I disagree

[qbert]

I've been working my way through the doppelganger threads and yeah, I believe in mind control and all that but I disagree with your claims that these celebs have been replaced. Has anybody here even considered what happens to people as they age? Their facial structure does change you know. Then you have all the plastic surgery these stars get so yeah of course their noses or lips are going to be different.

What you people don't seem to see are things like the hairline, the eyebrows, the shape of the eyes, ears, things that are more permanent. (although they have surgeries that'll change that stuff too, but it's still more permanent than noses, lips, skin, etc.) When you compare these pics of the stars these things line up.

I seriously don't know what some of you people are talking about when you say this or that celeb is now "faux." It's like, are you even looking at the same pictures I'm looking at? Because they're the same, only older, and sometimes with plastic surgery. Angelina is Angelina, she's just grown up, had some plastic surgery, and lost weight. Cameron Diaz is still Cameron Diaz. There ain't nobody out there who looks like her and could be her duplicate, sorry. She's pushing 40 and is skinny and aged, what do you think that's gonna do to her face? Of course she doesn't look like the baby faced kid she did in The Mask. She's not 20 anymore! She's twice that age almost! Christina Ricci is the same in all those pics except she's got different hair colors and styles. So what, she's an actress, she's supposed to go out on the scene with a thousand looks. It's the same her though, same height, same body type, same skin and eyes, lips and face shape. She looks like an alien, you can't find a lookalike that will have the alien thing going on plus match up to everything else. She's one of a kind.

When women hit their 30s their faces become bigger and more defined. You people posting all these comments will find out yourselves soon enough. Hate to see what happens to you when you're 35 and 40 and looking at yourself in the mirror. Trust me, you ain't gonna look like you did when you were 21. Your skin will be different, your face and head will be larger, with more defined cheekbones and jaw, your hair may start to thin out, your voice will be a little deeper even if you're a female. You'll lose that girly sound to your voice. If you're a guy your nose and ears will continue to grow larger which is why old men sometimes have freaky large ears and noses.

I don't think these celebs have been replaced with lookalikes, I think many are under mind control and that's why they act the way they act. They've also had a lot of plastic surgery.

I know it'll be like talking to a wall when I say this but I'm gonna say it anyway because it needs to be said. I think you're wrong, and I disagree big time. There, I said it. Before anybody argues with me remember to look at the shape of hairlines in the front AND around the sides of the head, look at the eyebrow shapes and where they are on the face, look at the ears, look at the shape of the eyes. You can't find lookalikes in the real world that will have all of those duplicate traits. You won't.

Ciao

[beatlies]

The criterion for determining who is a "look-alike" imposter has already been discussed in this forum, and other forums at tedious length, qbert.
You would do well to read up on the physical morphological, and voice
determinents that are used by scientists, police detectives and spy agencies. This is what we go by, and should go by in stating who that we think has been imposter-replaced or using doubles.

And just for starters, how do you explain this?


A smoking gun for the world: "Faul" the McCartney Imposter caught on film unawares with his fake plastic ear missing a piece.

[fauxster]

Here's the deal. People are imposter-replaCIAed. Until people understand that this happens, they will think it's "impossible" & won't be able to recognize it when it happens.

Background information on doubles
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/background-information-on-doubles.html

Probably the best example of a bad double (IMO) is Faul McCartney. According to *forensic experts,* there are physical differences between Paul pre & post 1966 that cannot be explained by plastic surgery, such as the differences in the tragus & the nasal spine. While some differences, such as to the palate & mandibular curve, could in theory be explained by surgery, it would have required an extensive series of surgeries, including palate inserts. Obviously, this didn't happen, since "Paul" didn't take the year off of singing that would have been required. Please see this article for more info:

Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-mccartney-is-dead.html

Oh, & the ears - big time smoking gun.

[hotman637]

qbert- You say you believe in mind control but not in replacement. What would be easier to get you to change your mind, mind control or replacement? I think that question leads to one explanation as to why people are replaced. They try mind control and when that doesn't work they are relaced.

[sabrina]

Dec 14, 2009 20:21:35 GMT -5 qbert said:

I've been working my way through the doppelganger threads and yeah, I believe in mind control and all that but I disagree with your claims that these celebs have been replaced. Has anybody here even considered what happens to people as they age? Their facial structure does change you know. Then you have all the plastic surgery these stars get so yeah of course their noses or lips are going to be different.

