|
My List
Jul 14, 2009 20:41:08 GMT -5
Post by lucy on Jul 14, 2009 20:41:08 GMT -5
Different jawline..and chin..and the eyes look different.
Creepy.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 14, 2009 21:07:41 GMT -5
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Jul 14, 2009 21:07:41 GMT -5
Felvis is kind of creepy. I could never understand the attraction.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 14:46:50 GMT -5
Post by boombalonga on Jul 15, 2009 14:46:50 GMT -5
Continuing with one example from the list, Frank Sinatra, imposter-replaced in 1953 --- The Real Frank SinatraThe Imposter False-Sinatra ("Finatra")Look and you'll see some glaring differences that cannot be simply cannot accounted for by aging or makeup/plastic surgery. Frank/Fauxnk will get his own thread soon. The imposter, Finatra, with JFK: Are you really, in all seriousness, saying that in 1953 Frank Sinatra was "replaced" with a fake? I mean, seriously? What evidence do any of you have that this took place? His picture in 1953 looks different from one taken probably 15+ year prior? Have any of you looked at a picture of yourself from 15 years ago? Tons of things change physically in that time span, especially in the face, that can account for any differences you might see in those pictures. The first in vitro baby was created in the 70s but you're saying that in 1953 the government had the ability to not only create a new human being, but have that creation be aged to look like a middle-aged man and have the genetics engineered so it looks remarkably similar to the person being replaced? Not only that, but have the original person's memories and manerisms implanted into the fake? It wasn't until 2003 that the Human Genome Project was able to map out DNA so how could they do all that genetic manipulation way back in 1953? And what would be the purpose of replacing Frank Sinatra anyway? Was he crooning anti-government songs one year and the next singing to young girls that they need to enlist in the military? Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars replacing Frank Sintara? Look, I'm not trying to rag on you guys. You have your beliefs and that's cool. But let's be logical about it. There are all kinds of reasons to believe 9/11 was a false-flag operation and there are all kinds of holes in the official story. But cloning and replacing Frank Sinatra in 1953? C'mon now...
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 15:46:43 GMT -5
Post by artemis on Jul 15, 2009 15:46:43 GMT -5
Read more about replacement/cloning matter on this site and then u can say we're joking...
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 15:46:16 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Jul 15, 2009 15:46:16 GMT -5
And what would be the purpose of replacing Frank Sinatra anyway? You are the reason. You and your beliefs and attitudes and those of millions of others like you who base your reality on whatever your misbegotten heroes and authorities tell you. Now go watch some more TV. I think Paris Hilton is explaining global warming.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 15:47:47 GMT -5
Post by artemis on Jul 15, 2009 15:47:47 GMT -5
An ugly FRAD:
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 16:09:28 GMT -5
Post by artemis on Jul 15, 2009 16:09:28 GMT -5
I think Baez was replaced along with Joni Mitchell. U got more on this? Any possible reason for her replacement? I only noticed that she (if its really Joni in this pic lol) and actress SISSY SPACEK ressemble each other.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 17:49:37 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Jul 15, 2009 17:49:37 GMT -5
I had a gf in the 1970s who looked so much like Joni Mitchell that she was once mistaken for Joni by members of CSNY at a concert who called out to her in the audience, "Joni! What are you doing out there!" and they invited her on stage.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 18:10:56 GMT -5
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Jul 15, 2009 18:10:56 GMT -5
Photos are evidence. They capture "immutable characteristics" & "identifying particulars," & are used to establish identity. If you don't believe me, here are some cites to US federal law on this:
[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph... 5 USCS ยง 552a(4).
[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any-- ... (B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...
United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008).
... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.
Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).
The basic architecture of a person's face doesn't change w/ age.
Is that a fact? Maybe the 1st one you heard about. The state of technology is probably about 100 yrs ahead of what the public is aware of.
Yes. According to Stewart Swerdlow, the 1st human clone was created in Germany around 1928, & the 1st in USA was at MIT in 1967. Humans are actually easier to clone than other mammals. Ask me why, & I'll post more on that. Also ask me about how a holographic image of a person's memories can be made.
Or so they tell you. You really shouldn't take everything the media/news says at face value.
