I have to wonder, when deeply buried secrets are uncovered, how they got uncovered. Clues Forum years ago revealed that six of the seven Challenger astronauts who supposedly died on January 28, 1986 were still alive and well. I will repeat in this post the facial work I did before, but first want to wonder aloud … how on earth was this discovery made? Who would think to ask? Who would know to do the research, to run down the participants, and expose them to the (cognitive) world?
There’s a lot of undercurrent to a psyop of this magnitude, so first, let’s take a look at an article that ran a few years ago about two men from Ireland who look exactly alike in every detail who happened to meet on an airplane flight.
How likely is that? Let’s do some math: In the US, there are maybe 45,000 flights daily, and 2.9 million passengers. That works out to maybe 64 passengers per flight, oddly low but maybe due to inclusion of puddle jumpers. Extrapolating 45,000 flights to 100,000 worldwide daily, that yields 6.5 million passengers on any given day, give or take.
How likely then is it that two men who exactly resemble one another end up on the same flight? The math yields large numbers but is quite simple:
64/6,500,000 X 100,000 yields a likelihood of one in 101,563. There is one chance in 101,563 of the two ending up on the same flight.
What might lower that number? Well, both men are Irish, so that increases the likelihood of gene pool inclusion, so that it’s not a random world-wide number. Does that sound more reasonable? Maybe so, but still, I have to conclude that this story is fake, and I offer two men who agree: The guy looking at us in the photo and pointing his finger, and the guy off the the right with the shit-eating smirk.
After all, imagine the likelihood of two men even having the same facial features. They are astronomical, even if both are Micks. Have any of you ever in your entire life met two people, even identical twins, who look exactly alike? As I have come to conclude in all my work over the years, people are like snowflakes, no two alike.
_________________________________
The odds of finding six people who look so much alike as the Challenger astronauts and their doppelgängers are so infinitesimal as to be set aside with contempt. (The case of Judith Resnick will receive special treatment later.)
How did Clues Forum uncover this amazing psyop? One, it helps to be naturally skeptical of official truth, a rare quality, so there’s that. Simon Shack has that trait. Two, something could have triggered that curiosity, as perhaps a chance encounter with one of the living astronauts having the same name as one of the dead ones, leading to cognitive dissonance, leading to research and discovery. I am going with that, as it innocently explains Clues Forum’s involvement in this affair.
But I will not leave it at that. Petra Liverani uses the phrase “revelation of the method” often enough as to grate on me a bit, but there is something to it. She metaphorically puts it up on the chalkboard as a deliberate and planned strategy, part of the psyop process. Why? Perhaps to enforce separation and isolation, as only a few of us will ever be inside the truth on these matters. Use of “conspiracy theory” as an isolation and ridicule strategy now is so common that stupid people, that is, most of us, are quite used to looking down their noses at the rest of us, basking in ignorance and imagining that it is actually intelligence.
But I’ll offer another possibility to “revelation of the method,” added to the journalistic custom called “now it can be told”, and another which I call “I want credit for this goddammit!” The Challenger event was a multilayered psyop aimed at the general population, but specifically at kids. They deliberately placed a teacher aboard that flight and wheeled out TVs in every classroom in the country so that kids could see her killed.
The name for that, as I see it, is child abuse. Writ large, psychopaths in the shadow government deliberately traumatizing children.
The object, which I cannot pretend to understand well, is present in all psyops: Trauma-based mind control. I get the “trauma” part, but not the “mind control” part unless it is to introduce fatalism into the backdrop of all of our thinking. “The good, they die young” is another expression of fatalism, along with “the best of intentions ”. Nothing good ever comes of life, so don’t go expecting it.
That’s all I can make of it, so please, make of it what you can and enlighten me. I know that behavioral psychology is the basis for advertising, public relations, politics, music, and news. Why not add “education as indoctrination”, and trauma used to reinforce that mind-melding.
OK, here we go, first the five non-Resnick participants. First, do yourself a favor and review all of this material in depth at Clues Forum. That’s where the rubber meets the road. I am just drafting behind.
LR: Front, Michael J. Smith, Francis QR. “Dick” Scobee, Ronald E. McNair; Back : Ellison S. Onizuka, S. Christa McAuliffe, Gregory B. Jarvis, Judith A. Resnick. All comparisons below are 30-years after the fact.
