Fun with faces – Dr. Andy Kaufman and Edward Snowden

The above images are of Dr. Andrew Kaufman, the man who has become a de facto leader in the anti-Corona movement, and Edward Snowden, the man said to have hacked the files of the National Security Agency as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. This post will not go into details of that incident other than to refer the reader to this post by Jon Rappoport from 2013. JR will bring your level of incredulity up to appropriate levels.

In the podcast/interview I did with AB of Fakeologist, Markus Allen*, whose website is Escape the New Normal, mentioned that he thought that Snowden looked a lot like Dr. Kaufman. I had never seen such a resemblance, but promised that I would look into it. First, a little bit about my methodology.

*Markus denies offering this information, as does Ab. If that is the case, I do not know where I got it.

My procedure is face splitting, or “facechops,” as Tyrone calls it. I know it appears from the outside to lack rigor, leaving much to the person doing it to fill in to make it look better. I do not do that. I started doing this years ago because I read somewhere, I do not remember where, that after our skulls are fully formed, even as we age, the distance between eye sockets does not change. I tried it on myself in photos of me thirty years apart.

The photo on the left was taken in the late 1970s when I was maybe 28 years old, thereabouts. On the right is me taken some time around 2015 or so, age 65 maybe. Because I am the same person, I tended to have the same facial angle, the same smile, so the match was perfect.

The key in comparison is to get two photos where the subject is looking directly at the camera, and then using MS Paint I set the distance between pupils at one inch. Head angle can cause distortion, making the ears appear higher or lower. There are many points of comparison, such as placement of eyes, nose and chin, head shape, eyebrows. Things like teeth and eye color can be altered by the people involved – I had a lot of dental work done over the years. The resulting facechop below is not as sloppy as it might appear from the outside, and the honesty and integrity of the person doing it count for a lot.

Note the alignment of all features even as I have aged thirty years. (My ear lobes have grown.) There has to be a standard used to avoid simply adjusting photos in size to make them match. My standard is pupil distance – I use the same measurement for both photos, usually one inch as I work. I then copy half of the face from one and paste it on the other in MS Paint. If the result is good, I use it. If not, I don’t monkey with it. I simply do not use it. However, non-alignment of features is good information too, as seen below.

The photos above are said to both be of Paul McCartney. That being the case, if they are indeed photos of the same person, they should line up. As you can see below, they do not.

I have been saying for years now that Paul McCartney is a set of twins, and there is tons of evidence to that effect. It generally lands on deaf ears, as people see not with their own eyes, but through the eyes of authority figures. As a blogger, I am ignored. (By the way, current day aging Macca, McCartney’s nickname, is the guy on the left. The one one the right is still alive somewhere, but was retired.)

So, returning to Kaufman and Snowden, at Markus’s someone’s suggestion, I did the same technique on their images. Frankly, I did not expect much. What a surprise was in store!

Such alignment is rare. Extremely rare. When I have seen it, it has not been an accident. I have done now perhaps a thousand of these, and the alignment I do see is usually among famous people. Maybe if I did it more with regular people I would find it there too.

The biggest shortcoming of my technology is that I cannot be in the room with the people whose faces I measure. I am only looking at facial characteristics, and not measuring skull size. I cannot do anything about that. I could do a lot of sweat labor to find people beside each other who I am facechopping and measure their skulls relative to one another. I suppose to be complete I should do that. But … nah. It’s interesting work, produces interesting and tantalizing information, but is not the bottom line.

Are Kaufman and Snowden one and the same person? Probably not. I have looked at Snowden’s appearance and mannerisms, listened to his voice. He is less bulky than Kaufman, his voice more genteel, his features a little more suave, or “svelt,” as one person put it. Snowden is 5’11”. I have verified this in a roundabout way. Kaufman is said to be 6’2″. To the right is a photo of him with a friend known to be 5’0″ with shoes on. I could put a lot of work into measuring for comparison’s sake, but I don’t have a full image of both, so it would involve guesswork. I think it safe to suggest that he, like me, has a long face, maybe ten inches, and that the beard adds another two inches, and that even there we are only down to the top of the wool cap, beneath which is hair … I make him to be maybe 6’2″.