What you people don't seem to see are things like the hairline, the eyebrows, the shape of the eyes, ears, things that are more permanent. (although they have surgeries that'll change that stuff too, but it's still more permanent than noses, lips, skin, etc.) When you compare these pics of the stars these things line up.

I seriously don't know what some of you people are talking about when you say this or that celeb is now "faux." It's like, are you even looking at the same pictures I'm looking at? Because they're the same, only older, and sometimes with plastic surgery. Angelina is Angelina, she's just grown up, had some plastic surgery, and lost weight. Cameron Diaz is still Cameron Diaz. There ain't nobody out there who looks like her and could be her duplicate, sorry. She's pushing 40 and is skinny and aged, what do you think that's gonna do to her face? Of course she doesn't look like the baby faced kid she did in The Mask. She's not 20 anymore! She's twice that age almost! Christina Ricci is the same in all those pics except she's got different hair colors and styles. So what, she's an actress, she's supposed to go out on the scene with a thousand looks. It's the same her though, same height, same body type, same skin and eyes, lips and face shape. She looks like an alien, you can't find a lookalike that will have the alien thing going on plus match up to everything else. She's one of a kind.

When women hit their 30s their faces become bigger and more defined. You people posting all these comments will find out yourselves soon enough. Hate to see what happens to you when you're 35 and 40 and looking at yourself in the mirror. Trust me, you ain't gonna look like you did when you were 21. Your skin will be different, your face and head will be larger, with more defined cheekbones and jaw, your hair may start to thin out, your voice will be a little deeper even if you're a female. You'll lose that girly sound to your voice. If you're a guy your nose and ears will continue to grow larger which is why old men sometimes have freaky large ears and noses.

I don't think these celebs have been replaced with lookalikes, I think many are under mind control and that's why they act the way they act. They've also had a lot of plastic surgery.

I know it'll be like talking to a wall when I say this but I'm gonna say it anyway because it needs to be said. I think you're wrong, and I disagree big time. There, I said it. Before anybody argues with me remember to look at the shape of hairlines in the front AND around the sides of the head, look at the eyebrow shapes and where they are on the face, look at the ears, look at the shape of the eyes. You can't find lookalikes in the real world that will have all of those duplicate traits. You won't.

Ciao

I completely get what you're saying, and I don't always agree that certain people were replaced, but I think you're missing the part where replacement doesn't always mean physical replacement.

It can be that the person is so different due to mind control and other things that the original soul is no longer there. To me this is a big part of it, though I think cloning and outright doubles have already happened.

Also, can you seriously say Christina Ricci is the same??

To me she looks entirely different and would be a good example of outright replacement.

[GetSmart]

Check out the thread on Peter O'Toole, most people agree that ears don't double in size and you'd have to be pretty kinky to cultivate the Dumbo look when you're a leading man.

A number of celebrities have also had eye color changes, and although there is such a thing as colored contact lenses, they usually have an artificial tint and work for those with light eyes which become darker and not inversely. [Note: if my info is outdated please so inform us]

[qbert]

Dec 14, 2009 20:39:25 GMT -5 beatlies said:

The criterion for determining who is a "look-alike" imposter has already been discussed in this forum, and other forums at tedious length, qbert.
You would do well to read up on the physical morphological, and voice determinents that are used by scientists, police detectives and spy agencies. This is what we go by, and should go by in stating who that we think has been imposter-replaced or using doubles.

Problem is, most of you guys seem to label EVERYBODY as being replaced. Even celebs who CLEARLY look the same, but only older and more aged. I don't see you guys using scientific/law enforcement methods to draw your conclusions at all. You guys sit around looking at pics and then make judgments based on that amount of minimal "evidence."

Dec 14, 2009 20:39:25 GMT -5 beatlies said:

And just for starters, how do you explain this?

ONE example does not prove EVERYTHING for all examples. I never disagreed about Paul McCartney specifically. I talked about Cameron, Christina, Angelina, et. You're ignoring all my other points and setting up a diversion.

