FAC530-Napoleon Wilson, Solar Copycat

mattinapoleon wilsonlike this

Napoleon discovers that Solar is not SMJ, despite his law and use of the f word. 

18 thoughts on “FAC530-Napoleon Wilson, Solar Copycat

  1. UnrealUnreal

    As soon as the topic of gender inversion makes surface – one can always count on Tom Dalpra to pop up trolling.

    The hasty generalization fallacies Tom Dalpra engages in suggest not that Tom Dalpra is in any way “sketchy” on EGI. Tom is plainly deceptive about the topic of secretly transgendered celebrities as a whole and quite capable of lies and blatant fallacies to make his “point” which is to skip factual discussion and quickly jump to ill informed, hasty conclusions.

    See thread here about Tom Dalpra’s disingenuous “interest” in EGI here

    Fakeologist invested in research have all agreed around a term for studying apparent gender bending among Elite and celebrity individuals – EGI – which is not only commonly agreed upon in the Fakeologist forum thread, but the term EGI is also chosen for the dedicated Fakeologist sub-domain and blog entitled “Elite Gender Inversion” (created by Ab Irato).

    Tom Dalpra display clearly have no respect for any of the commonly agreed upon Fakeologist terms used to describe a field of research that intentionally make use of weaponized language on other channels such as YouTube. This might not be surprising as Tom Dalpra do not even agree to be called a Fakeologist himself.

    In the spirit of Fakeologist and Fakeology, it is obvious that Conspiracy language is weaponized and used against us as alternative researchers. When common Fakeologist terminology such as EGI is targeted by the likes of Tom Dalpra, it is not only the topic at hand he attacks – it is the very integrity of alternative research on this site that he undermines.

    Maybe there are better terms we could take use of to study the Elites hidden practices of gender bending, but there cannot be any better alternatives than using our own terminology when there is general consent to use our own terms such as is presently the case of EGI – Elite Gender Inversion.

    It would be a beneficial that more members speak out about the targeted belittling of research efforts made in order to shed light on Elite Gender Inversion, and at the least that those ill intended and clueless enough to even refute common Fakeologist research concepts and terms be called out for their conscious, repeated and deceptive behavior which is not merely about a research topic, but really against all Fakeologist precepts as a whole.

    [ below still image and video capture comparison of Kate Middleton that proves her digit ratio to be professionally altered and processed to cover up for her apparent male gender typical digit ratio ]

    1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      Thank you UNreal. You provide a simple example of why I oppose your EGI thread.

      Above is posted a photograph and video still comparison of Kate Middleton with the claim it ” proves her digit ratio to be professionally altered and processed to cover up for her apparent male gender typical digit ratio ” . Ermm, no it doesn’t.

      With the two images above we have two different perspectives. In the top image Middleton’s hand rests on the baby and in the bottom image her hand is lifted and at a slightly different angle . Obviously we should expect that from these two different perspectives her hands should look different.

      This is simply a normal ‘trick’ of perspective and absolutely, categorically not proof of tampering.

      If anyone thinks it is, then perhaps rather than just giving the anonymous and meaningless thumbs-down they can reply to this post below and make their case.

      Regardless of Middleton’s actual digit ratio, which is no hard and fast way to determine sex anyway, the above comparison can only be one of two things.
      Flawed analysis or a deliberate and not very sophisticated attempt at deception.

    2. UnrealUnreal

      Is there anything that Tom Dalpra is willing to agree on ? Sky appears blue ?

      Regarding digit ratio being gender typical there is plenty of literature about this topic and references have been given Tom Dalpra and others on numerous occasions*. The only aspect of gender typical finger-ratios that is debated is to what degree it is exacting – not the fact 2d4d ratio is gender specific – even in animals. This situation reflects how we question fingerprints, blood and other forensic data in the very same way – also DNA.

      •Ruggle George Human Finger types (1930)
      •PHELPS VR Relative index finger length as a sex-influenced trait in man (1952)
      •Amayeh, Bebis, Nicolescu Gender Classification from Hand Shape (2008)


      As digit ratios are provably gender specific, anyone who will professionally impersonate a woman will be aware of this fact, and avoid beard and very short index fingers (2d4d ratio) and logically will consider image correcting such traits as manly digit ratios if/when apparent.

      When celebrities that make the effort to adjust their finger length, it is no longer the gender typical digit ratio that is called into question but the motive they have to make such alterations. No normal cisgender person would even think of making their thumb, ring or index finger longer or shorter… Yet some do.

      So the issue here with Princess Kate is that her still images are after-produced. Which is why a still image is compared with an image-frame from video (24-30 pictures/frames per second) as such footage not often is touched up in the same rigorous manner as photos. This seems to be the case with a lot of celebrities – they rework all published still imagery and tweak specific aspects of their photos, but not as often videos.

      Princess Kate Middleton is not the only celebrity that do rework her imagery with a focus of masking gender typical markers, but researching these case is both time-consuming and difficult as technology plays in favor of those who rely upon image manipulation. Looking at how chemtrails now appear in old movies could be a clue to what lengths the Elite are willing to go in order to make any operation picture perfect.

