The Olsen twins

This matter was brought up in a comment before now, and I am unable to locate it. It is in regards to Barbara Olsen, who was allegedly killed on 9/11/2001 when the aircraft she was on, American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon. I seem to recall that she was able to carry on a phone conversation until the moment of impact.

I am a no-planer, and so do not believe her story or her ending. She was 45 years old in 2001, and so would be 69 now. I will play with some photographs beneath the fold here, but note that her husband, Ted Olsen, remarried (several times), Barbara his third wife. He married his fourth wife, Lady Booth Olsen, in 2006, he 66 and she 45. I was surprised to find that he died just last week, on 11/13/2024 at the age of 84. Lady Booth Olsen is currently 63.

All very interesting, but the question is, what became of Barbara Olsen? The implication of the post and photos I saw was that she is one and the same person, both as Barbara Olsen, and Lady Booth Olsen. I have examined the photos, and my conclusion is that …

They are two different women.

Here’s Barbara Olsen:

And here is Lady Evelyn Booth Olsen:

That is, I think, her wedding photo, and is a little blurry. I had trouble finding photos of her, and even finding her birthdate (1961). But notice that Barbara above has wide-set eyes, and Lady Booth below not so much. Plastic surgery cannot do that.

Here’s a face chop of the two:

The far-set eyes on Barbara have the effect of making her head appear larger than that of Lady Booth. Indeed there is good alignment on nose and mouth, and that makes people rightly suspicious that they are the same person, but in doing that alignment, the chin is distorted, and the eyes are way out of line.

Some might claim that Internet photos are not dependable, and that I should abandon this whole process. I say that Internet photos are indeed unreliable, and different camera lenses can skew results. The best results I get are an exact alignment, and neither unreliable photos or camera lenses can produce that – it is too much coincidence. But the other best result is what we see above, a complete mismatch. It is not caused by camera lenses, which could not possibly skew that much.

So the question is, what became of Barbara? She married Ted in 1996, five years before 9/11. Could she have known of that? Was she recruited that far in advance? She was a public person, commenting on Fox and CNN, but not so public that she could not fade into witness protection under a new name. (You thought WP was for criminals who testify against dangerous people? Think again.) She and Ted must have divorced, if they ever really married.

Here’s one last bit of information, something that caught my eye, as I have seen it many times before, Wikipedia signaling fake fake fake:

 

 

19 thoughts on “The Olsen twins”

    1. Sorry, no change of heart. The distance between eye pupils always tells the story, as it is hard-wired in our late teens or early twenties. It is the only reason I trust my methodology, as it acts as a gold standard around which other facial features either fall in place or not. In this case, Barbara’s eyes were wider set than Evelyn’s, creating the appearance of a larger head (the head may or may not be larger – that is just an aspect of comparison).

      The Olsen story was a critical detail of the 9/11 hoax, so I’m suspicious she was hard-wired in and that the marriage might have been fake, along with credentials. That would mean that five years out, 1996, planning was in place to use both her and Ted for the hoax. I am not surprised. Lady Booth is a younger woman than Barbara, still retaining her youthful appearance, which must have met with Ted’s approval.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thanks for checking into this Mark. You have confirmed my belief that they are different people, no matter how ridiculous the storyline. I mean, she canceled her flight on the 10th so she could “wake up” with her husband on the 11th? She would have had to leave for the airport at like 6 a.m.

        Perhaps they had an “oral agreement” concerning his birthday present…nudge nudge wink wink.

        Like

        Reply

  3. Mark, since you have a fine eye and keen discernment in the above regard, are you also able to discern the mtf and ftm form according to skeletal, muscle, facial features as well?

    On the surface of it, the mtf ftm phenom may not seem of much importance to those who don’t have a personal stake in it. Below the surface, however, this slice of reality holds a whole lot of reveal. However, as often is with greater truths, the parts beyond documented history (ahem) is speculative based upon interpretation of visual or known fragments and hearsay, not much that is systemically verifiable. To take it all the way into the unseen is a perceptual journey beyond matrix quantifiable data and constraints – doesn’t respond/hold to matrix ‘rigor’ standards. So might not be something of interest to explore on this platform.

    Really just wanted to know – if your seeing behind the face mask presented extended further through the body structure.

    Like

    Reply

  4. I don’t deal much in mtf ftm, but when traffic was much higher it was a banned topic here, the reason that we would be overrun by comments and people who imagine every hollywood star is one. I do want to see a rule that if you’re born with a penis, you compete in male sports. Having former males compete in female sports is extremely unfair to female athletes.

    Do you know of Babe Didrikson (1911-1956)? She was an amazing athlete, and for sure a woman because they checked in those days. Looking at her photos, I see a man in a woman’s body.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. That’s a man if I ever saw one.

      About ten years ago the mtf/ftm maskers came to my attention, about the same time as doubles and by doubles I mean clone level double, not just close. I read that anthropologists would tell the sex of remains by the pelvis among other signifiers such as clavicles, skull/face size cheekbones and jawbone shape, lengths of the arms, etc., the layout of the musculature. The more I studied, looked, the more I saw. As time went by the assessment became automatic.

      The cloning thing is also interesting. When watching movies of the 30s, 40s, 50s, I’d sometimes see identical actors from that era repeat in movies of the 80s, 90s. Didn’t know a facial analyzer so I was not able to verify if what I saw was true.

