|
Post by artemis on Jun 17, 2011 10:04:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jun 17, 2011 10:09:08 GMT -5
Well, imo, clones are humans. It's not what they are but HOW they are created that makes them different. Absolutely, I agree. I guess I was just sort of wondering out loud if clones for instance might tend to age more rapidly, and if they, too, occasionally need Botox and other plastic surgery remedies to keep up appearances. They do tend to age rapidly don't they? Take a look Kelly LeBrock. NOT the same person that was in Weird Science imo.
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 17, 2011 12:17:28 GMT -5
Artemis, those Britney/Fritneys are weird! The bottom one has lower shoulders and a longer neck. Bizarro. And this was all from the same performance? Well, I guess it's easier to make all those costume changes quickly if you have some doubles working with you!
As for Felly LeBrock - I think she was replaced a long time ago but since she's not really very famous anymore maybe they're just letting the current replacement age?
Off topic but - saw a TV add for some wrinkle creme or something the other night and it showed Jane Seymour from a few years ago versus now and she definitely is looking younger. Somehow I don't think it's from a magic creme, though!
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 17, 2011 13:48:33 GMT -5
Spot on, Goro! Again my bad - I admit that with shame - I didnt notice the neck. True, the from my pics, FRITNEY 1 and 2 have it short, while FRITNEY 3 has it longer. Yes, all pics are from the same show. Amazing, isnt it? I also suspected KELLY LEBROCK got replaced.
|
|
|
Post by msmoonlite on Jun 17, 2011 17:23:32 GMT -5
Hi I have a question. Do you suppose that most of these celebrities are replaced with robotoids or synthetics? I'm also wondering if synthetics are the cheaper model??? Drastic differences with those Fritney photos.
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jun 18, 2011 9:07:00 GMT -5
Assuming this clone system exists, how are the clones "grown" and raised? Something like in the movie "The Island?" A process of gradually "mainstreaming" them into everyday society? A much thornier set of problems than the initial, apparently simple step of cloning an adult or child human into clone-zygote, to fetus, to healthy clone-infant.... Here's what I think: The clones are created form the DNA of the host person. The host could be an original human or a clone. The clones are created instantaneously in a lab setting, not spending nine months in a woman's womb. It certainly doesn't take a lifetime as in the "popular" known method of cloning. That's just what the public has been told imo. These clones are created instantaneously and not only do they duplicate the looks of their host but also the personality and stored memories. It sounds crazy but it's the most logical explanation I've come up with.
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 18, 2011 14:10:08 GMT -5
Assuming this clone system exists, how are the clones "grown" and raised? Something like in the movie "The Island?" A process of gradually "mainstreaming" them into everyday society? A much thornier set of problems than the initial, apparently simple step of cloning an adult or child human into clone-zygote, to fetus, to healthy clone-infant.... Here's what I think: The clones are created form the DNA of the host person. The host could be an original human or a clone. The clones are created instantaneously in a lab setting, not spending nine months in a woman's womb. It certainly doesn't take a lifetime as in the "popular" known method of cloning. That's just what the public has been told imo. These clones are created instantaneously and not only do they duplicate the looks of their host but also the personality and stored memories. It sounds crazy but it's the most logical explanation I've come up with. I think you're right, and I think "they" tell us the truth constantly via movies and TV shows and videogames. In the movie Avatar this idea was used to great effect. In order to interact with the beings on another planet, humans had to learn how to mentally connect with an "avatar" or being made in the likeness of the local aliens (the tall blue Navi.) Our human hero is actually paralyzed from the waist down so after he learns how to run around using the body of his avatar he feels quite liberated. Early in the movie when he is being shown these avatars in the lab I think the scientists briefly talk about cooking up these beings or cloning them or whatever. But they are physical beings that the humans then mentally meld with to control their movements. Just last night I watched a two part episode of the new season of Doctor Who in which a strange thing called "The Flesh" is used to create "gangers" (as in Doppelgangers! Hey, we're getting popular! The humans are working on an isolated island doing industrial work with acid and because the acid is so dangerous they create doppelgangers of themselves to do the dangerous work. Frequently a ganger will get hurt or burned by the acid and the humans don't care because they consider the gangers disposable machines. But