I dunno - maybe I’ve just spent more time living in multi-ethnic environments than some other people but, to me, neither the McNairs nor the Onizukas look alike in any way I’d describe as remarkable; I’m not even convinced that there’s a particularly striking fraternal resemblance. (And that’s ignoring the latter McNair’s blindingly obvious diastema.) As to the Resniks and the McAullifes – well, again, I just don’t see anything but the broadest of similarities in either pairing (The Resnik comparison, particularly, smacks of desperation – I’d bet my life, and a big bag of toffees, that it’s not the same woman.)
The Scobees and Smiths – now that’s much more like it. However, ears are a very useful factor in facial recognition (with the right technology a better tool for identification purposes than fingerprinting, it’s been claimed), and although the quite commonly held idea that ears grow with age is a matter of some argument, I’ve never heard anyone assert the opposite - that they shrink, or change basic shape, or flatten out against the side of the head – which is what appears to have happened with both these men. (The ears are also a pretty good tell in the otherwise striking Hicks/Jones resemblance.)
Faces tend to slacken with age – and I suspect this means that, as the definition of our youth blurs, the number of points of potential similarity between two separated by time can actually increase, and that observers can react to this, consciously or unconsciously, by allowing themselves a little more leeway when making comparisons. If that’s true, not only do you have a database of many millions of individuals to sift, you also have thirty years of facial softening to smudge the lines a little - and that’s bound to increase the likelihood of finding an apparent hit in the sample.
I suspect there’s also something else going on here – an effect which probably has a name, but which I don’t know. (I think it’s different to – but often goes hand in hand with - the Selection Bias mentioned by Rynner earlier in the thread). This being that, in a series like this, the striking nature of one or two comparisons can actually reduce the observer’s judgement in the case of the other elements put forward as part of that series. I think this is common to quite a few conspiracy theories (and not just ct's, for that matter): a small but relatively solid core of data is given the impression of being much larger by being wrapped in a mass of much less convincing information – in return, through its relationship to the solid core, otherwise unconvincing data is given weight way beyond its own merit.
If offered in complete isolation I strongly suspect that the majority of those comparisons would struggle in to inspire a grudging ‘yeah, maybe’ from most people - but there’s just enough there to add weight to a theory as long as it’s piled up against some more convincing data. It’s like someone finding a series of numbers that add up to ten, only several actually just add up to nine – but hey, it doesn’t matter because that’s almost ten and some of the numbers do add up to ten...
So, to my mind the whole theory is based on a very begged question: that is, the actual alikeness of the ‘likenesses’ involved. And to me, it stacks up like this:
Smith – Hey, wow – that’s pretty good.
Scobee – Pretty good - but not quite as good.
Onizuka – They’re brothers – but whatever they are they don’t look that much like each other anyway.
McNair - They’re brothers – but whatever they are they don’t look that much like each other anyway.
McAuliffe – Bollocks!
Resnik – Complete bollocks!!
