The Clone Conspiracy: Stars and Celebrity Clones

I've been looking around Getsmart, and I think you might like this one:

Do you think that Tom Hiddleston could be a clone of Leslie Howard?

Leslie Howard (3 April 1893 – 1 June 1943) was an English stage and film actor, director, and producer.[1] Among his best-known roles was Ashley Wilkes in Gone with the Wind (1939) and roles in Berkeley Square (1933), Of Human Bondage (1934), The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934), The Petrified Forest (1936), Pygmalion (1938), Intermezzo (1939), "Pimpernel" Smith (1941) and The First of the Few (1942). Howard's Second World War activities included acting and filmmaking. He was active in anti-Nazi propaganda and reputedly involved with British or Allied Intelligence, which may have led to his death in 1943 when his airliner was shot down over the Bay of Biscay, sparking conspiracy theories regarding his death.

Leslie Howard

Thomas William "Tom" Hiddleston (born 9 February 1981)[1] is an English actor. He trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA), and he rose to prominence through a number of TV roles and more recently major film roles. He played Loki in the 2011 Marvel Studios film Thor, Captain Nicholls in Steven Spielberg's World War I film War Horse (2011), and also Freddie Page in the British drama The Deep Blue Sea, alongside Rachel Weisz. He played author F. Scott Fitzgerald in the Woody Allen film Midnight in Paris (2011). He returned to his role as Loki in The Avengers (2012) and is set to reprise the character again for Thor: The Dark World (2013).

Tom_Hiddleston


Both are very talented British actors of both stage and screen, raised in London, and also have/had siblings in the acting business as well.

Thoughts?

Nice job Toastman,


This brings an entire new leaf to the Clone Conspiracy story, because this is the first relatively contemporary actor who has been Cloned into a another actor. While we see any number of actors, models or musicians today who seem to be produced in series, they are all roughly the same age. In this instance one of them is contemporary and the other is form the beginning of the 20th century. My inclination is that both of them have been Cloned from the same earlier DNA of an eminent personality who we shall endeavor to discover, through future research. Once this comes forth we can repost your last post and then we will verify that Actors have been Cloned for probably longer than any of us had imagined.


Cheers,


Getsmart

reply to post by Getsmart





I'm still looking, but the first one that came to my mind is philosopher John Locke as he fits in with the whole British thing.

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh

Hi Toastman,


I see how you note, except for nose length, similarities which can be seen in other images of John Locke. However there is one thing which recurs in representations of Locke which make him less likely as a candidate for DNA donation, and this is the relative size of his facial feature set and their positioning on his head. Locke's features take up more of the surface of his head and this reduces somewhat the space apportioned to the forehead. Head shape and facial positioning is a key to differentiating between individuals. That isn't something which can change from one copy to the next. Then again, it could be that Leslie Howard et al. were Cloned from John Locke's DNA, only it isn't a slam dunk certainty making it harder to defend this thesis in the public light.


The trick is to try to locate the very best semblance available. You will want to make sure, if at all possible, that the sitter was present, alive and in direct contact with the artist portraying him or her. Hence you will try to avoid relying upon later artistic renditions, since they must appeal to a "recognition factor" by exaggerating certain facial traits so that others will say "Oh, that must be so and so..." Here is a case in point. In the first instance of the usually more reliable medium of sculpture, given its 3D effect and need to correspond to volumes in space, here the sculptor was probably not a contemporary of Locke. I doubt this given how the eyes and brow are simplified by the sculpture while the lips and exaggerated traits likely reflect a caricature of Locke's appearance...





More reliable are the contemporary paintings to be found, of which I shall offer close ups in fairly high resolution of John Locke's face. These two artists painted him in the flesh, and held themselves to the rigors of exacting portraiture. I find it interesting how John Locke's appearance has however been mostly broadcast by way of simplified caricature which does not very exactly represent his looks. Possibly this is due to his being mostly known visually through engraved plates in portrait in his books, and not from a proper art gallery in a museum.