the substance used to make the gangers is called "The Flesh" and it can emulate a living person and the living person can transmit all of his or memories to the doppelganger so the gangers really think that they are the original humans. A big theme in the story is about the ethics and morality of allowing these gangers to have autonomous life. At first the humans are freaked out because the gangers really are their exact doubles and the gangers think that they're the real humans because they have all the same memories as the humans do. But then conflict arises and some of the gangers decide to try to destroy the humans. There's a scene where one of the Doctor's friends is shown what the humans have been doing with the gangers after they are hurt or have outlived their usefullness - they literally just toss the gangers in a pile in a room and meanwhile the gangers continue to feel excruciating pain just as humans would. Freaky to see that on the show - given what we explore here! The gangers were formed out of an essentially self-aware viscous substance called "the Flesh" and once you interacted with it and imprinted it a perfect copy of "you" would arise almost instantaneously out of the fluid. What if the advanced ET or other technologies have come up with a substance like that - a sort of neutral cellular matter that could be imprinted with whatever you want? Would that result in a synth or a clone, technically speaking? I see synthetics as more robotic in nature but probably with very sophisticated organic components and memories which have been downloaded. Are they self-aware? Maybe - in their own way!
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 19, 2011 14:35:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 20, 2011 4:15:55 GMT -5
This is a still from her newest vid I WANNA GO. Dont u get a wrong vibe, like, for instance, the person ure looking at is not what it appears to be? I mean this FRITNEY is either a tranny, either a man. ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT. Not even a female on male hormons...
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 20, 2011 8:44:17 GMT -5
This is a still from her newest vid I WANNA GO. Dont u get a wrong vibe, like, for instance, the person ure looking at is not what it appears to be? I mean this FRITNEY is either a tranny, either a man. ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT. Not even a female on male hormons... RE: The Tom Hanks photos - great collection, lots of Foms there! The black and white headshot Fom is model type handsome while none of the others are. Lots of other Foms, too. That Fritney photo seems very weird and distorted like they used tons of special effects to get that image - also, you're right , the energy is very weird, she looks to me like a hybrid gray alien. Not kidding. I think they are starting to add a fair amount of ET DNA into some of these replacements/clones. I've noticed that a lot of runway models are starting to basically look like grays - they're choosing this look and boldly putting it in front of us in our "celebs." But in the Fritney photo there is a definitely man or transsexual aspect to it. Back in the earlier three Fritney photos you posted from her recent concert - the one in the middle continues to freak me out. I would swear that that is a complete "replicant" (like the cyborg humanoids from Blade Runner) -- 100% synthetic.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 20, 2011 8:56:31 GMT -5
Right and forgot to add that the FRITNEY from the pic Ive just posted, besides from looking like a man, also looks artificial. Like a mask. Could be this one too. Its like they put a BRITNEY "suit" on somebody else. Remember FARNIE's customs scene from TOTAL RECALL? Thats what Im talking about. Was waiting for ur verdict on my TOM HANKS's post ...
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jun 20, 2011 9:44:43 GMT -5
Tom Hanks: the ear differences alone prove that there are Foms.
And Artemis' photo series has also got me thinking about Jackie Gleason being replaCIAed....
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jun 20, 2011 11:46:30 GMT -5
Great Tom Hanks comps artemis. I see 4 clones of Tom...if not more. And the recent one is creepy as hell....as goro and sherlok pointed out.
Regarding Jackie Gleason, most certainly he was replaced. For instance, for reference, check out the obvious difference in the voice between the guy in The Honeymooners and the guy in Smokey and the Bandit.
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 20, 2011 14:31:10 GMT -5
People suits......now there's one of those ideas that turns up a lot in movies and TV - Face Off with the interchangeable faces; I remember an episode of one of the newer Doctor Who in which aliens were wearing people suits and masquerading as members of Parliament.....sounds like another of one of their horrific technologies that they keep "telling us about" but not so subtly putting it right in front of our faces.......
Yuck!
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 21, 2011 5:09:16 GMT -5
As few months ago About now. Who'd have thought "CHRISTIE BRINKLEY" will end up this way?
|
|