Michael J. Smith reappeared as Michael J. Smith, 30 years later teaching at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Francis R. “Dick” Scobee, CEO of Cows in Trees.
Ronald E. McNair, Changed name to that of his “brother”, Carl.
Ellison S. Anizuka, changed name to that of his “brother,” Claude.
McAuliffe, S. Christi, Lawyer, “Sharon”, first initial, Syracuse, New York:
Gregory Jarvis (Whereabouts, or if living, unknown):
Now, you can argue all you want about whether the comparisons above are convincing, to you. They are to me, as I look for alignment of the basic facial features, and find them present in these five even as they are thirty years apart. However, if you want to argue this case and convince me I am wrong, all I ask is that you 1) learn the methodology, and then 2) repeat my methods to prove it wrong. I am aware of computer programs out there that do this sort of thing, but as far as I can see, they merely adjust faces to blend without any objective standard.
The strange case of Judith Resnick:
I do not know how many of you can look at this photo comparison and not see two different people. When I first did all of the work on the five astronauts above, the one on the left was not shown at Clues Forum. It was only the one on the right. In fact, this is the image comparison done by CF with their initial post:
This could easily be a mistake on CF’s part, and I originally bought that … I cannot find any of the Yale Law School Resnick in astronaut getup. What is apparent at this time is that there were two Judith Resnicks, one a law professor at Yale, the other a Shuttle astronaut, and who, like Gregory A. Jarvis above, is missing in action.
Petra presented me with the following photo proving sameness:
I must say they are so close. However, comparing the two after adjusting the eye pupils to common distance yields this:
Similar head angles and smiles, so I can work with it even as I normally prefer straight-on faces. However, these two are so close that I could not resist. After adjusting pupil distance, I aligned the two face sides based on lower lip. Note that the noses and eyes and chins do not align, so that I can say with certainty that Yale Resnick and NASA Resnick were not the same.
But my goodness, so close! Imagine two people of the same name, and looks so much alike that Clues Forum thought them the same, as does Petra, as did I until I did close examination.
Please consult the opening of this post, and the two Irish gentlemen, and the calculation of odds that they landed on the same flight one day. Now, instead of the 64 occupants, we are dealing with seven. Consult the odds that two people so much alike in appearance have the same name, and yet have no other apparent connection.
I got nuthin’.
Piece of Mindful 
i don’t think the two Irish guys look the same. if someone told me they were brothers, i wouldn’t argue. or 1st cousins – sure. but as a real representation of a doppelganger? no.
i was home sick on the day it exploded. but never thought of the child abuse angle since learning about the deception on CF. related, jlb used to talk about some minute of silence in australia for fallen soldiers. we never had to do that in the States (other than memorial day parades) – but it makes sense that the mind benders will stop at nothing to achieve whatever they are trying to achieve.
digressing a bit, imagine what we can / will? do – even inadvertently – when our prompts, combined with the tech, are so sophisticated that we can create entire universes, ai creations living out lives, so that we can clip out just a few minutes – or even seconds – for a piece of content? or what if – knowing how programmed we were in school – ‘ethically tested’ how ‘ai’ children would grow up, after subjected them to a different set of conditions?
it’s looking more and more like we’re about to find out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair enough. I have three brothers, and none of us look at all alike, even as anyone can see we are brothers. I have maybe 50 cousins out there still living, and none of us look remotely alike. The idea that two people matching up as those two do, and due to being related, strains credulity. Some other game is afoot, most likely as I see it, photo monkey business.
I do agree, sir, that moments of silence for strangers who might have died, if they did, heroically, are shameless pandering. I have looked for it, and maybe have it in my quote files, an HL Mencken quote that describes the life and worth of a typical soldier. I have a cousin and once on Facebook she told me that she was going to get the straight dope on some situation from her brother, who was in the military. You might guess I did not care for her much, but I suggested to her that soldiers are 1) indoctrinated, and 2) compartmentalized, so they don’t know much about anything.
She unfriended me.
LikeLike
I think you did a photo matchup before with the first front facing Judith photo? They do have a similar nose, bottom lip, teeth and cheek impressions.