John Locke portrayed by John Greenhill


John Locke portrayed by Herman Verelst


It is more hence reliable to not seek to work back in time, to determine who from the past looks like a contemporary individual suspected of being a Clone. Also we must take every precaution to do this by first locating a proper visual rendition of the person examined. Starting from the present and working our way to the past offers a distinct disadvantage. This is because in so doing we are inclined to map known characteristics of the modern individual we are very familiar with into the imagery of the earlier presumed original DNA donor. It is probably more reliable to browse through pictures of earlier individuals we are not as familiar with and. thereupon, verify who they might resemble among our contemporaries. This is because we already have many visual references useful in recognizing the actors or politicians we see daily, and we will therefore be more exacting in our requirements for a person from the past to resemble their familiar face.


Furthermore, it helps us better discern among the variable and somewhat inconsistent artistic renderings or portraiture representations before the days of photography. Artistic licence can enable one to extrapolate coherence among paintings or engravings some of which were portrayed from life, and others conjured up using poor sources of inspiration. When portraits are inaccurate, we can tend to "stretch them" further yet in our mind's eye into a direction which might make them become closer to the individual we have chosen to investigate. For example, if in looking at an engraving of John Locke you said to yourself "I can't believe it, he looks so much like Leslie Howard !" this would be a better measure of likelihood. But this is simply a recommended way of proceeding, from my own experimentation and trial and error. He still might be Cloned from John Locke given that none of the renderings of Locke I have seen to date appear to be very realistic or high enough quality portrayals that they would be wholly reliable.


Cheers,


Getsmart

I shall give an example of how this technique works. After posting the previous message, I was looking at United States Presidents and First Ladies (see the other Clone Conspiracy thread for revelations on Cloned First Ladies) and I stumbled upon photos and portraits of President James Garfield. It is looking upon one of these that I realized that I recognized him, he was quite familiar but I couldn't situate him. Then I saw his profile and it all became apparent. He was Cloned into American Actor Paul Newman. I had previously wondered whose DNA had served as genetic material for this same actor, but to no avail.


Paul Newman Cloned from President James Garfield



Here we can see that aside from a thicker beard, slightly more hair loss and a slightly thicker tip to the nose Garfield looks very much like Paul Newman from our point of view. However, it is the reverse. Paul Newman's inner ear structure is also identical making him clearly a Clone. Due to differences in clothing, hairstyles, facial hair and attitude we can find it sometimes very challenging to accurately identify Clones, even when they are indeed perfect copies. Starting from the historical figures, we solicit our visual memory which this makes it a lot easier than first identifying both candidates, the DNA donor and the DNA recipient, prior to comparing them.


Getsmart

Ahh I see.

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh

Hi Toastman,


What I posted was only a technique which in no way guarantees quality of results, however statistically it will probably help to reduce error. Yet one could of course be in error, even using this technique, and possibly my example given could be wrong and the one you proposed be correct. This is a very difficult task because identifying individuals in a significantly different historical and social context complicates things. In one case as a naturally born human being they have a soul, in the other as a biologically engineered and grown Clone, they perhaps don't ?


Also, in one case the originals from the more or less distant past are burrowed by the hardship of life in earlier days where one was less sheltered from the elements, poor nutrition and disease, not to mention social strife in more unstable times. It is also very hard to identify a Clone with its original DNA donor unless one can visualize them at different ages, with different body weights and facial hair or wigs, and is able to make abstraction of facial expressions and the general garb and decorum indicative of the historical period.


Finally a contemporary Clone without a conscience, afforded sufficient if not substantial material means, will be much less stressed than a genuine individual concerned for his contemporaries and close friends. Hence a modern Clone will almost always seem more CAREFREE because they are sheltered from trouble and also care about nothing but themselves and surviving to execute their programming.


Here is another case in point, where the original was weathered by years of combat in a position of high responsibility as Brigadier General in the Civil War. He was Cloned into a carefree young man without a worry in the world, who seduced the crowds by his lighthearted and unworried way. This again is characteristic of a Clone which is a being without character but which was given a semblance of character by way of programming and memory download. One must be very careful to not confuse the knock-off copy with the real thing...