Another means of comparison is teeth. Notice this would not have worked with my own photos above, as I did not want to go through life with my first set of teeth. However, Kaufman and Snowden each have photos taken recently, so that a comparison might be in order.

Do you see the same differences as me? When Snowden smiles, his upper lip rises on each side of the center. Kaufman’s is a straight line. That could mean fake versus real smile (I cannot tell if either is genuine), but I see a notable difference here. Also notice the protruding lower teeth on Snowden, which are visible when he smiles. It could be that Kaufman has the same feature, merely hidden by his lower lip, but my take here is that these are two different mouths from two different men.

Golden ratio, Fibonacci Sequence?

In 2015 when I first started experimenting with facechops, and we stumbled on the Matt Damon Batch, I was immediately told that everything could be explained by the Golden Ratio, or 1.61803399. My face is ten inches long and six wide at the widest point. 10/6=1.67. I am close to that ratio. People who work this sort of thing break it down further, coming up with ratios inside the face – the distance from eyelashes to bottom of nose over bottom of nose to chin … and many others. In so doing, they give us what they call the perfect face, seen to the left.

OK, that’s beautiful, but not someone I would pursue on looks alone. Many years ago there was a TV show called Gilligan’s Island, and two of the lead characters were Mary Ann and Ginger, seen to the right. The question became, in male eyes, which woman was more appealing – are you a Mary Ann guy (R), or a Ginger (L)? I am for sure a Mary Ann – Ginger and the woman to the left are heavily made up, and know they are beautiful and know we know it. That’s a turnoff for me. Mary Ann is naturally beautiful without makeup, and probably looked great in jeans.

Is there a Golden Ratio that defines beauty for all of us? I don’t know, but I also know that people of ordinary looks get married every day to other people of ordinary looks, and they find each other attractive. The idea behind the GR in movie stars is that stardom is a process of natural selection, and that they rise naturally to the top on looks and merit, and since we have defined beauty by the GR, it should be no surprise that they look so much alike.

There might be some merit to that except for one fatal flaw in the logic – most movie stars are related to most other movie stars, and to presidents and politicians and business moguls too. It is NOT a process of natural selection. They are selected, probably from birth, and handed to us, and by power of suggestion become our idols and ideals.

Above is something I ran across in an eBook some years back – I captured the image but lost the rest. This is what set us off on Matt Damon’s trail … he is related to just about everyone famous. In my opinion, he’s not that good looking, and not a very good actor. But he was at one time a top leading man. Did the Golden Ratio get him there? No. I doubt it. I think it was bloodlines.

Fibonacci Sequence: The Golden Ratio is tied to Fibonacci sequences, by the way. Take any two numbers, say 1 and 4. The next number in a sequence is the sum of the two previous numbers, in this case, 5. Carry it on out … 9, 14, 23, etc. Twenty-four steps out yields 81,790, and twenty-five 132,339, which divided by 81,790 yields 1.6180339 …  there’s that number. Do you see where this is going? Eventually Fibonacci sequences approach the Golden Ratio. I do not know what to make of that. I can only conclude that there is symmetry in life, but that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Batch Brothers?

So we know that Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Edward Snowden are two distinct people whose facial features line up precisely, although their smiles are different. We have done hundreds of hours of work on this blog, “we” being a guy I called “Straight” who used to be a writer here. He identified what we first came to call the “Matt Damon Batch,” a group of celebrities who all, like Snowden and Kaufman above, shared the same facial characteristics. Later, I called them “Bokanovsky Brats,” after the process described in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, wherein a single embryo is split anywhere from eight to 96 identical embryos, each of which will grow into an identical human being.

“Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines!” The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. “You really know where you are. For the first time in history.” He quoted the planetary motto. “Community, Identity, Stability.”

That’s not quite what is going on here. I’ve identified several Brat Batches, as follow:

The Matt Damon Group: Ben Affleck, Tom Brady, George Clooney, Russell Crowe, Greg Kinnear, Tom hanks, Heath Ledger, Paul Newman, Jennifer Garner (who is a dead ringer for Hillary Swank), Hugh Grant, Jimmy Kimmel, Rob Lowe.

