For me, one of the significant reasons I find the double/clone theory very unconvincing is that the 'evidence' of 4 grainy photos, (or the dozens of other photos that people cite as "proof") are never accompanied by something that might actually have the weight of evidence: for example, an analysis by a practiced and skilled physician specializing in anatomy, or in geriatric science, or in forensic biology, etc.
It's always "Duh! Look! Can't you SEE that they are not the same person!???"
Yep.
For me, one of the significant reasons I find the double/clone theory very unconvincing is that the 'evidence' of 4 grainy photos, (or the dozens of other photos that people cite as "proof") are never accompanied by something that might actually have the weight of evidence: for example, an analysis by a practiced and skilled physician specializing in anatomy, or in geriatric science, or in forensic biology, etc.
It's always "Duh! Look! Can't you SEE that they are not the same person!???"