I'm glad you brought up the Paul-Faul thing because he seems to be one of the rare examples that confirms that people can get replaced. There's reasonable cause to believe this happened to him based on all the photos and video as well as a good motive for doing it. But the others? Come on. Why would somebody replace Christina Ricci??? Who is she? For dweeby obsessed fan boiz she may be something but in the grand scheme of things she's nothing, she's just some chick who acts for a living. Big deal. The Beatles on the other hand were the biggest band in the world at the time and so it makes perfect sense why they would replace Paul if something had happened to him. Keep that cash cow going, baby! Same goes for Cameron Diaz. Who is she in the grand scheme of it all? Nothing. Nicole Kidman? Even more nothing. Most of these people are nothing, but most of you guys seem to believe they're so important that they'd be worth replacing. There is pretty much no actor out there who is such an important cash cow that they'd have to be replaced. There are tens of thousands of younger, better looking people around the world who can easily take any of these people's places. And who are more talented and could probably act and perform WAY better than most of them. So why would Hollywood bother to replace these people? Seriously. You don't go through all the trouble of cloning, or finding doppleganger doubles when you have an unending pool of fresher, hotter, younger talent that can replace them.


"Also, can you seriously say Christina Ricci is the same??"

Yeah, actually I can. Some scientific/law enforcement method of determining things when all it takes is different hair cuts and colors to throw you guys off. You guys must not play around with hair too much. Hair cuts and color alone can alter the appearance of somebody. It can create illusions about face shape, features placement and skin tone. The wrong cut and color and somebody's face looks too round and fat, or too skinny, their forehead too high, their skin color washed out and problem features are emphasized. But the right cut and color and problem features are played down and disguised, things are in balance and a person can look loads better even though the face itself has not changed one bit. Hair style and color will also make a person look younger or older. With Christina you see the striking difference between her with dark hair and bangs and her with lighter hair and no bangs. That's just one example. In the end look at things like eyebrow placement, eye shape and placement, hair line shape going ALL the way around to the ears, ear shape and placement, and other relatively permanent things that usually can not be changed so easily. That's how you'll know whether you're looking at the real person or some imposter. Not the hair. Not the weight. Not the skin. Not by any transient thing.

Go to YouTube and look up videos of girls playing around with makeup. That's another big one, just as important as hair cuts and color. There are all these vids on YouTube where girls give themselves makeup treatments and you get to watch them transform before your eyes. Sometimes they look amazingly different, it's incredible.


"A number of celebrities have also had eye color changes, and although there is such a thing as colored contact lenses, they usually have an artificial tint and work for those with light eyes which become darker and not inversely. [Note: if my info is outdated please so inform us]"


Eyes do change color. I've known or heard about so many people whose eyes change shades and colors depending on their health and their moods, so yeah, that's not necessarily a good way to determine anything either. People with blue, green, gray and hazel eyes can experience shading changes that include all of those colors, depending.

As far as your information about colored contact lenses goes, I'm not sure where you got that from. Plenty of brown eyed people have successfully worn blue or green lenses. Seriously, where'd you get your information from? Paris Hilton is a classic well known example of a brown eyed girl wearing fake blue lenses. Her fake blonde hair and fake blue eyes are her signature look. See, that's what bothers me about this entire thing. People making statements like that sounding like they totally know what they're talking about when what they're saying is totally not true! And we're supposed to take you seriously when you say somebody is replaced or a clone? Come on now, be serious. How can anybody listen to you guys when you don't understand simple things like colored contact lenses?? It means you don't understand or comprehend a whole lot else about how things are. Like, the changes people experience physically as they get older, what sorts of plastic surgery people can get and what it'll do to a person's looks, the effects of chronic dangerous dieting, the illusions used with hair and makeup. Etc. I get the feeling you guys aren't very sophisticated, that you come from really middle level average backgrounds and don't have much experience in the way of money, plastic surgery, extreme dieting, expensive hair salons, skin treatments and makeup. You have to put yourselves in their world if you want to understand what it is you're looking at. If you can't do that then you'll never get it.

[beatlies]

From www.voxfux.com

VOX COMMENT ANNOTATION:

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

VOX

[sabrina]

Also, can you seriously say Christina Ricci is the same??

Yeah, actually I can. Some scientific/law enforcement method of determining things when all it takes is different hair cuts and colors to throw you guys off. You guys must not play around with hair too much.

Not true. I explained that not everyone on this board believes all the actors here were replaced outright by doubles. As for Christina the shape of her head is different her chin and eyes are also very different. Before she had a receeding chin and a round head and now her head is more angular. Her eyes are bigger too.

