Impostor Detection Methods

[GetSmart]

Banned from ATS I am glad to find shelter among you here.


This thread is meant to be a place where we can discuss and share ideas and techniques on how to best determine if a public figure or celebrity has been 'disappeared' and replaced.


I will start with one simple technique, of impressionistic inspiration, followed by other suggestions. I invite all of you to chime in with your own best advice on how we can get to the bottom of the doppelganger dilemma.


This technique is really quite simple. One looks at a photo presumed to be of the original person, and imagines them near you looking at you, almost talking to you. Then you imagine that they just turned their head, and briskly they turn back to look at you... except this time it is the next picture presumed to be the double.


WARNING: The reaction can be quite violent. It ranges from giving you the creeps, being frightening or gives a general ill feeling. If it is still the original, you probably only feel like they just got a haircut or something and look a bit different. Once you've done this a few times, you can't help but tell the difference between the real original person and their dubious replacement. Because you now know them instinctively.


To continue, here are some comments made previously in the Sean Connery thread about this subject, which is possibly best brought here for discussion and debate.


One of the things we tend to do when attempting to identify a double is pay too much attention to details. Sure, a blown up photo of an ear can reveal noticeable differences. Yet, we should not limit ourselves to this technique. For several reasons.


One is that sometimes they are able to do an excellent job on those details we may chose to compare. Then we are tempted to lose our grasp on what is really different between the original and the phony. Secondly, features only make up a small part of a double, as no doubt those in the business of manufacturing them will attest. Thirdly, cloning will soon remove from our pallet of tools and techniques any ability to distinguish doubles on the sole basis of physical features.


This does not mean we should abandon searching out for clues and incompatible features. But these should be accessory actions subject to a more in-depth profiling of a personalities characteristics. These are best determined, in the case of public persons, by looking for consistency without exaggerate caricature or redundancy, creative talent which is readily recognized by adepts, social skills and body language, mentalities and mind sets, values and vocations, and more generally charisma...


We must structure our analyses around a psychological study of a personality as one day this is all we will have to differentiate doubles from the real thing. We'll KNOW they're not the same, but will have no recourse to visual evidence to support our claims. So we'd best develop broader skills by first pinpointing just what is so uncharacteristic about the impostors.


Is it their smile? The look in their eyes visibly harboring a different soul? Is it the way they act towards others? What of their manner in general? When they speak, how does it touch us? What they say, does it reflect them and their message? What impression of WE do you have when connecting with them?


Thanks for suggestions on other methods. Faulcon has no doubt many elements for our critical assessment, of the more convincing kind for hard core skeptics or just those having a hard time coming to grips with the scale of the ongoing deceit. Others, please share your ideas, or if I've somehow posted this in the wrong place point me there.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Here was some stuff I dug up on doubles detection. As you mentioned, comparing & contrasting photos is one way to detect doubles.

... A German forensic pathologist studied hundreds of Hussein photos and videotapes, concentrating on his mustache and eyebrow measurements. Then he used computer software to locate specific points such as the tip of his nose and the cheekbone creating a face print which was compared to the Hussein photographs. His conclusion: that there are three Hussein impersonators, all with small, distinct differences.
CIA: Man On Tape Is Saddam www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/20/eveningnews/main544812.shtml

In 2003, German television network ZDF broadcast claimed that Iraq's former president Saddam Hussein was frequently replaced with doubles for TV appearances. This analysis was based on sophisticated measuring techniques, which detected discrepancies in the position of Hussein's facial features and blemishes from appearance to appearance. It was supported by the opinion of Jerrald Post, the man who created the CIA's Psychological Profile Unit.[22] ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_decoy