The Charlie Sheen Group: Sean Connery, Michael J. Fox, Kip Harrington, Steve McQueen, Michael Landon, Olivia Wilde, Patrick McGoohan, Paris Jackson, Christian Slater.

The Jack Nicholson Group: Leonardo DiCaprio, Rock Hudson, Roger Moore, Timothy Olyphant, Brad Pitt.

There are other “batches,”, as with Helen Mirren, who looks exactly like Jennifer Lawrence, and Emma Thomson/Inger Stevens, Jayne Mansfield/Betty White. I’m sure if I spent more time at this, I would find others. I have done a post called Bokanovsky’s Brats where I extended the work into facial overlays, but I gave that up as too tedious and hard to follow. (Most of the early work on Batches has disappeared … the post is still there but the photos are gone. I do not know why.)

As it is, I just stumble on them, as I did with the following two:

Ear alignment is off, I know. That is often the case with batches. Kaufman is less a match for Damon as Snowden. Out of all the batches, this was the best fit. What to make of it? I can only tentatively suggest that Kaufman may well be, like Snowden, an actor. If you read Rappoport’s piece at the opening about Snowden, you will know that he is the most unlikely whistleblower ever to steal a file, a kid without a high school degree who just waltzed into CIA and then NSA and had access to top secret files. It strains credulity to the max. I will be watching Kaufman closely, to see where and if he is misleading us.

Finally, the movie star batchers are very good looking people. What to do with the ones who don’t make the grade? Perhaps they are stockpiled and used for other purposes? Long ago we had a famous shooting of a famous celebrity, John Lennon by Mark David Chapman. What if Chapman was a batch boy, but just not good enough to make it big? What if he was hired to be a fake assassin instead? What if batch kids who do not make the grade are used for other purposes, for instance, as a famous whistleblower or a supposed doctor who has assumed a leadership role in the anti-Coronavirus movement? Below is a facechop of Jack Nicholson and Mark David Chapman.

Just sayin’.

50 thoughts on “Fun with faces – Dr. Andy Kaufman and Edward Snowden

        1. Ginger is in The Wrecking Crew with Dean Martin and Sharon Tate. She nails Deano, and in the afterglow, she opens a bottle of booby trapped scotch and blows up real good. I don’t see Mary Ann pulling off a scene like that.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Thank god you’re a country boy! These femme fatales can be tricky- although these days I’d probably be more interested in booby trapped scotch.

              Like

          1. TYRONE, I have to ask: Have you read “Gilligan’s Wake” by Tom Carson? You’re the only person I’m aware of–on the Internet or in my actual life–who actually might read the whole thing all the way through. I did, but a whole lot of it sailed right over my head. Each chapter is a surreal backstory for a Gilligan’s Island character. The book is filled with lots of obscure pop culture and historical references, and it rather breezily talks about deep-state conspiracy stuff under the assumption that the reader knows “official” news and history are bullshit. Carson’s style reminds me more of Pynchon than Joyce. I’m not recommending the book–it has some funny passages, and the Professor’s chapter is hysterical from beginning to end, but most of it is a slog. Or at least, it was for me. But you, Tyrone, would probably get more of Carson’s obscure references than I did.

            As for Ginger/Mary Anne–I was a Mary Anne guy when I was younger, but I’m more of a Ginger guy now. Which is perverse, since I’m now at an age and an income level that puts me officially out of any Ginger’s league.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. Kenneth, maybe you’ll enjoy it more than I did. I think the idea is more intriguing than the book itself, but there is some fun stuff in it.