The Hair cuts and color alone can alter the appearance of somebody. It can create illusions about face shape, features placement and skin tone. The wrong cut and color and somebody's face looks too round and fat, or too skinny, their forehead too high, their skin color washed out and problem features are emphasized. But the right cut and color and problem features are played down and disguised, things are in balance and a person can look loads better even though the face itself has not changed one bit. Hair style and color will also make a person look younger or older. With Christina you see the striking difference between her with dark hair and bangs and her with lighter hair and no bangs. That's just one example. In the end look at things like eyebrow placement, eye shape and placement, hair line shape going ALL the way around to the ears, ear shape and placement, and other relatively permanent things that usually can not be changed so easily.

Go to YouTube and look up videos of girls playing around with makeup. That's another big one, just as important as hair cuts and color. There are all these vids on YouTube where girls give themselves makeup treatments and you get to watch them transform before your eyes. Sometimes they look amazingly different, it's incredible.

I know, I've seen such videos. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on this. And you missed the part where I said replacement is also on a soul level and that can change be inferrred from the difference in photographic evidence of these "stars". This also links back to plastic surgery being used for more than just improvement.

How can you explain rich and famous people like this? Couldn't they get better surgeries?





There is something else going on here.

I get the feeling you guys aren't very sophisticated, that you come from really middle level average backgrounds and don't have much experience in the way of money, plastic surgery, extreme dieting, expensive hair salons, skin treatments and makeup.


Not necessarily.

[fauxster]

Dec 29, 2009 10:23:08 GMT -5 qbert said:

I don't see you guys using scientific/law enforcement methods to draw your conclusions at all. You guys sit around looking at pics and then make judgments based on that amount of minimal "evidence."

We use methods used by forensic scientists. For ex, comparing ears, facial features, eye color, height, voice, etc.

ONE example does not prove EVERYTHING for all examples. I never disagreed about Paul McCartney specifically.

If one person can be replaced, then others can as well. The people on this forum pay careful attention to detail. Peter O'Toole was definitely replaced. The ears are nothing alike in later pictures.

Why would somebody replace Christina Ricci???

I'm not saying she was or wasn't replaced b/c I haven't studied that case enough, but just b/c you can't think of a motive for replacing her doesn't mean ipso facto she wasn't replaced.

Nicole Kidman?

Replaced

Most of these people are nothing, but most of you guys seem to believe they're so important that they'd be worth replacing.

The entertainment is a very powerful propaganda tool

You don't go through all the trouble of cloning, or finding doppleganger doubles when you have an unending pool of fresher, hotter, younger talent that can replace them.

You're making assumptions w/out having all the facts

Some scientific/law enforcement method of determining things when all it takes is different hair cuts and colors to throw you guys off.

lol - yeah, I don't think that's it. People here are looking at immutable characteristics like ears, nasal spine, width of mouth, etc.

A number of celebrities have also had eye color changes, and although there is such a thing as colored contact lenses, they usually have an artificial tint and work for those with light eyes which become darker and not inversely. [Note: if my info is outdated please so inform us]"

Eyes do change color. I've known or heard about so many people whose eyes change shades and colors depending on their health and their moods, so yeah, that's not necessarily a good way to determine anything either. People with blue, green, gray and hazel eyes can experience shading changes that include all of those colors, depending.

My eyes are blue-green & will look green or blue depending on what I wear. However, my eyes have never once looked brown, grey, hazel, or violet.

As far as your information about colored contact lenses goes, I'm not sure where you got that from. Plenty of brown eyed people have successfully worn blue or green lenses.

Faul has green eyes. In the Strawberry Fields video, he is wearing brown contacts. You can see the green coming thru.

Some plastic surgery is possible, some is not. For ex, Paul McCartney *could* have gone thru a series of painful surgeries to transform his jaw & palate, but he obviously didn't since he didn't take off a year from singing & the requisite scars were not to be seen. I recommend you peruse the following articles:

Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-mccartney-is-dead.html

Doubles & Plastic Surgery
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/doubles-plastic-surgery.html

Don't it make your brown eyes *green*
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-it-make-your-brown-eyes-green.html

Entertainment industry & mass manipulation
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/entertainment-industry-mass.html

What Evidence? A little primer on the law of evidence
plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-evidence-little-on-law-of-evidence.html

And yes, I realize you are not arguing about Paul specifically, but his case can shed light on other cases of replaCIAments.

