoyance and is truly not welcome here.

          Like

        2. And as for demolishing his point, I stand by the strength of my article. I am not going to let him sea lion this question into Oblivion. That is trolling.

          Like

  6. Also, regarding Gaia, I am skeptical about whether Barb’s comment is legitimate. The IP address traces back to a random office rental space in the middle of Germany, which seems like exactly what a proxy server would point back to. Also, the comments came within a half hour of each other even though they point to completely opposite ends of the globe. Also, “Barb” started their comment by saying they agreed with Gaia, but then went on to give a familial explanation when Gaia had actually provided a preselection explanation. The two explanations I specifically countered. I am highly skeptical of this comment, and Gaia’s motives in general. If this is paranoia, so be it. But it definitely feels suspicious. Like I said, Gaia only ever seeks to undermine. Can you think of any legitimate commenters who never contribute anything that supports the points of the content? Yes, he is asking questions, but he is doing so into Oblivion. I do not want Gaia here, and it has nothing to do with someone respectfully disagreeing with me.

    Like

    1. I am also researching the email domain of Barb, and apparently it is banned from some other comment boards due to the problems they’ve had.

      Like

      1. fauxlex, thank you for being so concerned about my internet connections. I mostly write from Germany/Frankfurt where I live and work. I also sign as Barbara Müller. My perspective contradicts many popular views which makes some people angry. Mark banned me last year, Fakeologist did too once, although he let me comment again now. I don’t really care. If I’m allowed to comment and have something to say, I do without getting angry or offensive. My arguments are based mostly on common sense and partly on Wikipedia and such where I sometimes just read between the lines.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. well first, you can be sure, what does not work on animals won’t work on humans either. As is wrote, all genetics does is inbreeding and selection. Monsanto and such spray artificial plasmids on cells to mark them as their own which contaminates the genetics of the cells permanently. Other than that, nothing they tried ever worked. They can’t even create artificial insulin, which is a relatively simple hormone. Genetically created insulin is very poisonous and never used in therapies. As for DNA sequencing, it is like making the hieroglyphics readable. You can see the parts of the code, but you still don’t understand their meaning. DNA fingerprint tests are a fraud. The term “genetic code” became popular after the war when young, eager scientists, children of the in the war depraved bourgeoisie, first found out there are sicknesses which cannot be caused by poison (Latin virus) and invented the theory this sicknesses are caused by corrupted genetic code they called “virus” to keep the popular term and this code is encoded in an organic acid known as DNA which cells generate when they reproduce themselves. This theory was soon disproved when other scientists found out the DNA is not stable and changes for instance under stress conditions or even spontaneously. Yet the mainstream still teaches us there is a genetic code and DNA is a synonym for it. And virus became popular as a small, invisible pathogen. There are no pathogens and sicknesses are always individual problems. You cannot infect yourself with a sickness from an other person as you cannot infect yourself with his broken leg. But back to genetics. In reality we don’t understand how it happens that some species look similar, that some attributes reappear in future generations. And we cannot influence that on purpose. So if you now find similar looking actors it does not mean they are products of some genetic manipulation. Even if you use the sperm from Brad Pitt, you cannot be sure the children will look like him. Occasionally it happens that way or the children of the children may look like Brad Pitt, but there is no way to control this. Also there are people everywhere looking like famous people without any known relations. My colleague looks very similar to Gwyneth Paltrow for instance. I also know a guy who looks like Phil Collins. This people would easily pass the “Markowski test”.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. BMuller, as before, you speak with utter certainty about matters for which certainty does not exist. Before you claimed that DNA evidence was fake, even as I saw with my own eyes that it solved a monstrous crime. People around me begged that I ban you, but I did not do so until you went off on that nonsensical tirade. It got personal. Already you are annoying faux, so I judge your tenure again to be short lived.