                Like

                    1. Mark, yes, Carson is trying to channel Joyce, Pyncheon and Nabokov, I think. Like you, I tried to read Pyncheon’s Against the Day because of Boethius’s comments here and, like you, I couldn’t get through it. Carson is a little more accessible, and at times a lot funnier. But I guess there’s a tiny little sub genre within literary fiction where the author, apparently, has an elite insider’s understanding of what’s really going on behind the propaganda and lies of history and news. They tease at it, provide coy little clues, but wrap those clues in so much funhouse-mirror absurdity that it remains out of reach to those not in the know. The only author in this category I’m drawn to is Nabokov. Tyrone and MM have understandable suspicions, but I have found that really studying his books yields surprising rewards, and I think his intentions were more artful and transcendent than merely making literary sport of history’s and news media’s lies. Pyncheon and Joyce fans make similar cases for their authors, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to make a coherent argument for my guy.

                      Carson is a TV and film critic, and is supposed to be a good one. I would have thought his immersion in pop culture would make him more accessible, but nope. He manages to be pretentious about the least intellectual field of study of all: TV and movie trivia. If you don’t know, for example, that Bob Denver starred in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis before playing Gillian, and don’t know the names of the other cast members and, for fuck’s sake, the names of actors who made guest appearances, you’re going to miss out on some Carsonian cleverness. I tried to look stuff up and follow his breadcrumb clues for a while, but it just wasn’t worth it to me. When I meet Nabokov halfway, I sense serious and even mystical intention beneath his tricks and games. With Carson, it just felt like the self-indulgence of a precocious snob. I’m very aware that the same case can be, and has been, made against Nabokov, though.

                      Like

                    2. Having said all that, the Professor’s chapter in Gilligan’s Wake may be worth the price of the book all by itself. Each chapter is basically a separate story with weird little threads that interconnect them, so you don’t need to read the whole book to enjoy the Professor’s story. In Carson’s world, the Professor helped found the CIA, worked with Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project, was good friends with Kissinger, and set up the deserted-island ruse for the other Gilligan’s Island characters as an Intelligence project to ascertain just how dumb Americans really are. He also spontaneously rapes men and women whenever the impulse strikes, but thinks it’s just harmless sex, and is oblivious to their trauma. I actually turned a selection from this chapter into a monologue and used it for my audition to get into grad school for acting. So I don’t hate the book. But I would never recommend that anybody read the whole thing.

                      Like

                    3. I have to say that Joyce was over my head, and right now I am waiting for a couple of books, but in the meantime am reading Lost Light by Michael Connelly, a Harry Bosch detective thriller.This is who you are dealing with, Scott.

                      Like

                    4. I read a few of the Bosch books a long time ago and enjoyed them, but I can’t do it anymore, and I miss it. In the past few years, I’ve found it impossible to get lost in popular novels, and I blame my growing awareness of propaganda (and therefore, to some extent, you, ha ha). Connelly, Nelson DeMille, Stephen King, Lisa Scottoline, Lee Child… they may be writing in different genres, but their fictional worlds are all grounded in an acceptance of consensus reality. They may tweak it with amusing twists on the tropes and conventions of their genres, but their fictional worlds are all cribbed from cable news. I find it depressing at best, infuriating at worst. Does this ever bother you, too? I would have imagined it getting to you more than it does me!

                      Like

                    5. Yes, I know just what you’re talking about, and it bothers me. I think I am going to look into Ross Macdonald and his Lew Archer series, circa 1950 forward. At least he won’t be talking about 911, OJ, Rodney King like it was all real.

                      Like

                    6. (This from another blog I’ve neglected)

                      How to read James Joyce’s Ulysses:

                      Print out a chapter by chapter schematic in quasi-exel form that list themes and motifs for all 18 chapters. There are several on the net.
                      Get one of the concordances that have been published over the years. Barry Gifford’s Notes on Ulysses is a pretty good one to start with.
                      Most important: Get Jim Morton’s abridged* audio version to hear the vocal tones of the character’s and their accents. This will clear up a lot of confusion over the way the book is laid out with the idiosyncratic punctuation. (Donal Donnelly has a complete version on audio but his reading is dreadfully dull compared to Morton’s. Patch and fill the abridged version if you must)
                      For the actual book, I like the 1961 (1934 reset) paperback version as it is the most user friendly**.
                      Study the themes and motifs page and keep it handy as you listen to each chapter one at a time. After listening to a chapter, read that chapter. After finishing the chapter, study the note book(s) like Gifford’s.
                      Budget a month to get through it. You may not read it all again, but once all the way through, you can go back to favorite chapters over time and know where you are. It’s all worth it.