[lucy]

Dec 29, 2009 13:30:28 GMT -5 sabrina said:

How can you explain rich and famous people like this? Couldn't they get better surgeries?

IMO When I've seen pics like this of celebrities where plastic surgery has gone so terribly wrong, and other such atrocities such as Mickey Rourke, Meg Ryan, Melanie Griffith with her horror face, Courtney Love is another one....I think there may have been some cloning or stepfording that took place and it went terribly wrong, in the hands of an unskilled surgeon who was careless in his work...

They wanted a look a like and got a trainwreck...

[qbert]

Dec 29, 2009 13:30:28 GMT -5 sabrina said:

Not true. I explained that not everyone on this board believes all the actors here were replaced outright by doubles. As for Christina the shape of her head is different her chin and eyes are also very different. Before she had a receeding chin and a round head and now her head is more angular. Her eyes are bigger too.

No, they're not. Sorry but I disagree.

I know who you are, I've seen you around on other forums. (where I've disagreed with things same as here!) You're always the smarter one in the bunch. I don't get why you associate yourself with people like this. These people are usually whackjobs who will insist that a square head is round, or that blue eyes are brown or that two people look alike who only maybe resemble each other. You're usually the voice of reason, and you're right you don't just agree with every far fetched claim that the crazies are saying. I don't get why you associate with these places.

Dec 29, 2009 13:30:28 GMT -5 sabrina said:

How can you explain rich and famous people like this? Couldn't they get better surgeries?

Priscilla has gone public with her botched plastic surgery. Didn't you see where her plastic "surgeon" "doctor" was a quack, and was injecting her with toxins?

"Priscilla Presley was perhaps naive when she underwent bad plastic surgery at the hands of a shady character who was posing as a medical doctor. She was not the only celebrity client to fall for the fake credentials of the phony physician. Daniel Serrano is currently serving an 18 month sentence for performing procedures using imported substances that were not FDA approved. He entered a guilty plea in Los Angeles Federal Court for conspiracy, smuggling and use of unapproved drugs." www.bittenandbound.com/2008/03/26/priscilla-presleys-plastic-surgery-nightmare-photos/

It doesn't mean she was replaced, it means she went to a shady guy and paid the price with her face.

Meg Ryan fell for the "everybody needs to have big fat Angelina Jolie lips" mind control. Now she looks like a duck. Quack quack! If she laid off the lip injector for five minutes maybe she'd go back to looking like her old self.

Re: the replacement on a soul level. Even if that was the case....WHO CARES? You know? Seriously, why are you guys so obsessed with idiot celebrities?? These people are idiots half the time who memorize lines for a living to repeat in front of a camera, and here you are obsessing about whether they've been physically replaced, whether they have doubles running around, whether their soul was snatched, blah blah blah. WHO f**kING CARES. Does it even matter?? No! Remember Cher in Moonstruck? Big slap across the face and a "Snap out of it!" I will ironically quote a celeb's movie line to get my point across about waking up and snapping out of your celeb obsessed mind control trance. Snap out of it. Wake up already! "This person was replaced! That person has a paid double! This person's soul is gone! That person has a clone!" WHO CARES. THEY ARE IDIOT MOVIE STARS.

Consider this: Half the people that you see involved in these celeb obsessed forums and blogs are people that are either crazy or they've been put there to inject crazy into the group. And then the good but naive people get pulled into their crazy. Consider that.

Adios!

[artemis]

HASTA LA VISTA, baby, and keep living in denial and call us names! U know who said "HASTA LA VISTA, BABY"? The false ARNIE, for ur info.

[fauxster]

Feb 8, 2010 14:57:30 GMT -5 qbert said:

These people are usually whackjobs who will insist that a square head is round, or that blue eyes are brown or that two people look alike who only maybe resemble each other.

I bet you can't provide one reference to someone insisting that a square head is round or that blue eyes are brown. And "looking alike" is actually a synonym for resembling each other. lol

Priscilla has gone public with her botched plastic surgery. Didn't you see where her plastic "surgeon" "doctor" was a quack, and was injecting her with toxins?