Civil War Hero Winfield Scott Hancock is the DNA donor for Clone Michael J. Fox


Interestingly, Clone Michael J. Fox was noted as having a "Premature Case of Alzheimer's" which means that this Clone was not functioning properly and was forgetting much from his downloaded memories. This is a perfect cover story explaining why he no longer remembers people, events or essential facts about himself and others. Also it can explain away his erratic behavior which is totally uncharacteristic of the individual. Here is a new twist in the Clone Conspiracy, telling the public that the Clones gone bad, are actually simply normal humans afflicted by a disease.


A CLONE promoting Stem Cell Research for CLONING !


We can also note that if you looked at Winfield Scott Hancock in his later years, when he was Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States running against Republican James Garfield (seen above Cloned into Paul Newman) he was more portly, and his extra body weight concealed his bone structure, hiding his facial features and making him quite difficult to recognize. He is the chubby fellow to the left on these campaign posters.









This goes to prove just how difficult it is to accurately identify candidates as likely DNA donors for Cloning, yet it is nonetheless possible to do in quite a number of instances. One has to persevere and examine many individuals who had risen to prominence in the past, for any number of reasons, and connect them with your own memories of known personalities.


Getsmart

reply to post by Getsmart


Interesting thought, though I wish I had time to do more in depth research. Ahh the perils of a college student.

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh

Hi Toastman,


You're right to keep college as a top priority, there's plenty of free time once you've graduated to do all sorts of things later. One thing you can however do, when not overly busy, is keep this problem set in the back of your mind and 'let it stew' since this is a background process used in brainstorming that brings novel interpretations and new insight into complex issues. This way you can be contributing in your own way, even if not dedicating specific stretches of time.


Finding and identifying people who might have been Cloned is far less useful or important than helping to figure out who might be doing it and for what purposes. That's the real gambit where the stakes are high. In any cases the further we come along the greater the likelihood that many many of those in the public eye, stars, eminent celebrities, actors, musicians, renowned authors, tv personalities, politicians and top administrators and corporate moguls are probably Clones.


Speaking of Corporate Moguls, instant billionaires come to mind since these individuals are highly unlikely especially as getting rich quick is a very improbable myth that has been perpetuated by the Illuminati as they weave Fairy Tales of rapid success and fabulous wealth. The Russian moguls who seem very young and inexperienced are among those which defy rational interpretation and analysis. In the USA there are any number of CORPORATE STARS who are in fact Mind Controlled Clones running Intelligence Operations as well as furthering other Agendas for the Secret Government. Here is one case in point, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.


FACEBOOK Founder Mark Zuckerberg Cloned from King Philip IV of Spain










You will note that in the last picture of Mark Zuckerberg we have this Clone politically supporting donor organs which can readily be Cloned... similarly to the earlier support of Michael J. Fox for stem cell research. It is interesting to note that Clones are activists in promoting technologies and legislation which pave the way to more Cloning !


Getsmart

Just so that those of you interested in Celebrity Clones are aware, due to the political nature of his profession as a political journalist, I posted about the Cloned Star Journalist Bob Woodward known as "the man who fells presidents" in the other Clone Conspiracy thread here:


Post about Clone Bob Woodward


Otherwise, in the absence of any questions or suggestions, we can simply continue the process of outing Cloned Celebrities here in this thread. I keep many of them in reserve, awaiting input from other members prior to posting. Meanwhile here is something which seems to be emerging, namely a pattern of casting Hollywood movies with hidden embedded messages connected with which Clones are used in what movie plot. It seems that Clones are used to either mock the original DNA proprietor or to honor them in some cases. There seems to be some twisted humor involved, or possibly a bizarre esoteric black magick symbolic reason for some of these films.


