A week or so ago, I posted about the bizarre Kamala Harris interview from July 18th. While the headline questioned whether she was a clone, I tried to be as lukewarm on the cloning explanation as possible. Truth be told, I wasn’t exactly sure what was going on. I wanted to know what the readers thought, and you all did not disappoint.
In the comments to that post, people had said that it was a Deepfake of Kamala. I adamantly disagreed. I noticed certain tics that you would only see out of an actor…an impersonator, and this is not the kind of thing you would see out of a completely artificial Deepfake. They would make the performance as solid as possible.
After some fresh research, I wanted to apologize for disagreeing so strongly. It clouded my judgment. I am writing this post to walk back some of my disagreement. While I reiterate that Kamala was not a total Deepfake, I completely agree that it was a CGI facial overlay. Down this rabbit hole, there is much more to find…
The oddities we are seeing in the mainstream media (where the leaders do not look like themselves) are happening because they ARE being impersonated by actors. Actors with CGI overlays over their faces to make them appear as the person they claim to be. Think of the technology available on your smartphone that can make you look like a puppy, except weaponized by the military establishment. There seems to be a new boldness in the mainstream media in peddling this kind of thing. I never watched the mainstream media closely enough to catch this kind of thing before, but now it seems like you could tune in daily and find it.
Take the case of another recent VP interview, this time with current VP Mike Pence. There is a video to go along with this, and the person astutely points out that this is not Pence. The neck is all wrong, the hair looks fake, the ears look fake, and there is an area of the face which seems totally different than the rest. This is a Pence impersonator with a CGI overlay over his head. This makes the ears, hairline, and face (eyes, nose, mouth) seem to match. However, careful examination will show that something is just not right.
The neck is actually an ideal place to compare, because the CGI overlay rarely goes that far down. When it was previously speculated in the comments here that the Tom Hanks SNL appearance utilized similar technology, the neck was once again a key point of comparison.
I want to be clear with the readership…I agree. The mainstream media is putting out interviews with impersonators who have CGI masks over their faces.
You have to wonder whether they recruit out of the SNL-reject crowd. I can attest to having been involved in improvisational comedy at one point in my life, and you would be stunned at how easy it is for some people to flawlessly impersonate a famous person. You would never realize the switch if you couldn’t see their faces.
The real masks we need to be worried about are these CGI masks. A general reminder, you absolutely cannot trust anything you see on television as being 100% real. Trust your own eyes, and even then we need to be somewhat guarded.
When reality is being distorted to this level, those like us who see through the act are in a precarious position. We wield the truth, and the truth can be a weapon that cuts through a staggering level of deception. At the same time, when the herd believes that the puppets are real, the gulf between us widens and it becomes very easy to paint us as lunatics.
These are dangerous times. It feels as though it is all accelerating at a pace never before seen. Buckle up. Who knows what is next?
PS: Do not think that I am disavowing the “clone” concept. We have thoroughly established already that genetic engineering is already rampant among elites, and I would not put cloning out of the question at all. I simply wanted to clarify and separate the topics of CGI overlay, true “Deepfake” technology, and cloning.
Piece of Mindful 
Nah. That person just needs to adjust her TV settings.
LikeLike
I still don’t feel great about this interview, or any interview on mainstream media being legit. Maybe the Pence one is legit. I’m still on the fence about it, and I wholeheartedly believe it’s accelerating in use.
LikeLike
That first vid is pretty interesting. Definitely two real people being blended at some point. First woman is real and second is real. Seems well done though. Hard to tell where the seam is. The giveaway is the hair disappearing from the rubber mask right after the eyes pop out. Deepfake combined with mask reveal?
LikeLike
Digital matte overlay (or something simiar) used in The Running Man movie.
The technology has been around (not just the idea) for a while.
You think that’s JUST a movie you’re watching? The Truth Is Out There
LikeLike
LikeLike
Fauxlex, it seems like you’re trying a little too hard here. First you pushed the idea of actress Kamala double, now based on reader feedback you’ve done a 180 flip and now you’re arguing for CGI Kamala double. Either way, your point is that some videos of Kamala may not really be of Kamala.
Please bear with me here. I want to share my reaction, my logic, and my question for you, as respectfully as possible.
At a time when almost every politician from every party has eagerly embraced virus terror propaganda, lockdowns, and economic destruction, we already know that they are fake, hostile, and controlled by people other than their constituents. So I think to myself, what does it really MATTER if some of them are clones, twins, actors playing actors, or CGI deepfakes? It’s not like the “good” ones have been replaced by the fakes. They are ALL bad and they’ve all been bad all along.
Here in the “truth community,” there’s some well-founded skepticism of those who focus endlessly on some of these themes you’re hitting so hard this week. The powers that be have been pushing the concept of deepfakes a lot harder than independent researchers have been. Publications and groups like Brookings, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, the World Economic Forum (Davos), and the Government Accountability Office!
With Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell back in the news, there’s good reason to suspect that sexual blackmail is one tool used to “organize” and “motivate” politicians. And in these tumultuous times, there seems to be a fear that some of the videos may soon come out, instead of just being used for control. Some argue that all the media hype about deepfakes is a pre-emptive attempt to lay the groundwork for the plausible deniability defense.
Here’s Hillary Clinton being particularly transparent with the pre-emptive “it wasn’t me” defense: “I think it’s going to be the same as 2016,” Clinton said. “I’m going to show you in these flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they’re on the dark web and nobody can find them, but you’re going to see them and you’re going to see that person doing these horrible things.”