            Like

          3. I am not annoyed as much as confused. The comment has been “all genetics does is inbreeding and selection”, but this is just…wrong. You can build a case all you want on a faulty premise and it’s not really going to bother me. I’ll just move on. Maybe worth a very technical follow-up regarding genetic engineering techniques, but if the commenter wants to build an argument on a faulty foundation, I’m not going to be too worried about this or that point. As you said Mark, it is pretending there is complete certainty on something far, far from certain or correct. Too misguided for me to engage with. Moving along.

            Like

          4. Mark, I understand that you are very sensitive about your own personal case and I tried many times to explain that if they solve a crime they don’t have to tell you the truth about how they solved it. Why is this so offensive to you?
            This paper concerns human genetic engineering, right? So tell me, how is it done? What do they do to create a batch of similar humans? If you breed Labradors and you use a pair of black ones, you’ll usually get some golden and brown puppies too or even puppies without the classic Labrador look. No matter how racy the parents are. There is no guarantee for a clean transformation of the attributes except you use genetically depleted species, which is how breeders work, but then the offspring won’t be very healthy. Breeders always cross hybrids at the end of chain in hope to complete the missing chromosomes. This never works 100% and that’s why racy pets usually have a shorter live expectancy. That’s why Dalmatians often get blind. Why should TPTB do that to their own offspring?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Your thoughts about how they solved the crime against my family is utter nonsense and blind speculation. I urge that you read my piece on the Bill Cosby accusations, and how in 26 cases where he supposedly drugged and raped a woman, there were no police reports, and no rape kits, in other words, no physical evidence. The Rape Kit is central to all rapes, and is SOP whenever one is committed. For you to sit high on your perch and claim that since you’ve decided that DNA evidence is not real, that it was not used in our case, is the height if inductive logic along with smug and offensive.

            https://pieceofmindful.com/2019/12/01/the-bill-cosby-accusations/

            Regarding facial characteristics and matches, you’re doing the same thing. What faux and I have done here is to bring evidence to the table. We then speculate on how this evidence came about. Imagine my delight when Matt Damon came on Jimmy Fallon dressed as Tom Brady. All three of them are in the Damon Batch. They know this, and are taunting us. We are on one side of the curtain, not the other. So are you, but you sit there and offer profound hard rock conclusions based on the same lack of inside knowledge that we are faced with. You need to humble up.

            https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/02/11/matt-damon-impersonates-tom-brady-on-kimmel-live/

            Like

          6. …and again: how does human genetic engineering work? I explained what is possible and what not. What was wrong there? Was my explanation of the origins of the term “genetic code” wrong, for instance? What if there is no “code” at all ?
            I previously asked you some simple questions concerning DNA: How do they save DNA fingerprint data in databases? Why two DNA tests of the same probe never lead to same pattern in gel electrophoresis? Never got any answer from nobody.
            As for solving crimes, once they know who did it or who didn’t do it, any explanation will look reasonable. They won’t tell you how they really work, will they? If asking an oracle would be juridical, that would do too. Please don’t get mad at me just because I’m not buying the DNA fingerprint story. I explained why many times. Regards. Barbara.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. I realize that I will never be able to prove anything related to whether the comment is genuine. My greater point is that Gaia is detrimental to an honest debate on this blog, and has shown this over and over.

      Like

  7. “Paris Jackson is the lens by which all aspects of the Tokarski Phenomenon can be put into focus. She is clear proof that genetic engineering can edit polygenic traits such as skin color, and should leave no doubt that genetic engineering can modify traits such as facial alignment.”
    AFAIK, no real research just an OP-ED piece… and that’s fine. I would ask: What were the biotech tools used to change the genome in this particular case (Pars)? What genes were inserted/removed? etc, etc.
    “She is clear proof”…. “should leave no doubt”… Hmmm… At least not for me after reading the content of the article. Not facts presented, just opinions. After all, if I have learned something is that often times, the simplest explanation is the answer. I could believe MJ is the biological father wihtout GE,,,, Why? Well, to be believable Fiction has to make sense, whereas the TRUTH does not have to.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A fair point, and I think it would require a very detailed and scientific article in and of itself to go over the genetic engineering techniques that would be behind this. My point is more that when you view something from a certain lens and suddenly everything comes into focus, it is extremely meaningful. But you are right, there is much more work to be done on this topic before I can truly say it leaves no doubt.