LikeLike
As I noted in the piece above, I am stumped. It is true, with very careful work, they could reposition the eyes in a photograph, but why? That is perplexing.
The initial problem here was that Clues Forum ID’d the astronaut as the Yale law professor. That was, apparently, a mistake. But then to have the facial alignment we have … should not happen.
Here’s something else: It is very easy to distinguish the astronaut from the law professor due to darker hair (always subject to manipulation) and thinner lips. The astronaut is quite sexy in appearance, the law professor, less so even as she is an attractive woman.
This is going to be bouncing around in my mind now, and I don’t look forward to that. I hope for an Eureka! moment. Some other game is afoot here, and as of this moment I have no clue what it is.
LikeLike
The older Judith looks like she’s had her eyes done. They have that beady eyed look of a face lift, belying her age. Not the first woman who fought age that way.
LikeLike
I enjoy the Judy couldn’t have went law school and pick up a ee PhD narrative. I graduated from law school and didn’t attend a single class after the first semester; except for the mandatory ethics class that the slimiest professor on our beautiful South Florida campus professed his perfected hypocrisy.
im also from akron and know people that profess to have known judy. Suffice to say ole girl was into gals like Sally ride andwhatnot. The narratives are silly. But they makes more sense on monuments with chubby white fellas saluting in the background of course.
LikeLike
OK I have the best Challenger story. It was January 28, 1986, a Tuesday, and it “blew up” at 11:39 EST in Florida. For some reason I was out mountain biking when it happened – I was 15 years old and addicted to mountain biking since I just got my first mountain bike for Christmas the year before. This is taking place in New Hampshire. I would later be state champion in cycling 2 years later, just need to mention that how serious I was about riding at the time. Maybe I faked being sick, can’t remember.
Next about 2-3PM I went to my neighbors to pick up my babysitting money. The neighbor was a ranking member of the NE mafia, nice Italian guy who owned nightclubs. I remember he said “that space thing blew up” with no emotion. I wasn’t really aware of the Challenger thing at the time since I had other interests.
Back in school it was a big deal, since this was in New Hampshire, and Christa McAuliffe was a teacher from Concord, MA. Well, I have to say to us 15 year olds we were not traumatized at all – in fact we treated it as a big joke. The best two jokes I remember were calling her “Crispy” McAuliffe, and “Question: Where did Christa McAuliffe take her vacation: Answer: All over Florida”.
I read the Clues Forum section on that, it seems legit. Legit because all known manned NASA missions to space from my point of view are fake, and badly faked when you look the details released to us in public. Space is stupid anyways, it’s like obsessing over a living in vacuum, or cold dark space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The kids traumatized were young, the ones for whom a teacher is a mommy substitute.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah i know, thank God I wasn’t stuck in classroom fake mourning the ass-tro-nots.
The whole ass-tro-not worship is especially pathetic. Lets all worship dumb fucks who volunteered to be guinea pigs with an extremely high probability of become carbon dust, if real. Or worship bald face liars, not too hard to find.
LikeLike
Good one Ray.
LikeLike
As you know I believe in the moon landings but very recently was alerted by a commenter on my latest substack to the possibility of the aborted Apollo 13 mission being fake … and I have to say I think too many things say it was – not the mission itself, I think it’s very probable that it happened pretty close to the way it seemed to except for one small thing: the oxygen tank didn’t explode and what the mission really was was a “live” exercise in emergency response.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/good-and-bad-modal-thinking/comment/118496372
So we have:
Apollo 13
Launch Apr 11, 13:13
Date of explosion Apr 13
Time into mission of explosion 55:54:53
— The commander, Jim Lovell, tells us that Fred Haise used to prank with a pressure switch or somesuch to make banging noises but when the explosion happened he looked at Fred and Fred wasn’t smiling.
— Jim Lovell’s wife tells us her wedding ring slipped off her finger in the shower and she hoped it wasn’t an omen.
— The Lunar Module was named Aquarius and the Command Module, Odyssey. The supposed emergency resulted in a the cabin becoming covered in moisture. Odysseus was known for his intelligence and trickery (e.g., the Trojan Horse).
— The only real hard evidence I think is the ditching of the Service Model but very easy to fake, of course. Other than I don’t know that there is any but need to do more research.