Is Kim Jong Il dead? Yes, North Korea’s “Dear Leader” is no more, having passed away in the fall of 2003, writes Waseda University professor Toshimitsu Shigemura in Shukan Gendai... In the spring of 2006, says Shigemura, American spy satellites succeeded in photographing Kim. An analysis of the photographs led to an astonishing conclusion: Kim had grown 2.5 cm!...
N Korea's Kim died in 2003; replaced by lookalike, says Waseda professor www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/north-koreas-kim-died-in-2003-and-was-replaced-by-lookalike-says-waseda-profesor

But... if you're dealing w/ clones, twins, etc, it might not be possible to detect physical differences. In that case, you could maybe use something that detects the energy frequency. This is some research I got from Dr. Beter (I think):

Detect using certain machines using processes similar to Kirlian photography, or with psionic machines, entities can distinguish the synthetic from the real entity or from the robotoid. That without such, the entities cannot, except through sensitivity or ability to see auras, make such distinctions.

Use some electronic means whereby measurements could be obtained in terms of electronic frequency that would allow discrimination between one type of entity and another. field of radionics essentially does this kind of thing. The entity seeking to attune to another’s vibration, uses a kind of drum with powder and moves the fingers around on this until they stick, while at the same time turning a knob which changes frequency on the machine and when the fingers stick, the frequency at a certain level is assumed to be the frequency of the person or individual the operator is attuned to. Once you have that frequency, then you set the dials to that entity’s frequency and begin to do readings on the entity in terms of frequencies associated with illness or other concerns. You could use the same method for finding the frequency in a diode or implant that the entity may have within himself, or if the entity is a synthetic or Robotoid or non-human type, you might use this method for finding what frequency this entity is and thus, gain some understanding of the frequency level associated with synthetics.

For more on radionics, research the works of Dr Ruth Drown. A decent radionics box consists of nine small rheostats (wire-wound variable resistors) with numbered dials (1 through 10) electrically connected in series. Into this tuning arrangement is plugged an electrode upon which rests a sample of what is to be analyzed. The output of the tuning arrangement passes through a metal plate covered in stretched latex, the metal plate then being connected to earth ground. An operator rubs the latex covering (called a stick plate) while tuning the dials until the fingers “stick” and the latex makes a snapping sound indicating the dial has been properly tuned…the operator then moves to the other dials and repeats the procedure until all nine are tuned. This produces a nine digit readout encoding the vibrational characteristics of the analyzed sample. It is a sophisticated form of dowsing; whereas pendulum dowsing produces little more than three answers: yes/no/maybe

a radionics box with nine dials allows for two billion possible numeric answers. The only problem is you would have to know for sure the entity is a synthetic and there would need to be a great enough difference between most entities and synthetics that there would always be a standard level for synthetics shown by the vibration or frequency so that you could distinguish this entity is a synthetic because his vibrations are those that match other synthetics that we have tested. it would require many years of research unless it has already been done and you would also need to have a control group of synthetics to measure and compare with a control group of real humans to determine if there is indeed a difference in the vibration and how much difference and if it is always present in synthetics and if the human vibrations never extend into the same areas as the synthetics.

Getsmart said under the Sean Connery thread that a person's energy is just different, right? Some people are just sensitive to that. The original just usually has "something" the replacement doesn't have.

[faulconandsnowjob]

From wiki:

Biometrics refers to methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In information technology, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control. It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance.

Biometric characteristics can be divided in two main classes:

Physiological are related to the shape of the body. Examples include, but are not limited to fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, hand and palm geometry, iris recognition, which has largely replaced retina, and odor/scent.

Behavioral are related to the behavior of a person. Examples include, but are not limited to typing rhythm, gait, and voice. Some researchers[1] have coined the term behaviometrics for this class of biometrics.
Strictly speaking, voice is also a physiological trait because every person has a different vocal tract, but voice recognition is mainly based on the study of the way a person speaks, commonly classified as behavioral.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_human_individuals

[GetSmart]

Jan 7, 2009 20:33:58 GMT -5 @faulconandsnowjob said:

You can almost always get a picture online. If it won't let you copy it or save it, you can do a screen shot. W/ a PC, you can hit "printscreen," & then open it up in a photo editor. I have a Mac, so I use the "Grab" program to get a screenshot. I then save it & open the photo in Photoshop to edit it, save it to jpg or whatever, & then upload it to photobucket. Piece of cake :-)

Faulcon posted this in the Brad Pitt thread, and I thought it would be useful to bring it here where more people can read it.


