Hi Captain,


You sure went in deep with your last suggestion. Believe it or not, that possibility has been bugging me lately, and some folks in this thread think that they might not actually be quite human either... Regarding Cloning Facilities, we don't even know if such are that needed. That clay is needed is known from recent scientific documents but also from the Sumerian tablets as well as the holy bible that mentions that Adam was made from clay. How sanitized must the facilities be? It could be done in somebody's cellar for all we know.



There are plenty of secret facilities in every nation in the world. What goes on there is also highly classified, so it could be pretty much anything they want. That proof isn't present doesn't make things untrue. There was significant truth to convince the skeptics that the Earth was flat: there were hills and valleys, but as far as you could walk it would always be beneath your feet and show no substantial signs of having another shape. So folks were free to believe that the Earth is flat, if that suits them. In the case of Clones, it isn't just a case of whether you are willing to believe something for which you haven't received sufficient proof, it is also the case of whether you persist in believing in something, for example "Clone's don't exist" although the evidence you base that certainty upon is possibly misleading you to believe something false?




Hi Cube,


Thanks for your links. I think you have quite a knack for picking them. However, when you get the luck of finding an old portrait that doesn't have their ears hidden by a wig or hair, then do match the ears. Their position on the cranium, and their general appearance but especially the pattern inside the ear is paramount; this doesn't change with clones. However they can have somewhat different ear lobes, more or less sunken eyes, slightly different soft tissues, and still be clones. One example which can teach us how they can be alike yet different is the several George W. Bush Clones. Their ears were quite different in size although the inner pattern was identical.



One of your selections seems to have a different ear pattern, so I wouldn't be so sure in such an instance. Noses can be slightly longer, shorter, thinner or thicker but will usually be of a similar style. Another important vector for Clone Identification is the shape of the eye arches, the brow and skull shape, as well as the proportions of the features to overall skull size and the slope of the face, etc. Ear height respective to ears is another, and in general the distances of one feature to another, such as the space between the chin and the mouth and then the nose. FWIW



Getsmart

Originally posted by GetsmartHi Cube,


Thanks for your links. I think you have quite a knack for picking them. However, when you get the luck of finding an old portrait that doesn't have their ears hidden by a wig or hair, then do match the ears. Their position on the cranium, and their general appearance but especially the pattern inside the ear is paramount; this doesn't change with clones. However they can have somewhat different ear lobes, more or less sunken eyes, slightly different soft tissues, and still be clones. One example which can teach us how they can be alike yet different is the several George W. Bush Clones. Their ears were quite different in size although the inner pattern was identical.



One of your selections seems to have a different ear pattern, so I wouldn't be so sure in such an instance. Noses can be slightly longer, shorter, thinner or thicker but will usually be of a similar style. Another important vector for Clone Identification is the shape of the eye arches, the brow and skull shape, as well as the proportions of the features to overall skull size and the slope of the face, etc. Ear height respective to ears is another, and in general the distances of one feature to another, such as the space between the chin and the mouth and then the nose. FWIW



Getsmart

I do know about the ear pattern but, what if painters wanted/had to mix things up by --most often than not-- hiding or modifying ear patterns? It's not that far-fetch, isn't it?

As several graphic artists I know have told me : different painters have a different feel for people they paint. They often try to represent what they see with their eyes and what they perceive with their heart. It can lead to small --but real-- differences from a specific portrait of a person to another.

Just like the same song can be sung quite a bit differently by different singers.