In defense of face splitting …

If you want to jump ahead, I have with the help of a blog commenter come upon an article  in which author Karen Leibowitcz that implies (actually, seems quite certain) that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the love child of the late Cuban premier Fidel Castro. I am going to take issue with that based on my own knowledge and experience in studying faces. But before doing that, I want to offer up a defense of the technology that I developed and use, and will use for Trudeau and Castro, called face splitting, or face chopping.

Quite some years ago I learned that in our late teens our skulls are fully formed, and will remain in that shape for the rest of our lives. The only exception that I have seen to this rule (there are probably others) is that ALS can cause skull deformities. Miles Mathis wrote a paper (dated 4/17/15 – it is a PDF and I am unable to link, so search for a paper titled Stephen Hawking Died and Has Been Replaced) claiming that Stephen Hawking died in 1985 based on the following language in Wikipedia:

During a visit to the European Organisation for Nuclear Research on the border of France and Switzerland in mid-1985, Hawking contracted pneumonia, which in his condition was life-threatening; he was so ill that Jane was asked if life support should be terminated. She refused but the consequence was a tracheotomy, which would require round-the-clock nursing care, and remove what remained of his speech. [ 55] [ 56] The National Health Service would pay for a nursing home, but Jane was determined that he would live at home. The cost of the care was funded by an American foundation. [ 57] [ 58] Nurses were hired for the three shifts required to provide the round-the-clock support he required. One of those employed was Elaine Mason, who was to become Hawking’s second wife.

Mathis speculates that Hawking died at that time, and was replaced by an impostor. I thought this a great opportunity to use my face splitting technique to show that the original and the replacement Hawking were two different people. However, because Hawking’s skull had been so misshapen by his ALS, I could not even compare him to the younger and real Stephen Hawking, and therefore had no basis on which to draw any conclusions.  The replacement (impostor) was usually shown with a scrunched and distorted face. I do believe that Mathis was right, as Hawking’s longevity placed him far on the outer reaches of the Bell Curve, only one person surviving longer. That seemed unlikely. Far more likely he survived the disease for 22 years after diagnosis, dying in 1985, that itself a good long survival time. Why they kept him alive in the public mind is a different subject, and won’t be discussed today.

I was attacked in my early uses of the technique by a fellow known as JC, who likened me to be a John Candy impostor based not on on my technique, but rather just by gazing at photos, as most people do. It was a humor piece, and I accepted it in good grace, but wondered at that time if I could use my own photo over time to give evidence that the technique works. I happened to have a photo of me in my late 20s and another taken in 2016, age 66. In each I was looking directly at the camera and smiling, my head angle the same. (It is not unusual for people to assume the same poses and expressions over time.) Below is the result of that face split:

My ear lobes have lengthened, I have better teeth now than then, and of course the hairline has receded. But otherwise all features align precisely. I did nothing except place the pupils at common distance in both photos. I do not cheat or fudge on this stuff, ever.

What follows are some criticisms of my work, followed by one of my own.

Head angles cause distortion. This is true, and affects mostly the ears. A very slight inclination or declination of the head causes a disproportionate apparent movement of the ears. However, the other features remain aligned. The solution to this real problem is never to over-rely on the ears, and always be aware of the problem.

People often look enough alike, so that we can easily be fooled into thinking they are the same. Far more accurate is to say that faces are like snowflakes. No two are the same. In all my years of doing this, thousands of photos, I have seen the kind of precise alignment seen with my own face split above in two people I knew to be mere relatives. It was a father and daughter that I knew via Facebook. That just once, ever.

Family members often look much alike. We can usually tell that siblings are related. Twins can be identical, but still will not be precise match-ups. The most famous twins I have worked with (I cannot be sure they are identical) are the McCartney twins, Paul and Mike, seen below. Remember, these are supposed to be photos of the same guy, two years apart.

