Stepford wives

[lostworld]

Originally Posted by diva_on_wheelz

Glad you posted this lostworld, I thought it was a bit 'off' to attack Deedees post too!

Hope you're well by the way!

Thanks diva
It's crazy that it took this proportions but at the same time it's important to sort things out when necessary... especially when it's always been so important for me that everybody feel welcome here.

Thanks, I'm doing fine, hope that your are too. Good to still see you here

[emerald]

This is SHERYFA LUNA (stage name), winner of POPSTARS 2007 (French version of American Idol). Well, if u ask me, she has no voice at all, but whatever... What struck me are her stage name, her bf and son's name, VENUS&respectively VENUS JUNIOR (born on Valentine's Day).... Also her "bf" and her life on fast forward, having her son at 19... A family of celestials lol

[lostworld]

Originally Posted by joe2005

smashstuff;105830670

Miley Cyrus (M.C., Mind Controlled)

Good post Joe, thanks

[faulconandsnowjob]

Could we please stay on topic? I don't see how this "discussion" is adding anything to the research into stepfording & doubles.

BTW, I would like to post something on what constitutes evidence, just so people are on the same page. This is from US law. If anyone would like to post another country's legal standards, please feel free.

ev⋅i⋅dence  [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

proof  [proof]
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
...
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

Forensic science is used to gather evidence that can be offered as proof.

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, whereby an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science

Photographs, voiceprints, fingerprints, etc, can be used to establish identity. Here is US federal law on that:

[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 § 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 legal standard in USA is evidence is admissible if it is relevant. From the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm

[merlincove]

Originally Posted by faulconandsnowjob

Could we please stay on topic? I don't see how this "discussion" is adding anything to the research into stepfording & doubles.

Totally agree.

The forum is not the place for a public slanging match, please stick to the topic.

It would be a shame to lose this thread to the rant room through constant bickering.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Seems like an apropos time to repost this:

... Since their goal is to silence you, it would serve their ends to have both you and themselves banned from a given forum or online publication. They don’t really want to be there anyway. They want you to shut up. If you’re not there, they have no reason to be there. In all outcomes, it is your removal they seek. They will do whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. They have no personal interest in the forums they harass...

An Introduction to The Signs And Techniques of Online COINTELPRO
By Stephen DeVoy
http://www.indybay.org/olduploads/in...telprofree.pdf

[lostworld]

Originally Posted by faulconandsnowjob

Seems like an apropos time to repost this:

Very true Faulcon. Thanks!

[lostworld]

We can also add this:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...71#post1203571

[faulconandsnowjob]

Originally Posted by lostworld

We can also add this:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs....

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...71#post1203571

This is something I always come up against w/ respect to PID. Some people keep demanding "evidence," conveniently ignoring the forensic evidence, photographs, videos, etc, that I post. What do they think that stuff is? I think maybe they would only be satisfied if we could present Paul's dead body

[lara]

Originally Posted by greydove

I think it would be helpful if everyone who thinks this thread doesn't have enough evidence, or isn't believable, to point out WHERE and WHEN exactly they feel that way.

Then, we could have a true debate instead of just attacking each other.

I for one, would be interested to hear from skeptics regarding where they think things seem farfetched. I don't agree with everything posted here, myself.

So, to the naysayers. Start pointing out where you disagree, specifically, and then we can talk about it and generate some real discussion.

I think that's what's been missing here 'til now.

I tried to be that way, but I am not well articulated enough to present this counter point of view

Thing is the main premise of this thread is one which I am on board with. I just have minor nitpicks about things, people and events that I don't think are related.

For instance, the DNA sharing, people being engineered in high tech facilities that are pretty much like factories, churning out these actors and singers, who all look alike somehow.

The premise sounds plausible and the technology probably is real too, which is why I find it even more difficult to accept it only on the basis of contrasting/comparing 'look-a-likes' the way it is done. It is more of a methodology problem for me to be honest. The validity of this belief would be much better served, in my opinion, if it was presented in a different way, like...

When Faulcon and you linked articles, book references and so on about clones and how advanced the technology is along (of animals and possibly humans) then I'm much more inclined to be convinced by the argument that some entertainment figures are possibly cloned, or related through artificial means, etcetcetc.

If someone posts a picture of someone, who they think looks like another famous person, I'm less likely to believe that such a thing is possible. Does that make sense at all? I hope so.

Sometimes the examples are really compelling. Like Kate Walsh and Catherine Deneuve from many pages ago. Other times, not so. It is just very subjective and while I respect everyone's opinion and right to bring up those comparisons as examples, I am also of the opinion that it does little to convince the more incredulous crowd.

There's also some counter argument, or rather different interpretation of this curious phenomenon (of famous people looking like one another so much) someone brought up awhile ago about the possibility that these people are not being cloned in a lab, but rather that some of the elite ruling guys are 'spreading their seeds' the conventional way.

I think that is an interesting suggestion and something to be considered as well. There was an example of one of the Rothschild raping Hitler's mom or grandmother several pages ago, which would of course make them related.

That is something that could also be a possibility, even if there are indeed means to build a factory of stars for these people, because you'd think they enjoy such terrible acts of violence like rape as a means to derive pleasure out of their 'duty' to create more minions who are like them.

Maybe John Voight had relations with Megan Fox's mom and that is why she looks like Angelina!

J/k I personally don't believe they look much like each other at all. For starters, Megan is much shorter than Angie and looks like she was tweaked by a plastic surgeon to resemble Angelina, but the result was not quite achieved.