      This lens DID put it into focus. Paris Jackson and Olivia Wilde genuinely were my first attempt, and they are a stunning match.

      Like

        1. I would also add that if indeed the genetic engineering is taking place by some of the noble houses; it must be due to the fact that they took note centuries ago about what happened to the Hapsburgs and even earlier to the House of Trastamara for their agressive inbreeding and wanted a workaround solution against Mother Nature. These tropes in Hollywood now, may well be just the testing samples for what they would have down the road in store. Who knows… just speculation from our part.

          Like

  8. The photo below was sent to me last night by Steve Kelly. It is of Tiki and Ronde Barber, both former NFL players and identical twins. I’ve done zero work on this but the first thought that went through my mind was “Duane ‘The Rock’ Johnson.” But I am less intrigued by that as I look at them more. I will check it out, however.

    Barber twins

    Here’s another pairing, same results as Olivia Wilde/Paris Jackson – perfect alignment of features: Charlie Sheen/Pierce Brosnan.

    Like

  9. You guys are close but still missing a lot. Don’t get stuck on the faces. It’s real and you now can see it. There’s way more that as Jack NICK ol son said. You can’t handle the truth. Nick is another name for Satan. st. nick etc. This is straight from the Bible. There are two major sides at war here. Those of the father and those of the fallen. Most intellectuals dismiss this out of hand because of pride and arrogance in their own reasoning abilities. However, this is one of Satan’s biggest tricks. He is the king of liars and will use your own weaknesses to convince you. Most of you deep thinkers just rolled your eyes. Wake up and believe it. I’m not telling you what side to pick. That’s your choice but to think it’s a fairy tale is a huge mistake. I have shown my evidence here and tried to show those that seek the truth where to find it. I am involved and not in a good way.
    They tell you everything in the media.
    Avatar the movie is a HUGE clue. They walk among us using Avatars. Hollywood may have been named after the holly tree for making magic wands but it also stands for Hologram. It’s how they mask their true appearance. Think the movie They Live. Yes they are reptiles…. just like the Bible said. There will come a time that all things will be revealed. Soon. They travel across multiple dimensions using alternate time lines to produce a desired outcome. They do eat humans and drink human blood. Preferably that of a virgin. The facial template that you refer to is another form of biblical mockery. It is the face of Jesus that you repeatedly see in these actors. They have his dna and clone him constantly.they use his cloned flesh and blood to remain immortal. The wicker man is another film to watch. Nick Cage. Nick in a cage. Antichrist reference as to him being released on the world. Many many many references in movies.
    In summary the facial thing is a treadstone towards the real truth. Don’t get stuck on it. It’s not just a bunch of rich people’s kids inbreeding and keeping all of the spoils for themselves. It’s that but way more at stake. -watcher

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Most that posters (writers) seem to not be spiritually aware. That ‘fake’ thing comes into play an awful lot. Saturn & Kubrick. Tapping into their realm is not difficult, but that takes an open mind to a world you cannot see (yet). Keep the demon/shape shifters out of the conversations. Its one of the set rules. Bill from Chicago aka Trample on Snakes had some great stuff on YT.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Let’s say I grant you all that watcher… So this cosmic battle has been ongoing for centuries? And is now being played out on the field of modern tech, plus mass media? Does it have an endpoint, or is it going to comtinue in some 21st and 22nd century versions, and so on forever?