So, as noted above, for each boy I used MS Paint to shrink or enlarge the photos so that they are each set with pupil distance one inch apart. (I have also tilted the photo on the right so that the eyes are level.) I then chopped the face in half, and overlaid one on the other, again making sure the eyes are level and spaced one inch apart. Here’s the result:

It’s not even close. These two boys, claimed to be the same person by Joelle Steele in her book Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs (where I got the photos) are two different people. Oddly, Steele is considered and expert in facial analysis, and is even called as a expert witness on occasion. See with my photo above that my features, thirty years apart, align precisely. Neither the nose, mouth or chin align here. The differences here are not caused by angular distortion – we can see the ears align. If an expert like Steele can be fooled, I don’t hold much hope that the public will ever see this.

Remember that children Mike and Paul were dressed alike and looked to be the same age, as seen below (The yellow arrow points at a cowlick, a feature that would be with Mike throughout his life. It was inserted in another blog post.):

I suggest that this conclusively shows that Mike and Paul McCartney, using childhood photos, are twins, whether identical or fraternal I cannot tell. It also shows that the photos taken in 1957 and 1959, said to be two images of the same boy, two years apart, are in fact two different people.

Internet photos cannot be relied upon. They are often retouched. That is true. The photos used have to be from the Internet, as I have no other source. And, it’s a judgement call. I gather the photos used above have not been retouched, as no one ever thought some guy would come poking around sixty years later, looking for twins. They could remove the photos, but that serves no purpose as I have them downloaded on my computer.

I have done a lot of work with many different photos of many types. I’ve found that the more current the photo, the more famous the person, the less trust to place in a given photo. For instance, below is said to be Taylor Swift and her mom, walking side by side down the sidewalk:

My judgement: That is not Taylor Swift. It is a mannequin inserted in the photo via Photoshop. Look closely at the shiny pallor. I have no idea what’s up here. It’s just weird. [Similarly, I have found that Jim Morrison, John Denver, and Janis Joplin were artificially inserted in family photographs. In other words, they were musically gifted kids assigned to prominent families, but not real family members. I take that to mean they were under control, following orders.]

The very first photograph taken in 1826 or 1827 was probably left alone, but I would bet the second one taken was doctored. They’ve been doing so, monkeying with photos, since. Very little in the history of war is reliable photography. There is so much chicanery around events like 911 that the whole of the photojournalism around that day can be chucked. Keep in mind that with a famous person there will be hundreds if not thousands of photos online. They cannot retouch them all.

So how do I know that the photo I am using is genuine? I have to rely on my judgment and experience, and step back and fess up when I get taken for a ride. Short of that, am I to travel to the homes of the people in question and ask them to pose?

Different lenses create distortions … true enough. However, most photos will be taken with common equipment, often enough today, mobile phones. Also, there is a different type of equipment used in professional studio photography, and indeed that might create differences. Again, it is a judgement call. That is all I can say. Anyway, my eye pupil technique when doing comparisons  will not work if there is lens distortion, so I can draw no conclusions, and won’t bother working with the photos. It’s either there or it is not, and when not, I walk away.

Finally, “I don’t see it.” I will bet that if I approach a stranger with my work on the McCartney twins above, that person will honestly look at the work and not be able to see the difference I highlight. This has to do with reliance on authority, the most common shortcoming in perhaps 99% of the American public. Their eyes will see what authority figures tell them they see. I cannot do a thing about that. This is perhaps another reason why the McCartney childhood photos are still online. Who’s gonna look, and even if they do, will they see what is hidden in plain sight?

My own idea of a fatal flaw: By setting pupils at a common distance, I can often tell that two people look alike, but more often that they do not. When there is a claim up front that photos are of the same person, my technique is legitimate. After all, it is not me making the claim, and if it is a true claim, then the results will show it. If the claim is false, the results will show that as well. But to take two people who look alike, whose facial features line up with precision, and claim that they are replicas, or Bokanovsky Brats, is less sure. I would need to place them side by side in photos to be sure that the head sizes are the same. So Tom Brady and Matt Damon look alike, and their facial features align precisely. But are their head sizes the same? I cannot be sure. That is indeed a flaw, one that  no one else has spotted.


Here is the link I mentioned at the beginning. This is the one where the claim is being made that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the love child of the late Cuban Premier Fidel Castro. Below are two photos taken from the article. Both appear to be studio stills, so buyer beware.