— We are told that everything they did to respond had been covered in simulations, they just hadn’t done them all in a string.
What’s with the O thing? Oxygen tank A1 and 13 and O ring Challenger. O is the 15th letter of the alphabet and 1+5 = 6, 2×3 = 6 = 33??
LikeLike
Tempting as it was, I decided not to comment on this … but dammit, here I go! Of all the moon missions, you conclude that 13 was fake? That takes a special kind of selective blindness, the same thing that forbids me from seeing my children as just ordinary people, and myself as just an ordinary bloke. I have to wonder why you allow yourself to be fooled about the Moon missions, but then look at my life’s work these last ten years and get very uncomfortable.
LikeLike
You say I’m fooled, Mark, but it’s the disbelievers who’ve been fooled and here’s a fact to prove it:
No disbeliever has picked up that the Four Horsemen of the Moon Landings Hoax Psyop, namely, Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel and Massimo Mazzucco have not put forward between them a single word that refutes the reality of the moon landings. This is despite the also irrefutable fact that some disbelievers, including you, Mark, have picked up that at least one of these people, notably, Dave McGowan, is an agent.
The question is: how is it that no disbeliever has picked up that not one of these four guys has a word between them that refutes the reality of the moon landings?
Easy answer.
They haven’t done due diligence … and the cartoon character that is Bill Kaysing shows how well the propagandists understand that those of a disbelieving disposition would not do that due diligence.
But you know what really takes the cake? What really, really takes the cake is that they were pushing out anti-moon landing propaganda even BEFORE the first landing. In 1968, the BBC aired the 30m drama, The News-Benders, which has as its theme fabricated news events. Naive people take at face value that the BBC would treat such a taboo subject in an enlightening way. Sure they would. No, it’s a tiny bit of truth mixed with so many lies it has no meaning.
Moonhoax psyop
LikeLike
Not to engage on this topic, covered before. I was listening to a podcast earlier last week, Conan O’Brien and his guest Sarah Silverman. For some reason conspiracy theories came up, and Conan repeated the overused trope of Occam, that the simplest explanation is probably the right one.
He asked her how she felt about conspiracy theories, and she said, “Well, the moon landings were fake.” No response on that from Conan, nor did they move on to any similar topic. It was an “as you were then”, moment.
By the way, Occam’s Razor in the wrong hands is a tool for too-easy dismissal of solid argumentation. The guy was merely generalizing, that introduction of new variables complicates arguments, usually to no end. But not always. And anyway, the idea that we did not go to the moon is the simplest explanation for every variable that exists about Apollo.
LikeLike
Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation to fit the evidence which is vastly different from the mere “simplest explanation.”
The simplest explanation to fit the evidence for the moon landings is: they went.
You have the evidence coming at you from so many angles:
I simply do not understand what people want to prove the moon landings happened although it certainly has shaken me slightly to feel pretty certain now that Apollo 13 was an exercise not a genuine emergency response.
LikeLike
“To fit the evidence” is your qualifier. Occam’s Razor simply states that simpler is more likely closer to truth. In adding “to fit the evidence”, you violated Occam’s Razor by adding an unnecessary qualifier. “To fit the evidence” is, after all the object of disagreement. Whose evidence?
Honestly, I don’t think much of Occam’s Razor since, as a general rule, it doesn’t work. If science were honest, if news fairly reported things, then perhaps adding new arguments would be counterproductive in objective debate. But when the agency reporting scientific outcomes is not trustworthy, but has the power of money and control of news (and uses propaganda techniques), not to mention the power of secrecy (including jail sentences for anyone who violates NDAs), then Occam can take a hike.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… to fit the evidence” is not a qualifier but simply implicit but if you don’t state them explicitly people interpret “simplest explanation” to mean an explanation that is very simple which really makes no sense. “To fit the evidence” is implicit as is “in absence of evidence to the contrary” but sometimes it’s best to include implicit elements to try to guide people in using the tool correctly – as you say it gets misused.
Whose evidence? Evidence doesn’t belong to anyone. Evidence is simply relevant material. Of course, people dispute what is relevant and what is not. Well, you will have argument no matter what. My sister thinks that Buzz Aldrin’s words 50 years later “Because we didn’t go there.” have great relevance when
1: in context the words don’t mean what they mean out of context
2: Buzz has clearly stated that astronauts landed on the moon in many, many other places including his book
3: Buzz was a 32nd degree Freemason and could well have uttered those words as a windup to the disbelievers.