Using a PC there is also a workaround for photos which can't be downloaded. By viewing the source code for the webpage you can often find a reference to a JPEG or other image file which is referenced sometimes with its full link. Then all you need to do is copy that link into a browser address bar and see the picture show up on its own page in its original size. This time it can usually be selected and saved to your own computer.


Note: this is not an encouragement to downloading copywritten material, it is only an explanation of how to download public domain material which has been inappropriately protected from download.


Also, this advice is important if the Doppels forum is going to have any lasting impact over time. As a newcomer to this board I am confronted with the unfortunate situation of not being able to participate mentally in the discussion which took place last year or before. And this for a simple reason, many of the links no longer work. When you read: compare these two pictures all you see are tiny icons and the link leads to the home address of an image hosting service. When you read watch this video all you get is a message saying "This video has been removed by the user" or "This video is private".


We can prevent this from happening by downloading, at least temporarily, the content we have found. We can then upload it to a reliable free web based hosting service where we will control its continued presence. If this is too late and the posts we see are now half empty, becoming irrelevant to other viewers, we can see if we can locate the items somewhere else on the web and message the original poster so that they can update or replace their post with functioning links.


Here are some web hosting services and software to download streaming video or audio content:


Image, book and video free hosting websites:
www.photobucket.com
www.scribd.com
www.esnips.com
www.4shared.com


Replay Media Catcher free working demo version:
www.applian.com/replay-media-catcher/demo.php


Please add to this list any suggestions you may have.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Oct 10, 2009 13:30:47 GMT -5 GetSmart said:

Note: this is not an encouragement to downloading copywritten material, it is only an explanation of how to download public domain material which has been inappropriately protected from download.

Title 17, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use (US Code)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work...

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

[GetSmart]

This quote seems worthy of a post all by itself:

"Sometimes when you’re looking for a rat, you’ll smell it before you see it. "[/i]

Fritz Springmeier

If you've already yourself discovered a double, then you've possibly already experienced this. The sense of smell is interesting because of all human senses it is the one most connected with deep memories. Hypnotists use the evocation of smells and scents to help subjects regress to their earliest childhood and revive memories long forgotten. So if it doesn't "smell right" you can bet that you have unconscious memories which attest to something being distinctly wrong. You've sniffed out a doppelganger! Keep on persisting until you can find ways to confirm it because the bloodhounds are on the right track.

[faulconandsnowjob]

That is so interesting what you just posted, Getsmart. I "knew" in my heart that Paul had been replaced before I could actually see the differences. It was a painful, sinking feeling.

[GetSmart]

Faulcon, I sympathize because although you are the one who revealed to me that Paul had been replaced, I have discovered on my own others which hurt in the same way.

Regarding ways of detecting if someone has been replaced, correct me if I'm over generalizing and if it doesn't hold water, but here's a shot at testing their mettle, posted earlier in the John Ritter thread:

... One thing I'm noticing when seeing the doubles, be they John Travolta, Eddie Murphy or Jason Ritter. The replacements seem to be smoother, with more glib, less edgy and seemingly 'better finished' and prepped. They are more ordinary, less genuine and present a brash Ego which surpasses the original in vanity, as if they were substituting bluff and quantity for talent and measure.

To say it in a nutshell, the doppelgangers seem to GLOAT.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think there's something slick about the doubles. They also seem to have a bland personality compared to the original. Eddie Murphy, for ex, was just funny w/out having to do or say anything. The replacement is just so not funny. I guess, at some point, he gave up trying, b/c it just wasn't working - lol. I guess there's an "electricity" in the originals that is lacking in the doubles...