Leibowitcz relies on side-by-side analysis. I have seen that technique fail countless times, as with Joelle Steele and the McCartney’s above. What is needed is a little more rigor, and face splitting, despite its flaws, can and does convey useful information. So I did the usual, leveled the eyes, placed the pupils one inch apart, and overlaid one half of one face over the other. Here is the result:

The features, eyes, nose, lips, chin, skull shape all line up precisely. Even the ears, the least reliable feature, line up. What to make of it? They were born 45 years apart, and so are obviously not the same person. Leibowitcz wants us to believe they are father son, and indeed the timing might be right. But parents do not produce replicas! Do you look exactly like your siblings? Your mother or father? I have three brothers, and people can easily see we are brothers, but they can also easily see we all differ significantly in appearance. Justin Trudeau had not only a father, but a mother from whom he got half of his DNA.

What to make of it? Are we being f***** with? Always a possibility. This might be someone’s idea of a joke, a prank, some lower-down Intel agent with too much time. If someone were to look at the genealogy of both these men, there might be common ancestry. But still, that does not mean replicas happen.

On this blog we have found scores of what I call “Bokanovsky Brats,” or movie stars who not just resemble one another, but look exactly alike with every facial feature aligning, along with the hair line. If you want to have some fun, place an image of Pierce Brosnan next to one of Charlie Sheen. I don’t expect you to do a face split, but just look at them, the hair, the hairlines, the eyes, nose and mouth and skull shape. They are virtually identical. My face split says so too.

What is going on with Trudeau of Castro? I have two answers: One, we are being pranked. Two, I have no clue.

31 thoughts on “In defense of face splitting …

    1. As a host blogger, I am notified of everything regarding my stuff. When Stephers or Steve K write a piece, I have to opt in, and usually do not as I get enough email. I can just go to the piece and read it voluntarily. WordPress monitors comments independently of us, and often stuff goes to moderation, sometimes to Spam, without our knowledge. We have to act to free it up. There is no censorship going on here, except for obvious assholes. Right now, there are none.


      1. Everyone is paranoid of being observed of something. I’ve followed this blog for years and told many people to check it out. I don’t mention that I comment under a stage- name, although I do, because I have to, for the simple fact that some asshole is always looking to take you down. Jealousy and resentful envy of another’s advantages can be a very ugly thing. There is always a lurking eye or the fear of “BIG BROTHER”watching …But if you have a fear of censorship, “Then don’t make comments”, because it’s there for the world to see. “Don’t blame Mark for it,” He’s not censoring anyone, He’s just running a blog and doing his job…And if you don’t like it…Well, Too Bad, Yeah never know when some ASSHOLE might feel offended !!!


          1. Pro tip: Well, if you’re willing to poke the head in and take a peak around. Once you got it in up to the neck…You might as well take it all the way up the Hall.


  1. My first thought was that we could have two different ends of the Hapsburg/Bourbon alliance. Spain/Castro and France/Trudeau. Royal bastards. Cousins once or twice removed. Public personas where additional actors are used on occasion. Neither writes their own material, ‘natch.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I believe Mathis also covered Paul McCartney in one of his reams of historical essays, where he suggests that we’re looking at twins switching places. He also doesn’t believe that anyone died in his place in 1966. Not to mention the connections to shipping merchants (like the White Star Line) and intelligence in Liverpool, the blood relations, etc.


    1. Paul dying in 1966 was classic Intel, misdirection, look here, not there. They were running two Paul’s, the twins, and while harder to spot when they were younger, it was not hard to spot without interference. The original “cute one” Paul was a head-bobbing crooner, while Mike, his twin, was a far better stage performer. They traded places, even during Wings, but eventually one had to go. If you want some fun, watch the movie Give My Regards to Broadstreet. It’s not exactly classic cinema, but has some good musical performances. Pay close attention. If the singer is sitting, it is original Paul. If standing, it is Mike. Watch the eyebrows.

      I think the discovery that Paul McCartney was a set of twins might have blown the gig, indicating a talent search, recruiting, others writing the music, even others playing the instruments after they retired from public performances. It was an Intel operation. Had to be kept secret.,


      1. No doubt about it, Mark. It’s no different to the misdirection about other celebrity deaths (e.g., Marilyn Monroe was murdered, or Princess Diana was assassinated, etc.) It’s often much cheaper to fake something than to do it for real, after all.