This is all I will say. All I do all day long is argue with people and it’s not helping my mental health at the moment.
LikeLike
There’s a word for that of course.
LikeLike
I used to find Sarah Silverman attractive. She’s a New Hampshire native too like me. Pretty cute anti-JAP. And she can be funny.
LikeLike
No one else should ever read this except Tyrone or Klausler: Silverman said “I was licking jelly off my boyfriend’s penis last night, and I had to stop and think ‘Oh my God! I’m becoming my mother!'”
LikeLike
I honestly find no humor in her statement… as if she knew her mother endorsed such behavior and spoke of it to her daughter? Or the possible implication that she witnessed her mother performing such an act? WTF?
My words are sometimes vulgar and I find old Eddie Murphy to be fucking hilarious… but Sarah – absolute garbage – unnecessarily and purposely filthy. She is Dirty and only a name because of her membership and promotion by the tribe.
But what stands out most in Mark’s comment is the reference to me… from whence does that arise?
LikeLike
I remember when she came on the scene and was being heavily promoted on talkshows.. yes kind of cute, but it felt like they were trying to position her as “the shocking filthy female comic,” and her performance seemed a bit forced and awkward.. not great timing or super natural.. but I didn’t really see full performances so maybe she’s better at that.
LikeLike
Precisely. ________________________________
LikeLike
With a few obvious exceptions, female comics have to go blue to survive. It helps if they are also desirable, as with Iliza Schlesenger or Taylor Tomlin, and a younger Silverman. It’s one thing for Seinfeld to forsake blue, as he’s a man and can do it without costing his career. Not the same for women.
Silverman is deep blue, and I’ve never been a fan. But her line about her mother was very funny, and surprising, We laugh at jokes out of surprise. I take no offense.
LikeLike
Yes that is why I said I used to find Silverman attractive. As in 1990s. I know too much now to fall for her act.
I find some of her comrades far more revolting, like Jimmy Kimmel. Or Will Farrell, again he can be funny, but really revolting person unforunately.
LikeLike
I don’t get it. She did have a great ass. I am my father’s son.
LikeLike
I don’t get it. She did have a great ass. I am my father’s son.
LikeLike
Oh well. A joke explained cannot be funny.
Here’s one from Tommy Magliozzi (late of Car Talk) that maybe has a better chance. It was told to him by a Chrysler executive, back when Ford, Chevy and Chrysler were still on top. Ford claimed that their cars were so well made, all of the seams so tight, that if they were to put a cat in it at night, the following morning the cat would be dead. They did, and it was.
Chrysler tried to match that claim, and put a cat in one of their cars one night. The following morning, the cat was gone.
LikeLike
That sounds like the Car Talk version of Schrodinger’s cat: it’s either dead, or alive, or both.
LikeLike
I get that one and I don’t get that one. Here’s an easy one: What do you call a cat that drinks lemonade?
‘Fake! Cats don’t do citrus.
LikeLike
Like all psy OPs it has multiple purposes. The “living in a vacuum” is close to one of them, I’d identify it as the main one: the scientific, heliocentric world view. All happening by accident, Earth like a dust corn in an infinite dark void. The void appears in drug and NDE/OBE reports, David Icke describes it as the blissful true state of being – not light. The Bible talks about waters divided. Just examples to an literally esoteric approach. Making children at school experience this is trauma mind control, and it’s sick, ofc.
LikeLike
Realized I made a mistake, Crispy McAuliffe was from Concord, NH, not MA. Or a teacher who moved there.
I know Alan Shepard is from my dad’s hometown, Derry, NH. Watch the liftoff to be the “first American in space” on a whippoorwill of rocket exhaust.
Nearly as bad, but maybe not as bad is Yuri Gagarin’s odyssey. I love where they crash land on the desert. Can you imagine how bad the impact would be for a multi-ton capsule weighing several tons would be landing on sand with a flimsy parachute the only way to slow you down? The G forces would kill you outright, the human body can only withstand about 20 Gs, or an abrupt deceleration from 70mph, more than that and you’re toast. And these capsules are supposed to slow down by friction at several thousand MPH entering the atmosphere, not very likely without burning up. Anders Bjorkman does a great teardown of the ballistic improbabilities of surviving a multi-thousand MPH entry into the atmosphere.