[GetSmart]

Faulcon,

Maybe we can start a list of adjectives which could put us on track when seeking to identify people who MIGHT be doubles?

Slick
Conceited
Bland
Superficial
Empty Stare
Unresponsive
Mechanical
Eerie
One-minded


Please quote, amend and add to this list.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Slick
Conceited
Bland
Superficial
Empty Stare
Unresponsive
Mechanical
Eerie
One-minded
Artificial
Unnatural
Uncomfortable
Uneasy

[GetSmart]

Thanks Faulcon for adding to that list, which I hope others here will contribute to.

We would also do well to establish, even if on a tentative basis, a list of questions, attitudes, behaviors to have towards suspected synthetics, doubles or clones in order to potentially verify their identity.

To start with one, I would recommend asking them a philosophical question. If there reply is evanescent, it means they are trained at not giving a square reply, or could mean that they are seeking to cover up their ignorance of the question, not to mention their inadequacy to answer.

If they comment, in a genuine knee-jerk fashion, they are more likely to be "there". If they walk away, this is a dead give-away of an evasive procedure which is part of their conditioned protocol. Thus, should you insist it is you and not them who is considered out of line.

I don't know how a clone reacts to a punch in the stomach, but I'm sure others here would have ways to test their mettle. BTW, do they have red blood?

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think asking philosophical or spiritual questions would be a great way to spot them. I doubt they'd have done much reflection on such things, since it doesn't really pertain to them, being soulless (assuming clones & synthetics are soulless - we know robotoids are...) Anyway, I think a clone would react just like a regular person if hit, & would have red blood. The DNA is the template that they use to create a soulless being that they can impose a memory complex onto. It seems like the mind would be more or less the same as that of the copied person, only it would have lost a little something in the transfer. I guess it's like a simulated human.

I think "Dollhouse" is worth watching for some insight into how minds are put into "vessels."

[faulconandsnowjob]

From my notes:

Characteristics: Bland, spend inordinate amounts of time in solitude, non-emotive, irrational. Irrationalism is typical of anyone who is highly programmed, be it one simply indoctrinated, one who has been reprogrammed through soul extraction and insertion in a duplicate, or one who is not even sentient but technologically animated. one of the characteristics that these kind of individuals might have, since they have this projected emotional frequency, would be a repeating emotional pattern, that they just simply, in spite of seeming intelligence, do not seem to learn from anything; that it just repeats over and over again. The eyes of a human clone may appear dull, blank, hollow, dark, vacant, lifeless, empty with no vibrancy or Light. The "new" entity will also look fresher and more youthful than the one seen just prior to replacement. This is why the media must be controlled. Even under strict control of photography and make-up technicians, the replication will often differ usually in reversal of character habits or muscle actions i.e., there will be a reversal of a "lop-sided" smile. The reversal of these traits is all but impossible to eliminate. So, too, are features which do not respond to stress changes as will a "haggard" or fatigued face pattern. Therefore, the structure and location of the ears, nose foundation and eye socket location must be perfected from viewing to viewing through cosmetic illusion and can never be exactly duplicated. You can notice the abrupt and considerable change in appearance toward vibrant health and youthfulness of some world leaders as seen in TV films or photographs. Usually this high robustness and stamina immediately follows a day or a few days of absence from the public eye after a period of increasingly evident aging appearance. You attribute those remarkable differences to the person's brief vacation or recovery from a proclaimed illness, but it is a new clone that has replaced the old one.

[GetSmart]

Much of our methodology gravitates to the face which shows the greatest differentiation between individuals plus give us a window into the soul thanks to eye contact. However, other aspects of a person's physique can help identify if they have been replaced.

For example, let's take hands. Here is an interesting article which describes hands and shows certain features we could be well inspired to examine when comparing "versions" of a same individual.

handfacts.wordpress.com/category/fingers/