      2. N.B. Agree with the twin assumption but I will refer to “original Paul” and “Faul” just for convenience.

        Hate to keep harping on this but Mark keeps insisting that the original Paul appears in Broad Street, when I’ve already shown twice before that he doesn’t. Mark, you said you’ll admit when you’re wrong, and by no means are you compelled to agree with me, but do we at least get a defence of your position? Because this is the third time I’ve posted this and I don’t recall ever reading one from you (apologies if I missed it, but I did check back for replies to previous comments).

        There’s no doubt they’ve played with the eyebrows in the Broad Street movie. They even show it off on the cover of the film, as if to draw your attention to it. This is because it’s a ‘golden nugget’ designed to get your eyes off the real original Paul, who notwithstanding all this, they are gracious enough to provide us a photo of – it’s just hidden away in the accompanying booklet to the movie.

        Unfortunately I cannot find the unedited photo anywhere (I have seen it but somehow I lost it), but it should be clear from the pose and the microphone that it’s meant to be the same man. In the unedited photo, Faul is sitting at the piano and original Paul is reflected in the piano lid. The line above original Paul’s eyes is the hinge of the piano lid. The man in the reflection is clearly nowhere to be seen in the movie – do we need to do a face chop to prove that?

        You could argue that the man in the reflection isn’t definitively the original Paul, except that he is a striking match for John Halliday:

        And seems to fit perfectly into this time lapse sequence:

        It should be clear that the differences between these two men are far greater than the differences between the ‘two’ men in the Broad street movie. Admittedly ‘both’ of them look a little odd to me, as though there’s something a bit off compared to Faul in any other era – but that could be down to the plastic surgery he was having at the time, or maybe Faul was made up to look a bit more like his brother to muddy the waters and further sell the idea that we’re seeing both of them in the movie. Is fact to me, in two of your screen grabs from your Broad Street article it looks like the eyebrows (in ‘original Paul’ style) are painted on:

        At the very least, if they still looked so similar that they could be easily interchanged in the 80s then doesn’t it undercut your point that one had to go because they were becoming clearly distinguishable ?

        I mostly respect your face chopping Mark, but if I were to offer my own criticism it’s simply that sometimes it might help to step back a bit from the details and just make a final call based on your own innate facial recognition abilities. That should clearly tell you it’s same man all the way through the movie, just different eyebrows.


        1. In your sequence of six photos stacked two atop one another, they are L-R T-B Paul, Mike, Paul, Paul, Paul, Mike. I recognize them instantly. The piano reflection is Paul. I did err in early analysis in thinking that original Paul dominated the movie Hard Day’s Night. Mike was there as often.[hence the scenes where “Paul” is wearing a beard and mustache. It’s Mike.

          In my post


          I do face splits of each twin, clearly matching the 1957/59 photos to Mike and Paul. I am the only one I know (other than MM) to deal with the childhood photos, Mike McGear, Jane Asher the beard girlfriend, the Asher household, and the distinct vocal sounds of each brother. I am the only one to deal with the magnificent Sgt. Pepper drum.

          In short, I have covered this topic ad nauseum. They are both alive and well. Give it a rest.


  3. Funny I don’t recall the John Candy thing that you just glossed over as being a humor piece as much as I recall it actually being an actual face split Hiding in Plain Sight piece. Funny and earrily coincidental too it supposedly being done by someone using the initials J.C. I don’t recall that aspect of the piece I encountered.


    1. It was an attack, but I needed to deflect the negativism, as JC had nothing in terms of what I look like versus Mr. Candy, the gifted comedian. Early in the game I knew I had something while he was grab bagging. I had to move forward.


  4. What is going on with Trudeau of Castro?

    I have no idea and neither should you.

    These puppets are actors, carnies, psychopaths. They should play 0 role in your life and wondering about them is a waste.

    It’s like I am walking in a group of screaming girls wondering if their boy band icon has a girl…

    The lesson of all this conspiracy shit is to stay far away from it. It makes people crazy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Makes people crazy it does, Gaia. Either sharpens the mind or Dulling the senses. Either way it can’t be proven. But you gotta admit, Mark has uncovered enough to open a few eyes…Even if it was only for those who know the truth.