LikeLike
I like Sting, the singer who oddly can’t sing (he’s got no vibrato, and obviously has not undergone training to be a singer, or of he did, well, they didn’t have enough raw talent to work with) … speaking of our presidents, he said they all look like game show hosts. What a prescient insight! And the same is true of astronauts. So I laugh about the Challenger crew preparing for their “mission”, as that “training” consisted only of photoshoots.
But I draw the line on space travel … I think it obvious that humans cannot undergo the rigor and radiation without crumbling, but machines can and do. What they are doing with those machines? Beyond use as reflectors for signals from earth to space and back, I do not know. But that by itself is pretty cool. We now use Starlink and have very reliable internet, but before used ViaSat, the only thing available to us. (We cannot get cable up here, and our trees block most signals, so it was ViaSat or cut down our trees (no!)). ViaSat relies on vessels that are 22,000 miles out there in geosynchronous orbit, and the service did the best it could, which was lousy. In addition to the half-second delay on everything, there was the problem that a storm in South Caroline would disrupt our service in Colorado. It almost cured me of a tv, a good thing!
So this notion that there is no space travel because thrust does not have any effect in a vacuum is false, evidence tells me. I’ve been told that it is all done with balloons … poleez! More likely it is done with an old jalopy that goes “Pocketa pocketa pocketa queep!”
LikeLike
Still the idea of locking something into orbit is strange, no? Pretty incredible, all the planets etc held in a track by a perfect balance of gravitational force. And objects placed in one by humans, without falling to Earth, traveling at incredible speeds.
LikeLike
It is indeed a technological marvel, and I can only see that it really happens, that is, ViaSat’s signal is delayed 1/2 second while Starlink, whose satellites are only 500 miles above us, does not yield a perceptible delay. I and the Viasat agent walked around our property looking for an opening in the trees, and finally found one that allowed a signal through, and that signal remained stationary for the entire time we used their service. Was that due to a balloon hovering? At what altitude? How often are they replaced? What gets them to their location? (All asked from my position of ignorance.)
About rocket thrust, the science is beyond me, but most of the space ships are in lower earth orbit, and thus not free of atmospheric effects. And Newton’s Third Law, for every action there is an equal and opposite action, would not, in my view, be suspended due to lack of air. After all, it is not air that makes it work on the planet’s surface, but action/reaction.
LikeLike
How high could a balloon get a reflector? How big would the balloon have to be?
Who was the first person to use (or try) a balloon for such a purpose.
Is space really a vacuum? Surely it’s full of photons (particles) and supposedly other larger particles that are supposedly very dangerous. And it’s supposedly full of debris from satellites and comets etc. So it can’t be a vacuum any more than the sky or my fridge is a vacuum.
And why can’t gas exist in space? Is there a magic barrier that stops any from escaping every planet, comet (the official story even tells us there are gas coming off comets, for fcuks sake), asteroid, space craft etc through out all of existence and time or is there a space monster that magically eats it all up.
Clearly so much of what we are told about space is complete BS and can not be real . Much like what we were once told about the ocean.
I would suggest space travel ain’t that hard. Seriously they talk about how hard it was to navigate to the moon or stop radiation or break earths orbit and atmosphere etc etc. The atmosphere gets thinner and gravity gets weaker.
below is the wiki on comets, so clearly there is no vacuum, maybe less stuff like high in the sky, but…..
A comet tail and coma are visible features of a comet when they are illuminated by the Sun and may become visible from Earth when a comet passes through the inner Solar System. As a comet approaches the inner Solar System, solar radiation causes the volatile materials within the comet to vaporize and stream out of the nucleus, carrying dust away with them.
Blown solar downwind, two separate tails are formed: one composed of dust and the other of gases. They become visible through different phenomena: the dust reflects sunlight directly, and the gases glow from ionization. Most comets are too faint to be visible without the aid of a telescope, but a few each decade become bright enough to be visible to the naked eye.