      Like

      1. That end point is a the discretion of the father. No one knows for sure as free will is also at play. Just know he sees the lack of support for his ways. When he runs out of patience he will start the end game. Look around….. He wants his children back. All of them but pride and arrogance will again be the downfall of those who rebelled initially. They will never admit their mistake and he will destroy them and all who are supporting them. The face you don’t know in these pictures is me. Do I know what I’m talking about? You decide. I’ll pay for this so I hope you use it for good.
        https://photos.app.goo.gl/Haipn7UsnjLF4mKY6

        Liked by 1 person

        1. End Game is now. As in the time of Noah, so shall the end of days. Wrong has become right, to the letter. But, the majority do not believe due to programing by their academia. The same academia they rely upon to research the very elites that post the geni/Wiki sources they use. The cloning was taught to mortals by hybrids (Fallen) as you are aware.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. I know a few genuine identical twins, so I am unsure of the relevance here. No idea if this relates to what I’m pointing out, but mainly it doesn’t. I am referring to the molding of faces via genetic engineering. Although, granted…other genetic engineering techniques like cloning and twinning I think would be much simpler than facial symmetry in the wrong hands.

      Like

      1. I think I introduced the twinning matter, Faux. Sorry. It is indeed unrelated. The devil-related stuff as put forth above by Watcher above is also a detour, nonsense as I see it. I doubt Satanic worship is anything more than a cover for Intelligence activities. I think Mathis covered this pretty well, and it came out in spades in the Son of Sam case, a fake serial killer.

        Like

        1. It is interesting though about the names of those two very prominent actors he mentions. Even “Jack” is a name for Satan I think, so Satan Satan’s son, for a great performer with a devilish face.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. Or the satanic is spun into a Hollywood make believe as a form of cover. Look at the run the Vatican/Roman catholic blend has had the past 2,000 years. That take’s mote than great fear, torture & orators.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Jus primae noctis- Right of first night- a “law” giving nobles the right to knock up virgin peasant girls on their wedding night was allegedly practiced in medieval Europe. A very crude form of eugenics and genetic manipulation, the idea being the peasant stock’s heirs would improve with a splash of noble blood.
    It’s thought today that the claims of primae noctis are unfounded as the first mention of the practice was in the 16th century, long after the time in which this supposedly happened.
    What’s interesting to me is that the 16th century could support the idea of selective breeding in writing, as there was never any thought of “free speech” being the right of anyone beneath the level of, say, the king himself.
    (But even kings have advisers and those advisers usually have the combination to the treasure house locks, so even the king had to measure his words.)
    So any printed material had to go through committee to see the light of day and that makes me curious why this particular myth was propagated.
    It likely entered the reading public’s consciousness through elaborate condemnation of the barbarous past the Renaissance was providing a correction for. Even so, the concept circulated amongst those licensed to carry literacy. These readers would be vetted as much as the material they were reading and in this insular logic of mine, these readers were being allowed to expand and improve on the concept, as a problem is faster solved with as many minds as are available to help solve it.
    The motivation would be the same as the noble rapists: to improve the stock- and in turn, do a Huxley on the larger labor force once the pick and choose menu of traits became available*.
    If any of this is actually possible, if a cluster of inbreds wanted to maintain absolute control but with impregnable concealment, why not breed a buffer race that would do as they were told, through blood, through cradle to grave management, and no responsibilities beyond their creator’s demands?

    *Joe Atwill, who I do not agree with on everything, including the authorship of the gospels, does suggest that the avalanche of autism we see today is part of the Huxlian process of creating an Epsilon class of mentally slow laborers. For the elite, a Paris Jackson would be on offer from a variety of mix and match genetic combo platters, but for a mass reduction in genetic development, mass vaccination may indeed be the ticket.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A random scattering of royal genes, still, would not produce the lookalikes we see. I also see that a good number of them do not reproduce. I’d forgotten all about Atwill. Must pay him a visit. Has anything new happened over there?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have to completely agree. A deep background of royal genes does not explain the phenomenon at all, although I am not questioning whether many public figures may be related in such a way (whether their faces align or not). They would all have to be siblings for familial relations to explain it, and as I said even siblings does not make sense for its own reasons. Even if we grant that they are siblings, this still implies genetic engineering since we’re talking about siblings in totally unrelated families and separated by several decades. Cloned eggs with heavy modifications (remember they usually do not resemble each other outside of the facial alignment) and dropped into connected families. No matter how you slice it, genetic engineering is at play.