Let us examine one case in point, titled The Name of the Rose which might be a reference to the Rosicrucians and which cast several Clones in its key roles. The two leads are actually both Clones of former Popes, which makes this very bizarre indeed given that it has to do with Religious Orders delving into the occult and magick. Furthermore both of them are called Leo, one being Pope Leo VII and the other Pope Leo VIII. The first was said to have died of a heart attack while having sex while the second is said to have


Pope Leo VII in Wikipedia


Pope Leo VII Cloned as Sean Connery with a youthful Christian Slater



Pope Leo VIII Cloned as Christian Slater cast with Sean Connery



We will note that the PLOT of the film The Name of the Rose is not exactly pro-Christian, and that maybe there could be a Satanist connection of Lucifer worship involved in the Clone Conspiracy, as Clones are either without souls or else Demon Possessed as host Avatars which might explain the Satanic leitmotif behind quite a lot of the film scenarios and music lyrics when Clones are involved. Here is a short synopsis of the plot of that movie, which has its share of demon possession in its there:

...The next day the body of the assistant librarian is found by the abbey herbalist submerged in a bathtub. This body too has blackened fingers and tongue. William goes to the Abbott with what he believes is the explanation for the deaths. He believes that the illustrator traded sexual favors with the assistant librarian to get access to a forbidden book: a comedy by Aristotle. Overwhelmed by guilt over what he had done, the illustrator took his own life, but not before he has passed the secret of where to find the book to his friend, the Greek Translator. The Greek translator also read the book, and later the assistant librarian. Both died of a "book that kills". The assistant librarian put the Greek translator's body into the pot to throw suspicion away from himself, before dying while trying to take a bath....

Synopsis for The Name of the Rose

In another forum several years ago I had documented how the actor Sean Connery had been changed for a double, and that this could be noticed by demeanor and slight facial differences which cannot be explained away by plastic surgery. However, even if one might suppose that the impostor could be a Clone, one had no idea that the original Sean Connery had been himself Cloned. This is now apparent to be quite likely, as casting together 2 Clones of the subsequent Popes Leo VII and VIII would be far too great a coincidence especially in such a movie with subject matter which relates mysticism, christianity and devil worship.


Getsmart

16 pages of "look a likes" has no one wondered how these people have been cloned so far back into the past?
I'm quite sure we don't have clone me booths on every corner over here at this point in time let alone in the recent past but some of these are utterly implausible!

reply to post by moonrunner


Hi moonrunner,


You hit the nail on the head - this is the puzzler in this Conspiracy, which is who or what has been Cloning people for quite some time. Is this some sort of genetic generation hopping distance crossing DNA messaging regardless of what family one is born in? One would say hardly, if modern science is straightforward and not fudging its version of the facts. Otherwise some of these at least are probably Clones, which means that something or someone is probably Cloning them - I doubt they could be spontaneously Cloning themselves...


Getsmart

While this could just as well be included in the Political thread about the Clone Conspiracy, this is as good a place as any to bring this up. Those behind the Clone Conspiracy don't just Clone politicians, Actors, Musicians and other Celebrities. They also Clone sex slaves as models, starlets, chambermaids and secretaries for the Illuminati ruling Elite.


This is something I have noticed in the private Estates of our rulers are arrays of submissive gorgeous maids in uniform which make Ukrainian supermodels look plain and homely. Similar "Goddess-like" creatures populate the main offices of major corporate Holding Companies - the archetypical genetic heritage and passive submission of these totally devoted members of said households and headquarters make it painfully clear that these are not normal humans but in fact Genetically Engineered Clones.


Cloned Biological Robotoid Fembots in the 1987 movie Candy 2000?


Yes, they are no doubt programmed Fembots designed for pleasure at the disposal of our Rulers. Here is a segment of the movie which pretty much lets the cat out of the bag. The main protagonist explores a location in the desert to find a replacement model - and this old fashioned western ghost town has a green Illuminati pyramid on the street corner which can seen as he pulls into town. FYI the film is supposed to take place in the year 2013.





The movies situates this zone in the Sedona Red Rock region and also at the Pharaoh's Casino near Las Vegas. It sounds as if maybe this alludes to Cloning lore derived from the Pharaohs which maybe also includes ET beings with 6-Fingers since the main "android tracker" is supposed to be named 6-Finger-Jake who is now deceased. Hence there might be in this film an allusion to Alien Grey technology used in Cloning human Fembot sex slaves...





What is interesting is that at the end of the movie the main hero abandons his Fembot for the female Android Tracker, preferring her since she is a woman who is fully human - yet she seems to correspond to some sort of Tracker programming which is a lot like paramilitary training for Cloned soldiers. And the actress incarnating this "real woman" happens to be who is the daughter of Tippi Hedren who maybe could be herself a Cloned Fembot?