  5. ” This has to do with reliance on authority, the most common shortcoming in perhaps 99% of the American public. ”

    Awful, and obvious. Politicians were always suspect, but people still blindly and completely trust “doctors” and “judges”… very dangerous. TRUST … who gives that away so easily? Can’t order them to think, it simply doesn’t work.


  6. Great find with that “face split,” MT. I agree, they are too identical for father/ son… Where is the “Margaret Trudeau” influence? Maybe some cloning technology indeed.

    Very amusing that “Medium” debunked the debunkers. Of course it’s probably some kind of double misdirection, or obfuscation, but fun to see all those lame debunkings deservedly slammed for their lame arguments. “The Canadian government has denied it” is my favorite. “There, case closed! The mighty Authority (with no conflict of interest of any sort regarding the matter) has spoken..”

    What exactly are the debunkers so offended by anyway? Isn’t this CT favorable to Justin – giving him a romantic and intriguing background? More likely “they” put the whole thing out there themselves – eg with the Canadian MP or whoever denying the initial “internet rumor”, hence calling attention to it, for no good reason – and then they lamely “debunked” it by way of pretending that they didn’t see the PR benefit for Justin.

    LOL Vice titling their debunking “The Damning Rumors are Baseless” or whatever… “Damning”… Yeah, like anyone gives a damn except as tabloid gossip. Do they mean Justin’s foes will use it to say he’s a commie? Well, he’s done plenty to earn that label on his own. The Castro connection is more likely to burnish his image than tarnish it, among his fans.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Anyone with half a brain cell can tell that Trudeau and Castro clearly came from the same gene pool. They most definitely were father and son, and even if they weren’t, they most definitely were near cousins or possibly even uncle and nephew. The odds that it’s all a coincidence is tremendously slim, IMO.


        1. I’m not saying that Trudeau and Castro looked exactly the same, I am only implying that they bore a strong resemblance to each other. The circumstantial evidence also supports the hypothesis that Justine is Fidel’s kin, such as the fact that the Trudeaus made numerous trips to the Caribbean, which was under the communist dictator’s rule, around the time of his mom’s early stages of pregnancy with him and the fact that Castro was very close to Justine’s immediate family, especially his mother. They also were huge supporters of Fidel Castro.

          Not only that, but the Trudeau power couple and Fidel Castro were notorious ‘swingers’. They had numerous extramarital affairs, which further strengthens the hypothesis of Justine Trudeau being the illegitimate offspring of Castro himself. That too is well-documented.

          View at

          “In 1971, the Trudeaus took a second honeymoon in the Caribbean to Barbados and an unidentified nearby island[19] then Tobago, then to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (including both Bequia and St. Vincent) with Pierre taking a side-trip to Trinidad while Margaret stayed in Tobago.[20]”

          Justin Trudeau was born in late-1971, which was several months after his parents had their honeymoon in the above-mentioned “unidentified” island near the Caribbean islands. As I said previously, Fidel Castro was the dictator of the island nations – and he was a good friend of the Trudeaus – so the odds of this being a coincidence is near zero.

          Justine Trudeau and Fidel Castro:

          Any questions?

          And to answer your question for me, no, I’m not an exact copy of my father. Visually, I am a combination of my mom and dad, although my looks tilt towards that of my paternal line and my maternal line. Is that all you need to hear?


  7. Trudeau looks much like Castro. His father looked completely different. Also his mother. Also the timing was right. Pierre Trudeau spend a lot of time with Castro back then. I suppose the womanizer Castro just did the missus occasionally. Or maybe Trudeau is just one kid of someone from the elites and who was given false roots to be put in place. I found this VERY interesting interview with a Dutch journalist. It’s quite long but not boring at all.—Reset-in-Ukraine-with-Karel-van-Wolferen:4
    There is a good explanation of why Putin visited the Young Global Leaders once and what he’s doing in Russia now.


    1. Thanks, Barb. Excellent discussion. For those who can’t watch the entire video, at least check out a couple of timestamps:

      13:00 – “…the financial coup started…(1995)”
      14: 30 – “…the great poisoning…(1996)”
      1:16:20 – “…the neocons….”

      Always great to view from a slightly different perspective… especially when it generally agrees with my subjective understanding at the moment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s