        Like

        1. Yes, CRISPR “ALREADY at play.” (emphasis added)
          “The researchers further report a variety of successful edit types in human cells and primary mouse neurons, including all 12 possible ways to replace one DNA letter with another, insertions of new DNA segments up to 44 DNA letters long, precise deletions of up to 80 DNA letters, and modifications combining these different types of edits.”
          https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/10/new-crispr-genome-editing-system-can-target-disease-causing-genetic-variations/

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Atwill has made great progress in showing Hitler and the Nazis were largely fabricated. I like to think we had some influence. I look for his most recent YouTube interviews and convert them to Mp3’s. He’s even improved his arguments for the Flavian authorship of the gospels, though I still don’t know who the original readership was supposed to be. His Shakespeare stuff doesn’t convince.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. PS: Just to be clear, my “you’re full of shit” comment first appeared here under your remarks, as WordPress sometimes places comments intended to land elsewhere at the end of a thread. It was directed at BMuller, and I relocated it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I really want to find out what you mean by this, Charlie. Further up in the chain, Tyrone said something about Royals having the first crack at impregnating commoners virgins hundreds of years ago. Mark responded basically to say that this had nothing to do with what we see in facial alignment, and I agreed with Mark. How is that my having a problem with the commenter and not with the critique? Because I don’t exactly understand how that was even supposed to be a critique in the first place. Nothing is said about why this (Royals banging commoner virgins) would have anything to do with facial alignment. Where is the proof that deep relatives show a similarity to this level in facial alignment? They don’t, to put a fine point on it. So if that was supposed to be a critique, I sure don’t understand why you think I was hating the commenter instead of the critique. It was not a good critique.

        Like

    1. Appears to be a dead ringer for Roger Moore. I’ll take a look. what we are finding, I think, is that most of our “stars” are one of several clones, right now I am at seven, from memory, Jayne Mansfield/Betty White, Matt Damon (with Paul Newman or Rock Hudson is the earliest of that batch … James Dean doesn’t quite work), Charlie Sheen/Pierce Brosnan/Michael J.Fox/Jason Bateman, Inger Stevens/Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren/Jennifer Lawrence, Dalida/Judy Woodruff, and now Paris Jackson/Olivia Wilde. We were also messing with Stephen Parent (Manson victim)/Richard Branson, who is a dead ringer for John Denver except that skull sizes do not match.

      Like

  12. Another thought….is another possibility for hidden technology amazingly high-quality plastic surgery? If some of these Hollywood types DO correspond to some sort of “Golden Mean” of facial feature dimensions, could some of the hidden technology involve incredible plastic surgery techniques?

    The self-help guru Tony Robbins once explained that the highest-end plastic surgeons do work that is quite different than the boob-job/nose-job assembly lines for the masses. The best plastic surgery “artists” to the stars supposedly often just make small un-noticeable tweaks to enhance facial symmetry….like raising one ear slightly. And by increasing symmetry from, say, 88% to 94% someone really becomes more attractive. Maybe they can do this but even more….making influential people match some ideal? And maybe intervening surgically early in life can have good effects? (It also reminds me a bit of when toddlers with “flat heads” are put into skull reshaping helmets.)

    Anyway, just a thought.

    Like

    1. I think if we get to the point where there are significant genetic modifications going on to engineer these beings, then there would be not much need for such advanced plastic surgery. In fact, such a plastic surgeon would only be needed for people who did not already have these genetic advantages. I feel that reality strongly points to genetic manipulation among this crowd. The “Golden Ratio” ideas are only silly if you consider it the sole explanation for how these people became stars in the first place. Once you realize that they are destined to be stars, the question becomes how they all come out so perfect (and similar in facial symmetry). All I can think that’d fill in that blank is an advanced generic engineering program already underway with elites.

      Like

      1. @Fauxlex, so would you say that these people (like Matt Damon, Tom Brady, etc.) probably DO look like a Golden Mean? In other words, would you disagree with the commenters who said “Matt Damon is not good looking?”