People are replaced for difft reasons. If a person is popular, the replacement will be used to exploit that popularity to sell some agenda.
Those "beliefs" are based on a lot of research. Come back when you've done more.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 15, 2009 21:07:25 GMT -5
Post by beatlies on Jul 15, 2009 21:07:25 GMT -5
Continuing with one example from the list, Frank Sinatra, imposter-replaced in 1953 --- The Real Frank SinatraThe Imposter False-Sinatra ("Finatra")Look and you'll see some glaring differences that cannot be simply cannot accounted for by aging or makeup/plastic surgery. Frank/Fauxnk will get his own thread soon. The imposter, Finatra, with JFK: Are you really, in all seriousness, saying that in 1953 Frank Sinatra was "replaced" with a fake? I mean, seriously? What evidence do any of you have that this took place? His picture in 1953 looks different from one taken probably 15+ year prior? Have any of you looked at a picture of yourself from 15 years ago? Tons of things change physically in that time span, especially in the face, that can account for any differences you might see in those pictures. The first in vitro baby was created in the 70s but you're saying that in 1953 the government had the ability to not only create a new human being, but have that creation be aged to look like a middle-aged man and have the genetics engineered so it looks remarkably similar to the person being replaced? Not only that, but have the original person's memories and manerisms implanted into the fake? It wasn't until 2003 that the Human Genome Project was able to map out DNA so how could they do all that genetic manipulation way back in 1953? And what would be the purpose of replacing Frank Sinatra anyway? Was he crooning anti-government songs one year and the next singing to young girls that they need to enlist in the military? Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars replacing Frank Sintara? Look, I'm not trying to rag on you guys. You have your beliefs and that's cool. But let's be logical about it. There are all kinds of reasons to believe 9/11 was a false-flag operation and there are all kinds of holes in the official story. But cloning and replacing Frank Sinatra in 1953? C'mon now... You seem to be misunderstanding the post on Frank Sinatra/ imposter Finatra. I did not say that the Sinatra double was a human "clone." Where did I say that? I did not. The video/picture/audio evidence clearly shows that he was permanently replaced by a different man. This is scientifically indisputable. Either you have somehow honsetly misunderstood me to be saying that his replacement double was a biological clone (the technology to do so was not available in the early 50s, certainly, and it is also impossible to instantly create an adult replica of another person), or you (I hope not) are trying to create a ridiculous "straw man' argument trying to tag me and the researchers here with a discrediting, absurd statement I did not write. One or more people here may think that human cloning/fast adult replication was being done in the 1950s but that does not mean everyone does, correct? It is true, though, that the classified, top secret bio-research being done by military/intelligence agencies is often far ahead of the "public" scientific, published record, and this definitely appiles to IVF and cloning experiments. And it is ture (see my post on the 2001 dated newswire report) that oddly enough primates, monkeys and humans, are reported to be easier to clone than "middle evolved" type mammals such as sheep and goats, perhaps not much more difficult than frogs, which were "publicly" cloned first in 1952, acc. to the official cloning timelines. Also, Sinatra, whose career was going down in the late 1940s/early 50s due to Red Scare HUAC investigations and media smears about his communist affiliations, seems to have gone into hiatus and been imposter-replaced around 1952 ---the visual/audio differences between Sinatra circa 1950 and Finatra circa 1953 is quite glaring.
|
|
|
My List
Jul 16, 2009 13:27:48 GMT -5
Post by beatlies on Jul 16, 2009 13:27:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
My List
Jul 16, 2009 13:30:20 GMT -5
Post by beatlies on Jul 16, 2009 13:30:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
My List
Jul 16, 2009 14:56:58 GMT -5
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Jul 16, 2009 14:56:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
My List
Jul 16, 2009 15:39:59 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Jul 16, 2009 15:39:59 GMT -5
^ Yes, that's the real Eric.
I think there might have been more than one Feric. One in the late 60s-70s and the current Bozo. Maybe more.
Edit: What happened to the picture of Eric?
|
|
|
My List
Jul 16, 2009 23:01:25 GMT -5
Post by The Mask on Jul 16, 2009 23:01:25 GMT -5
|
|