      As time went by with no one to bounce the inquiries off of, I dropped paying attention to the clone theory. But I still see very strange things going on with bodies. Sometimes appearing Frankensteinish to me.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’ve been intrigued by it for a while, ever since Unreal brought it up at Fakeologist. He labelled it EGI for elite gender inversion. The forums there have a category for it and Rachel posts about it. Ab Irato regularly checks in with Mr E to discuss it on his Fakeologist podcast. However many of his regular callers, notably John Le Bon and FarceValue, criticize Mr E and Ab heavily for having an unfalsifiable method, ie it boils down to a sort of “I know it when I see it.” As they say, humans vary widely and many “real” males and females don’t conform to type. It becomes difficult to take it much beyond the initial speculation – at least I haven’t seen anyone decisively expose the mystery of it all, how extensive it really is, the technique behind it or its meaning. There’s a there there, as Rick would say, but we have only some interesting theories..

        Like

        Reply

        1. Gore Vidal, who died many years ago (2012), noted that humans are faces on a circle, and can be anywhere on the spectrum from gay to straight, male to female. In my life I have noticed that almost all men are men and women women, with plenty of exceptions.

          Like

          Reply

  5. I watched the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair recently. Both Rene Russo and the actress who (seems to be) Brosnans mistress, have very mannish looks about them. Russo is certainly no Dunaway, anyway, although I would not be surprised if Mr E would even scrutinize the latter

    Like

    Reply

  6. There’s a few thoughts (perspectives/potentials/thoughts) to play with RE: mtf/ftm

    • EGI, as you may know, is considered a high holy practice, and is a standard/preferred way of life among a particular non-human demographic.

    What supports this statement as having a high truth rating:

    Everything that ‘comes out’ on the surface reality (that leave many others scratching their heads saying… is this REALLY necessary – to this degree??) such as:

    MTF/FTM, IVF, CLONING, GMO (not talkin food here), HORMONES, PUBERTY BLOCKERS, SEX CHANGE SURGERY, PLASTIC SURGERY, SEXUALIZATION OF CHILDREN, DEI, ARTIFICIAL WOMB, ALIEN ABDUCTION/IMPLANTATION OF EMBRYOS (remember decades ago women testified they were manipulated in such a way?) etc.

    are all processes/way of life/practices long espoused by the above mentioned and their interdim cohorts.

    I know, crazy, right? I maintain, if one is in the forest at night w/o a flashlight… how are they going to hit the target? Navigate out?

    Our ability to perceive – in any way – especially Truth has been programmed out of us, and what has been programmed in – in its place – is to believe the LIE is truth.

    The greatest matrix gaslights used to maintain the status quo in regard to maintaining the mind control/lack of ability to perceive/collective blindness –

    • There are no FACTS!

    • Doesn’t maintain standards of academic rigor!

    I submit that when dealing within reality that is completely constructed (i.e. built/programmed and from that basis, not real) that the FACTS and the SYSTEMS that come from within it/the show – will only ever apply to/support the facade/the show. And that if one is happy within the show and wants to maintain it, then fine. If not, then, its standards/systems are bs – across the board.

    Like

    Reply

    1. CLARIFICATION: Although it surely seems like it, I do not mean to imply that ignoring the show is a good idea. Seeing the in and the out and the difference is, to me, a more meaningful way to navigate.

      Like

      Reply

    2. “EGI, as you may know, is considered a high holy practice, and is a standard/preferred way of life among a particular non-human demographic.”

      Do you mean literally non human, or is that snark or something?

      I have heard that overall idea, yes, I think that’s about how Mr E would describe it.. but it all seems rather speculative and based on circumstancial evidence, so that it’s hard to know what it amounts to.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Literal, no joke.

        As to the state of this reality (as I describe it) being speculative, circumstantial, yes, for just about every one else – it is. That’s expected. I wouldn’t argue or debate my view, just share if I can. Mostly I can’t share, and although I’m used to it, it can be a lonely existence.

        Aside from perceptually perceiving the nonhuman, I’ve visually seen/encountered them both at night and in the bright light of day. Different forms/encounters. So it’s easy for me to say that the nonhuman walk among us making up a significant % of the population, and by now, probably the entire ruling/monied class.

        I’m not of the E demographic so I’m not a direct witness to EGI. But because of being exposed to things.. when I trained my eye to see human form as it was designed to be vs. the manipulations, and learning a bit about their mo, the puzzle pieces fit together for me.

        Other than saying – research – study the human form – REALLY LOOK – there’s no way for me to offer substantiated facts of anything I have to say to anyone’s satisfaction. And that’s ok. At this point in my life I don’t need anyone to believe me. Truth is a frequency — people will be able to discern it, or not.

        And, at this point in our era, Truth is coming for us IT doesn’t need me.

        Like

        Reply

        1. That’s interesting, sounds a bit like in the movie They Live, where the special glasses allow one to see the demonic creatures disguised as human.

          I don’t rule out anything per SE, because. As far as I know, scientific materialism is just a foundational assumption/ assertion. It could be that medieval times with their belief in the supernatural was much closer to the truth, and our materialism is just a brainwashing veil over such things so that we never see them.

          Someone in the Fakeologist audiochat was discussing it recently – in their version, that some of the performances from politicians were as if they were possessed, inhabited by demons. I was only half listening, doing something else.

          Maybe Mark would let you write a post describing more specifically the sorts of strange things you’ve seen. It’s not probable to others, as you say, and many would be likely to dismiss, but it sounds intriguing.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a reply to a researcher Cancel reply