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.
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.