                      *According to Amazon, an unabridged version by Morton is now available.

                      **User friendly in that you will need to take the book with you and read during pauses in your day. If you commute on mass transit, that’s when you read; not listen or study.

                      Like

                    7. When Nabokov taught Joyce’s Ulysses at Cornell, he insisted that they only use two study aids:

                      A dictionary

                      A map of Dublin.

                      It had to be a map of 1904 Dublin, though. Nabokov drew one by hand. And, I would guess, the dictionary would have to include archaic Irishisms. I’m not that ambitious. Your approach would probably work better for me.

                      Like

  1. Clues Forum, if memory serves, inventoried the CGI glitches attending some of the Snowden interviews. I think the hands gave it away. That said, what if the tech at the time needed a template- a real meat and bone person to build a CGI fake around? If there was a need for a real model, perhaps Andy Kaufman (just the name causes concern) could have been the real life armature for the Snowden overlay. Years later, he has to shave his head and grow a beard to take this new assignment. Marcus Allen’s X-Ray Specs to the rescue.

    Like

      1. To divide, just like BLM, Antifa, Trump etc. For now, disunity and chaos are more important than participating in the corona hoax. Weeding out opposition might be another goal…

        Like

        1. I would never discount the possibility of a digital “honey pot.” It is, after all, the DARPA’s inter-net. Netting souls.

          Like

          1. I don’t know that he is controlled opposition, but do know to question everyone and everything. He may be perfectly OK.

            There was a guy named Wendell Potter who supposedly quit his high salary job with a major insurer because his conscience forced him to do so. He went on TV shows like Bill Moyer, wrote a book about it, and was on the speaking/interview circuit. Then he came out in favor of Obamacare, the biggest financial gift to the insurance industry in history. Potter said all the right things, had not just the words but the music. I sat through one of his talks. But his job was to herd cattle for Obamacare, which was surely long in planning stages before being sprung on us.

            If Kaufman or Dr. Tom or any if these people who have assumed leadership spots at a certain time bail on us, or lead us down a dead end, then that was their assignment.

            That said, I want to trust. I just do not think it is wise.

            Like

    1. That is really interesting, BOP. Years ago I was looking at mug shots of Chapman taken by NYPD, and noticed (there are height markings behind the photos) that in one he was nearly 72 inches (going from memory) and in another two or three inches shorter. From this I suspected there might be two of them, twins. I could never stick the landing.

      Like

  2. Snowden is not a real person Mark.It’s a digital created picture. The basis may be an actor but they definitely used lots of CGI in his pictures and videos. Just don’t forget his glasses and the missing nose part. They don’t do that in recent pictures but it does not change the fact, that they did that in the past. A once not real person will not become real just because the amount of CGI is reduced. But it’s your fun so I never mind. Stefan Lanka explained a lot of what is possible in the genetics and what not. There are some new videos in English on the Dean’s Deans channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfLX6JVGNBPLDwOrttE9-qw

    Like

    1. I was aware of the CGI. aspect, and assume footage of him is based on that technology. But underneath it is a real person that becomes the CGI robot. I’ve seen footage of him that appears, to me, to be a real person. We don’t know his name.

      Like

    2. Pretty damned good CGI, if you ask me.

      Yes indeed, much if what I have seen of Snowden seems hoaxy, photos of photos of him, but underneath it all is a real actor. They did not invent him out of computer bits.

      Like

      1. yet still the glasses are CGI, not so on the new videos. There are some where the glasses are fixed, or maybe not fixed, depending on the perspective.

        It’s even the same glasses, right? Maybe Russians have good opticians.
        I saw a Jack London movie featuring Harrison Ford on Xmas with a big dog excellently animated. HF and other actors were CGI too. The dogs behaved like real dogs in that movie. If there wasn’t the CGI actors you couldn’t tell if it is CGI or not. Also did you watch The Hunt? You should.