Do you buy everything you see in the papers? Seriously. Don't you think they're capable of coming up w/ some rational explanation for the physical changes other than replacement? I don't have an opinion about Priscilla, but I do know for a fact that some people have been replaced. Of course, they're not going to tell you that, just like they're not going to tell you 9/11 was an inside job.

Meg Ryan fell for the "everybody needs to have big fat Angelina Jolie lips" mind control.

So what happened to Anelina's "big fat Angelina Jolie lips?" B/c they're not there anymore.

Re: the replacement on a soul level. Even if that was the case....WHO CARES? You know? Seriously, why are you guys so obsessed with idiot celebrities??

I guess you haven't quite gotten how CIAlebrities are used to influence the masses & further the agenda, huh? But it is sad that people are disposed of & people don't even notice b/c some imposter pretends to be them.

And if it doesn't matter, why are you spending your time posting about it? Just FYI, some of us are pretty decent at recognizing disinfo agents & shills. It's highly suspect when someone complains about how "stupid" something is, & then proceeds to spend a lot of time trying to "debunk" it. We can see right thru that. lol

Consider this: Half the people that you see involved in these celeb obsessed forums and blogs are people that are either crazy or they've been put there to inject crazy into the group.

And of course, the classic disinfo technique of trying to discredit the opposition. Give me a break.

[klcinfowarrior]

Dec 14, 2009 20:21:35 GMT -5 qbert said:

I've been working my way through the doppelganger threads and yeah, I believe in mind control and all that but I disagree with your claims that these celebs have been replaced. Has anybody here even considered what happens to people as they age? Their facial structure does change you know. Then you have all the plastic surgery these stars get so yeah of course their noses or lips are going to be different.

What you people don't seem to see are things like the hairline, the eyebrows, the shape of the eyes, ears, things that are more permanent. (although they have surgeries that'll change that stuff too, but it's still more permanent than noses, lips, skin, etc.) When you compare these pics of the stars these things line up.

I seriously don't know what some of you people are talking about when you say this or that celeb is now "faux." It's like, are you even looking at the same pictures I'm looking at? Because they're the same, only older, and sometimes with plastic surgery. Angelina is Angelina, she's just grown up, had some plastic surgery, and lost weight. Cameron Diaz is still Cameron Diaz. There ain't nobody out there who looks like her and could be her duplicate, sorry. She's pushing 40 and is skinny and aged, what do you think that's gonna do to her face? Of course she doesn't look like the baby faced kid she did in The Mask. She's not 20 anymore! She's twice that age almost! Christina Ricci is the same in all those pics except she's got different hair colors and styles. So what, she's an actress, she's supposed to go out on the scene with a thousand looks. It's the same her though, same height, same body type, same skin and eyes, lips and face shape. She looks like an alien, you can't find a lookalike that will have the alien thing going on plus match up to everything else. She's one of a kind.

When women hit their 30s their faces become bigger and more defined. You people posting all these comments will find out yourselves soon enough. Hate to see what happens to you when you're 35 and 40 and looking at yourself in the mirror. Trust me, you ain't gonna look like you did when you were 21. Your skin will be different, your face and head will be larger, with more defined cheekbones and jaw, your hair may start to thin out, your voice will be a little deeper even if you're a female. You'll lose that girly sound to your voice. If you're a guy your nose and ears will continue to grow larger which is why old men sometimes have freaky large ears and noses.

I don't think these celebs have been replaced with lookalikes, I think many are under mind control and that's why they act the way they act. They've also had a lot of plastic surgery.

I know it'll be like talking to a wall when I say this but I'm gonna say it anyway because it needs to be said. I think you're wrong, and I disagree big time. There, I said it. Before anybody argues with me remember to look at the shape of hairlines in the front AND around the sides of the head, look at the eyebrow shapes and where they are on the face, look at the ears, look at the shape of the eyes. You can't find lookalikes in the real world that will have all of those duplicate traits. You won't.

Ciao

so, how come these "changes" don't happen to us regular folk in the real world. I'm 39 and my face didn't get any bigger during my 30's, actually I've never heard of such a thing.

When women hit their 30s their faces become bigger and more defined.

You asked if we consider what happens to people as they age...

Has anybody here even considered what happens to people as they age?

we're aging too...and yet you don't see the dramatic changes in us regular humans...

this must be a condition that only affects the celebrities the young ones seem to suffer from it the most! ;D 20 years is the new OLD (lol) Lindsay Lohan sure is an old bat!