        It seems like there are three different, but related factors:
        1) How symmetrical the faces are, just left to right, which IS one aspect of beauty
        2) How “perfect” and beautiful the faces are in terms of some ideal ratios between eyes, nose, mouths, length, width, etc.
        3) How closely the faces of different members of these influential batches MATCH each other.

        My sense is that you might be saying that the genetic engineering is pretty advanced and is accomplishing all three of these things, while some commenters, and I think maybe Mark too, might be saying that these people AREN’T necessarily that great on number two (Golden ratios) but are just getting the one gene spice known to enhance symmetry and that’s having the side effect of making them all look so much alike.

        Am I interpreting your view (and the other view) correctly?

        Like

        1. There needs to be a separation made between being good-looking and having a symmetrical face. I do not think Matt Damon is particularly good looking, but I do think that he has a very symmetrical face. In fact, all of the celebrities that you would expect to do have extremely symmetrical faces. There is too much symmetry and similarity among pretty much all of them as a subset. We can do a lot of pairing to find this. What we’re left with is just too much similarity among unrelated people overall. It is a difficult argument to make to people, because we are talking about a tendency here. It is subtle, but there. I wouldn’t call this dream face a Golden Ratio per se, because this implies an explanation unto itself. Implying they got where they got as stars simply because of their symmetrical faces. They DO all have the same, generic facial symmetry. We could say that Hollywood just looks for exactly this type, but then why do they seem to be born from connected families? It leaves us with almost paradoxically conflicting information. They should have far more dissymmetry than this, if they are all unrelated stars, but they’re all unbelievably symmetrical. How could a bunch of people who are unrelated have children who are suddenly within almost a single generation these absolutely beautiful and perfect offspring? This reeks of genetic engineering by elites. As mentioned, the same go-to sequences are inserted. Imagine that they can know exactly what each offspring will look like as an embryo. Then, you could say “No, the eyes are too far apart” and insert genes to fix this. Take that example for literally every trait, and you would see what we’re seeing in these perfect elite offspring. That’s my take anyway. Whether they are even related to the parents is the next question, and a much tougher one to answer.

          Like

  13. Final comment:

    I was very interested by two discussion topics in this thread that keep coming up but are hard to resolve. I’d love more thoughts on these two topics, in this thread or in a new post and new discussion.

    1) If indeed there is a Damon batch and others like it, and it’s not just a “pretty people” coincidence but it has something to do with elites, families, genetic engineering, etc., what do we think is the NATURE of the batch?
    a) regular people selected FOR beauty or talent then initiated/bribed/blackmailed etc into serving the elites?
    b) children of elites, “enhanced” to play their roles and enjoy their money and fame?
    c) a class of slaves/soldiers/front men for elites, who are either bastards or clones or genetically manipulated test tube creations?

    2) Are the “evil elite” really just thieves and families and Intelligence agencies, like Miles Mathis says, who use scary topics like Satanism and Pedophilia to distract people from the more mundane truth that they are just looting the public treasury?

    Or IS there something to the theories that the elites ARE evil? A Satanic cult or other secret religion really MIGHT be a way of enhancing cooperation among secret society members. A criminal, blackmail-able, sexual initiation really MIGHT be a way for secret societies to control their highly placed members.

    Anyway, I’m interested in what POM writers and readers think about these questions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, the elite are evil (Cult of Saturn) their rule over us bears this out. Project Taos ignores this obvious evil & that is a flag on him-them. ‘Geni’ & connect the name game? WHO is providing the names of families that go back 500 or more years for these researchers? The same elite. Most know this by now.

      Like

  14. Fascinating discussion. Great post and thought-provoking comments. Here are a few thoughts and questions that occur to me.

    1) Great concept overall. It’s sort of like Occam’s Razor combined with “don’t dismiss any explanations just because they seem ‘out there.’” As Fauxlex points out, both the common man explanation and “the Families” explanation fall short. So we have to consider possibilities that would have greater explanatory power, even if that DOES mean being open to the possibility of hidden advanced genetic manipulation tech.

    2) It would make perfect sense that if this technology existed it might be hoarded by the rich, used secretly, etc.