Tippi Hedren and daughter Melanie Griffith



When she was a child Alfred Hitchcock gave Melanie Griffith a doll-sized coffin with a doll inside. Would he have done this to a normal little girl? Maybe this was British dark humor, as to him, she was one of the "living dead"? If so, then Melanie Griffith who is ironically playing the role of a Human in the film Cherry 2000 would in fact be a 2nd Generation Fembot? Are 1st Generation Fembots too distant and aloof, like Tippi Hedren? For they are much like Statues of Goddesses... But the 2nd Generation Fembots would then be juicier, more adapted and assimilated, and hence better able to fully infiltrate the population as genuine humans? Does this film allude to Men not being able to tell the difference between the Cloned Goddesses and a real human female, as long as they are 2nd generation "issue" of Clones?


All I can tell folks is to go out and check for yourself who is working with or in the immediate vicinity of the top executive offices, and remember this posting. Are these wondrous 'goddess-like' women simply recruited at random by some personnel department or thanks to some overzealous human ressource departments tasked with improving the visual landscape of their top brass? Or do they come from another source in a desert underground laboratory? My money is on the latter. I would wager without hesitation that there is a Fembot supply program with a Catalog commodities ranging from Cloned sex slaves to highly efficient "multitasking" nubile office staff.


Getsmart

reply to post by Getsmart


Wouldn't it be a riot if non-celebs send in their photos to the Wendy Show Celebrity-Look-a-Likes and turn out to be actual clones of celebs?

Who's to say that the clone makers stop at one clone per identity? Maybe they whip up a big batch to throw people off?

I wonder who's in charge of the Wendy Show Celebrity-Look-a-Likes archive? It would be interesting to see how many look-a-likes are actual clones, if any.

community.wendyshow.com...

Hi Weremom,


Thanks for joining in. Your post has brought this thread back up to the surface and I shall therefore return to adding more of the many many Celebrity Clones I have discovered and haven't found the time to add to the thread. It is quite exhaustive to the point that I wonder if they aren't almost all Clones? It is mind boggling. For example, some of the better actors and film directors maybe aren't that gifted by accident. I will make this point by pointing out one of the most praised actors of the 1950's as well as one of the most acclaimed movie directors of all time. For starters, here's the actor


Marlon Brando CLONED from the recovered DNA of Jeremy Bentham:






To better understand the values Marlon Brando was used to incarnate on the silver screen of motion pictures, it is interesting to examine what Bentham did during his life and figure out why the CLONE CONSPIRATORS would have elected to Clone him and then propel his Clone Marlon Brando into Global Celebrity?


Wikipedia entry for Jeremy Bentham


A rebel philosopher was therefore portrayed in a screentest as a Rebel Without a Cause, a role taken in the movie by another likely Clone, James Dean:





Getsmart

Do the clones ever have their gender altered?

My honest assessment of your side-by-side comparisons;

The only similarities I see are the fact that both subjects are humanoid, namely having two eyes, a nose, two nostrils, a mouth, lips, eyebrows, hair, ears, etc.

Other than that I see no similarities, it takes someone with a great eye for detail to see the noses don't look the same, the distance between the eyes is not the same, the mouth is not the same, etc.

I humbly ask that you delve into a hobby of another field as this reminds me of finding C3P0's head in the Martian landscape.

reply to post by pyramidikal


While you may find my example not to your liking, the question posed is still valid. I have read this thread all the way through but cannot remember if such "gender assignments" are discussed in previous posts.

thats some good sxxt you lot are smoking

phew. i reached the summit.. (interesting reading)

a young guy called Donald Marshall is doing the rounds lately talking about clones and cloning facilities.
there's an interview available to download from the vinny eastwood radio show website.
apparently he's on a MegaDeath album cover (all cut up with a skeleton rising out of his chest)

there's some old civil war photo's with a guy who looks a lot like Nicholas Cage.

i've got my tinfoil hat on.. but given enough time, i'm sure we'd see people who look like other people.
i don't know what's going on here but it was worth reading
thanks for posting!