And now we’ve got Kamala, deep within the Clinton orbit, who had more Clinton staffers on her primary campaign than any other primary candidate, who is a leading contender for the VP slot behind a near-80-year-old with dementia, poised for potential power. There’s lots of speculation out there about how power will be wielded by and through Biden’s VP.
There’s just one problem. There are rumored to be tapes of Kamala having public group sex at a sex club she attended with then boyfriend and political benefactor Willie Brown. Awkward. But maybe she’ll claim that those videos are fake? Not “the real” Kamala?
Fauxlex, most of what you’ve written on this site has been very sensible. But in this particular case I’m struck by the fact that you’re parroting the handwringing from both mainstream sites and obvious disinfo sites, and that you’re doing it in a way that would actually HELP Kamala Harris, not “expose” her. You framed your deepfake handwringing as “a clue!” that the powers that be may want Kamala Harris to be VP, but that’s been obvious to everyone for months.
I’m sorry to sound accusatory. There’s way too much finger pointing among us paranoid truth-seekers. Please don’t take this as impugning YOU or your motives. What I’m really questioning here is this particular TOPIC.
It’s true that technology keeps improving in CGI and deepfakes and masks and cloning and more. Which is interesting. And it’s true that all of this is potentially helpful to the controllers and narrative spinners. But given the hostility of ALL politicians toward their constituents, it hardly matters “which” Kamala appears. None of them have our interests at heart.
So here are my questions for you, should you be inclined to engage on any of them.
1) Big picture, what do you think about the “real” Kamala? Why do you suppose she eagerly supports the virus terror propaganda, the lockdowns, the maskings, and the economic destruction? Who do you suppose she answers to? How do you suppose they control her? And don’t you think some of these questions are more important than whether or not she has any body doubles of whatever technological provenance?
2) Do you have any thoughts about what I’m saying, that your topic here is one we’ve seen a fair amount of from the establishment and from known disinfo sites and that it’s a topic which ironically might HELP the establishment more than expose it? Again, I’m not trying to be accusatory–deepfakes are a thing and it makes sense to discuss them here in the alternative blogosphere as much as anywhere else. But I’m just wondering if you have any reactions to the logic I’ve tried to walk through in my comment here.
LikeLike
First of all, I should have never used the word clone originally. That is why I posted again to clarify that I lean towards a CGI explanation. Biden DID end up picking Kamala, which was my main point. Whatever the hell shenanigans we were seeing strongly implied that it was already known Kamala was the pick. And she WAS the pick. My logic bore out there.
As for Kamala as a politician, I really don’t care. I don’t really believe any politician actually stands for anything beyond expanding their own power. Plus, like you said, they are all in someone’s pocket.
Look, the clone thing was stated with a question mark, and quite intentionally. If I’m in alignment with some other site it’s purely accidental. I tend to not follow many sites even in the conspiracy world. I am only noticing what many notice…strange anomalies, and trying to call attention to it. My only intention here was to walk back that I was specifically saying clone and only clone. Others said Deepfake, and I wanted to apologize to them that I had disregarded it. My favorite explanation right now is CGI facial overlays. I genuinely do not believe that all the interviews you see on CNN are genuine interviews with the actual person.
If all I accomplish is starting a conversation about all this, I am fine with that.
If you think I’ve hit several topics in a row that you’ve labeled as disinfo, that bums me out because it’s a coincidence. I don’t even follow the major conspiracy sites. My posts come from my own head just paying attention. I stand by the CGI being the top explanation, and I’m actually really proud that I so strongly predicted the implication that Kamala would be the VP pick, and that came to fruition!
I am not always going to to hit them all perfectly, but I am definitely not under anyone else’s thumb with an agenda. Chalk that one up to the fact that I admittedly had no idea what I was seeing with the Kamala lookalike and I grasped at straws a little bit. I’m not perfect. But I did nail the implication of the lookalike!
Anyway if you are genuinely just commenting out of concern, I hear you. I’m not part of anybody’s agenda, and it honestly makes me question how I ever got to be a writer here. It’s a question I ask myself. I guess you’d have to go to Mark on that one. He let me aboard here with open arms and I completely had not expected it or planned it, but I have found that writing these posts helps me to think out loud and get research into the public sphere. I like it, except for the seemingly infinite number of trolls that seem to have a special interest in me. Honestly, I’ve been very distracted the last few weeks by things going on personally. I don’t think I’ve written anything good in quite awhile, by my own standards. This is why it’s good POM has many writers. I’m not always going to be “on”, but rest assured that I really am writing my own agenda-free thoughts.
LikeLike
Yep Fauxlex called it, Kamala is in. She’ll be in all the media more than ever before, so if there is something fishy going on with her, then POM should be able to identify it.
LikeLike
Since we are all in different stages of our awakening, allow me to interject. I realized Buyden wasn’t Buyden yesterday (misspelling intentional). I kinda knew there was a double, but have been ignoring that particular issue. So now I’m voraciously researching this body double/actor thing. I am finding your analysis of this and other topics thoughtfully done and right now am glued to the screen–haha. I think its absolutely necessary for people to understand that this is happening–so thank you and I would encourage you to keep sharing your work. Its amazing. God Bless you and your family.
LikeLike
All presidents and most very famous people use body doubles. I don’t think it is unusual – in fact, it was two body doubles in Dealey Plaza that day in 1963. But I appreciate your curiosity, and keep at it. The search for truth is a lifelong activity, part of spiritual awakening.
LikeLike