    It seems clear to me that the Aldous Huxley Epsilon Agenda is in effect and non-elites are indeed subjected to various toxins in order to weaken or retard them in various ways to make them easy to control.

    But surely the incentives are even greater in the other direction—if there are ways to create super-people (or even just super-good-looking people) through diet, drugs, or gene-editing, that would be even better than just dumbing down everyone else.

    The movie Gattaca seems like an interesting one on this topic. The focus was on the genetic excellence of the elites.

    3) I agree with the very first comment… that an important question is what exactly the odds of perfect facial alignment are.

    There’s been a lot of good work on facial alignment over time at this site. What I’ve found most compelling historically is Mark’s work suggesting, “hey, these two “different” people look identical.” Like Janis Joplin/Amy Goodman. That stuff is very convincing for identifying resurrected zombies.

    But the Damon batch concept is harder to interpret because I don’t know what it means that if you line up Matt Damon and Tom Brady’s pupils, their lips and chins are the same distance below the eyes. It suggests that they might be connected in some way, but it’s not as specific a question as, “is this newscaster the exact same person as that rock star who “died” at 27?

    I think it would be very interesting to apply some serious computing power to this. It would be great if a computer could AUTOMATICALLY line up the pupils and then measure the 7 points of potential facial alignment, and do this quickly for large sample sizes. Then we could more easily compare the odds of perfect facial dimension matches among various populations: 1) general population; 2) good looking but non-elite types (pretty waitresses, low end fashion models, reality TV stars; 3) big Hollywood stars out there pushing various propaganda; 4) the Damon batch, the Perry batch, etc.

    While the references here to 1 in 3400 and 1 in 10 million feel intuitively reasonable, I’d love to see more statistical data. And, in the absence of more data, I’d still love to hear more from Mark and Fauxlex on their take on the numbers. I agree with Fauxlex that going from 4 to 5 to 6 to 7 points of facial match changes the odds a lot. And even 1 in 3400 is pretty long odds.

    4) Another piece of work that would be interesting would be to compare the Damon and Katy Perry batches TO various “Golden Means” and fibonacci numbers and facial symmetry ratios and “good looking” ratios. Are the facial structures of these people just unusually similar to each other, or are they also “perfect” in terms of the geometry of beauty.

    It would be interesting to know if the Damon batch all has identical but imperfect facial dimensions or if it really does represent some kind of geometric ideal.

    5) Aside, Bill Clinton was said to have a highly symmetrical face….some analyst years ago said he could have been a model given that his facial symmetry was so unusually high.

    6) I like Fauxlex’s theory here and also the way Mark describes it, it seems like maybe symmetry was the goal, and the side effect of that goal was…the faces with the “symmetry” gene modification all have the same alignment.

    In a weird way, it might almost suggest that this gene tech IS still rudimentary….more advanced than what we know about or have seen, but not yet sophisticated enough to hide these doppelgangers. Maybe they are going for symmetry, maybe they are going for a breed of controllable clones, but either way, the result is a boring sameness in face shape and dimension even though these people don’t look alike. Maybe they really do only have a couple of gene sequences for symmetry that they know work, so they keep using them.

    7) It seems weird to me that there even would BE a set of genes controlling facial ratios. I might have thought it would be easier to get identical hair or skin color. I might have thought that facial ratios might be impacted by nutrition and gene expression in utero, with someone’s chin, say, growing longer or not depending on nutrients, hormones, etc.

    TL; DR: 1) It would be great to know more about the odds of facial dimension matches in various populations 2) It would be great to know how “perfect” or imperfect these common Damon batch or Perry batch facial dimensions are relative to various mathematical ratios researchers have proposed as being perceived most beautiful.

    Like

  15. I want to make one thing clear here: I said that Matt Damon “is not that good looking.” That’s are from true, and subjective anyway. What I should have said is that Damon, unlike his counterparts who share his facial plate, doesn’t appear to be aging well. They all look pretty much alike, and they are all good looking, even the women. Paul Newman got better looking as time went on.

    Damon Newman 2

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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