Yes there is more stuff in the vacuum that is our inner solar system than the vacuum that is our outer solar system which apparently has more stuff than the other vacuums
As usual we recognise one lie but still automatically (want) to hang on to so much more. It’s part of being human I guess.
PS never argue with a flat eather, a moon landing believer, or religious people. Unless you are bored.
LikeLike
This is a BBC program about random people who look alike – two guys by amazing coincidence live in the same small town and people get them confused.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1nz5Bkpmcw
LikeLike
It’s very unlikely, but I do wonder why media outlets are broadcasting this stuff. It’s almost like they are trying to put out a fire. Was one of the guys named Dallas Goldbug?
LikeLike
I don’t recall the names of the people, however, I think it is a legitimate programme in that the people are random and do look very similar – I think there was a case where it was determined the people were distantly related but were unaware of each other’s existence but I don’t remember. Whether there’s an agenda behind it I cannot say.
LikeLike
There is, within the ruling class, an ability to 1) Produce clones, and 2) to elevate people beyond their natural status by faking their deaths and reinventing them as someone else more important and talented.
Regarding clones, they are not clones precisely, but merely people whose genes are altered so that while they inherit traits of the father, they also inherit a set of genes that came out of a test tube, so that the combination yields people who look very much alike and are at the same time easily distinguishable. Take Charlie Sheen and Pierce Brosnan as a very good example, but not by any means the only one. I’ve done a lot of work in this area, and call them “Bokanovsky Brats” after the cloning system written about in Brave New World. I do not understand how it is done.
The people who fake their death and then reappear as someone else usually end up in media, often after a period of training in music, of all things. Thus did Pete Ham become Bill Maher and so many, many others. I call them “Zombies” as they are walking breathing dead people. Is there an agenda behind it? Yes. It is to be sure that all media outlets are under common control.
LikeLike
Fuck those nitwits; actually, shun them – old world style.
Mark, your favorite reappearance claim for me is Bruce Lee as Judge Lance Ito.
I still enjoy this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Forest Gump it was special effects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The face splices are all very persuasive, except for the Judith Resnick one proving a non- match.. I think the head angle there defeats your method in this case. For one thing, while similar, the older one is leaning back slightly more, so that’s going to throw everything off. I’m not sure what points you’re setting equidistant for the pupils, but the perspective of a face angled away slightly, and the tilted axis, needs to be compensated for. In this case a full face overlay with one layer semi-transparent, and just eyeballing the alignment and sizing, might be more effective. Regardless just looking at them side by side they have many matching features, eg the distinctive teeth shapes being identical, and nothing dispositive that aging wouldn’t account for.
LikeLike
Since we got into a foodfight on moon landings, just wanted to show George Carlin’s take. It’s very good for mainstream TV (MadTV from 2000) in the year before 9/11 when you could talk about “conspiracy theories” without being threated to be a terrorist like GWBush claimed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We were coming back from a camping trip in Yellowstone in 2008 and were on the road through Paradise Valley, and for some reason had satellite radio? I don’t remember, but it was all George Carlin for the whole trip. Later when we got home I learned that George had died, and was crushed. I really liked him. He must have been hard to manage, no?
LikeLike
Mark, you talked about trauma based mind control, but theres a few other, simple explanations why they would fake a disaster.
LikeLike
Good points.. I meant to throw in too – Tim Ozman quoted some big 80s conspiracy research guy.. Bill Cooper or something? Who strung the names of the Shuttle missions together into a symbol laden statement.. Columbia, Challenger, etc all form a little myth story. And so the Challenger explosion fits in as acting out some ritual part of that phrase
LikeLike
Mark, another reqason as to why pull off a psyop like this: it’s a field day for the media, keeps them busy on busy work to feed the masses for months, years. I remember seeing a brief section of a TV “documentary” on the Challenger disaster, probably when i was at the gym with the TVs on the History channel. Anyhow, I remember the press went ape shit in 1986 after this happened, they were basically on crack loving the crap out of this space docudrama, with Ronnie Raygun giving such a tearful soliloquy, full of absolute bullshit:
” We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and “slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”
Address to the Nation on the Explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger | Ronald Reagan
LikeLike
How do we know that these people that the astronauts were compared to are real people? Has anyone checked?
LikeLike