        Like

        1. I can see a need with Snowden for CGI, and at the same time see no need to create the whole person that way. I am aware of work that exposes CGI, but do not think it is all or none. I think he is both a real person and an image on our screens, and that to run the scam he could have sat back and watched himself on TV, chuckling, just as JFK did watching the moon landings. CGI was especially useful placing him in Russia, the Russians looking on with bemused indifference, not wanting to interfere with an American psyop.

          Like

  3. Do Michael j fox, and Jodie Foster,
    Really enjoyed your chat with ab ,also you might have started a trend by answering questions from other fakeologists, may have to try it out….

    Like

  4. Great job Mark!

    I always enjoy your face analyses, and I appreciated the final “just sayin’ ” Chris Spivey style 🙂

    But let me understand, now you think Dr. Andy Kaufman is kind of “controlled opposition”, and not really an anti Covid scientist?
    He seems professional when he speaks though, you think he’s just reading a script?

    Like

      1. I’m disappointed that Kaufman is being impugned by these pictures, and by the implied possibility that “something might be suspicious here”. The two of them do not even resemble each other, and the fact that their faces can have some features “lining up” means nothing. The lining up, in fact, gives a closer comparison to their features that makes it even clearer that they are not the same person. This is a non-starter, yet here it is….maybe the solution is to split Marcus’s face next to a few contemporary villains.

        Kaufman is Snowden with beard, on a new assignment? Please. If Kaufman is to be “outed”, let it be because he misleads or misdirects. He speaks with the ring of honesty, and has done research that both furthers and verifies my own….I have been slammed on CTTF for posting his video in the past, all due to his having the wrong name, and the video’s content was ignored. It’s too bad when important truths are hidden due to misplaced zeal to “out those spooks”.

        Then I’m confronted with two pictures, both supposedly of Paul McCartney. Here is what I see.

        The lighting is very different, 59 is washed out with much detail missing. Paul57 has erect posture, probably standing, head and neck straight. Looks like his face may be slightly closer to the camera. Paul59 has different posture, likely sitting, neck angled. Most significantly, he appears to be hunched forward and tilting his head up to compensate, as he looks toward the camera. The obvious effect of his posture, when compared to Paul57, is exactly what we see when the face splits are paired. Paul59’s hunching forward and tilting up of head elevates his chin, mouth, and nose, and lowers his ears slightly. The eyes change little, as they are near the horizontal pivot point. Furthermore, P59’s facial uptilt shortens his nose in appearance.

        I can’t look at these two pictures and make any determination one way or the other. The difference in photo quality is too great, and the differences in posture invalidate the “face splitting” comparison.

        Like

        1. The work on McCartney goes back to 2016 and is extensive. It is not based on one or two photos. It started with childhood photos, an obvious set of twins, dressed alike. I can tell them apart instantly and easily, having spent far too many hours studying one of the biggest phonies of our time, part of a large psyop called The Beatles.

          https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/05/30/sir-faul-revisited/

          The obvious tell in the two photos I used is the eyebrows. Check them out. That stays with them to this day. Paul had wraparounds, and Mike’s much less so. That is just one thing. The original Paul, the shorter twin, reappeared some years back as John Halliday. Check it out.

          https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/09/05/afterthought-john-halliday-outed-as-paul/

          Kaufman, as I say in the article, is not Snowden. In fact, I give evidence to the contrary. Is he controlled opposition? I do not know. I only know this: Do not engage in blind trust.

          Like

  5. Mary Ann for sure. Maybe ignoring Ginger would spark her interest as well?
    Will Matt Damon be in Tampa this weekend, and will he join Tom at Disneyworld? (GOAT; does that mean Greatest of All Time, or is a goat sometimes just a goat?)
    Thanks for all the info and laughs, and the Aaron Rod/Ellen mash-up!

    Like

    1. Indeed she does!

      Somehow, knowing that Tina Louise hated Gilligan’s Island and thought the show was beneath her, yet still delivered a spot-on comic performance (she really was perfect in the role) makes her sexier to me. Dawn Wells, on the other, was happy-happy-happy to be on the show, and Mary Ann was happy-happy-happy to be on the island. Yawwnnn.

      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