      The video of Kate Middleton where her “short” digit-ratio can be found here for those who would like finding more comparison points* than provided by my own research above – and there are of course numerous other examples of image manipulation that alter gender typical traits for those who do engage in research – the most common alteration would be trachea (Adams apple) removal for celebrity women.

      * latest digression by Tom Dalpra on digit ratio was rebutted here – reading referenced research is clearly past Tom Dalpra level of interest

      *another clear case for MFT index finger tweaking is Wendy Whelan (NY ballerina) where we also have image proof of digit alteration as shown in the article Fakeologist EGI blog “Restless Male Creature” (here)

      [ “The 2D:4D digit ratio is sexually dimorphic: the difference between the lengths of the two digits is greater in males than in females”Wikipedia ]

      1. UnrealUnreal

        Another exemple below for those with enough visual acuity to detect and observe how Kate Middleton’s index finger is not consistant in her imagery*. Index finger is shorter in the left picture below – and in the right image below it seems like they made a quick job of it all, thus exaggerating the index finger length.

        *again – this discussion has been made before in the Fakeologist EGI blog here

      2. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        Yawn. yes, I understand the digit ratio. Do you ?;
        ”The 2D:4D digit ratio is sexually dimorphic: although the second digit is typically shorter in both females and males, the difference between the lengths of the two digits is greater in males than in females”

        But, as I said ”Regardless of Middleton’s actual digit ratio… the above comparison can only be one of two things.
        Flawed analysis or a deliberate and not very sophisticated attempt at deception.”

        I rest my case.

      3. UnrealUnreal

        Lol – Tom Dalpra rests his “case” ?

        What “case” did Tom Dalpra make, and with what research ? Showing up opinionating EGI is “flawed” analysis and “utterly spurious” research is merely unfounded commentary (at best). On the opposite, the case of EGI is made over numerous articles, referenced research and over 350 forum posts by Fakeologist members.

        I guess the fact Tom Dalpra finally read the Wikipedia page on digit-ratio and its undisputable gender dysmorphic nature would mean at the least Tom Dalpra and others won’t continue bring up gender typical digit ratio as being “bullshit” anymore…

        Regarding not accepting image evidence of Kate Middleton having Photoshop’ed her digit-ratio can be justified, although one needs a lot of tweaked perspective and skepticism much like the JFK magic bullet committee – and of course you clearly should not analyze the video frame by frame or do any research on your own.

        About Kate’s finger-length, a ruler suffices to measure out how Kate Middleton’s fingers have been altered in the images above and elsewhere (here) – less you do have a trained eye and made research and the verifications necessary.

        The most illustrative about Tom Dalpra’s negation of EGI (even as as a term and a valid research-topic) is how any new information is immediately negated and belittled with both insulting language and apparent spite – which all are no signs of objectivity, diligent verification nor show any respect for the few courageous researchers that still try to bring new findings up to discussion despite the unreasonable, hostile reception.

        And no, opinionating with a finger in air that any new research is “bullshit” and “flawed” is not constructive discussion nor any form of research or “proof”. And by now it has become systematic and distasteful harassment since way back from Tom Dalpra about anything EGI – even about Fakeologist precepts such as using our own, non-weaponized terminology.

        The general consensus among naysayers and “skeptics” of EGI seems to be that any Elite individual that would engage in secret gender deception would be easy to spot and very obvious. Lol – what an ill-informed position to even consider a practice like EGI to be “easy to spot”.

        Well, EGI is not easy to spot because it is an occult practice. And EGI is actively sought out for ridicule in order to associate independent Fakeologist research with the “Tranny” trash culture on YouTube and the controlled disinformation and weaponized language it encourages amateurs to pick up on.

  2. napoleon wilsonnapoleon wilson

    tom call yourself a fakeologist i never said that solarcopycat was smj , muppet , i said its velocets puppet and if you cant hear that whats the point . voice changers a plenty , mattis fucked off also .

      1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        For the record, Napoleon realised he was having a moment and apologised.
        His issue was that I’d claimed he said solarcopycat was smj, which I didn’t. That was ab.

  3. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

    At about 14 mins Denny says ”Tom’s a bit sketchy on EGI” and that ”as he’s said, the clue’s in the title- ‘Elite” ” . ???

    Hah! No, I’m not ‘sketchy’ about it. The term EGI is UNreal’s and comes from a thread he started here at Fakeologist. As I’ve made clear right from the start, as far as I’m concerned that thread, from the get-go, is FULL of flawed analysis and utterly spurious accusations. It’s full of bullshit.

    If you want to promote it, fine, but as far as I’m concerned anyone who does is either a mug or a shill.
    Is that clear enough for you, mate ?

    1. anzus23

      @Tom Dalpra,

      You make me smile. You better start your own brain working. Unreal proves without doubt that there are indeed strange things are going around. Unreal is not the only one who proves that EGI is a fact.

      1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        Cheers, anzus, you make me smile too.
        Perhaps it’s you that needs to get ‘ your own brain working’, though.

        To be clear, I agree that some strange things are happening and that some people have sex changes. This is not in dispute.
        What I object to is flawed analysis ( please see my answer to UNreal’s photo comparison, above ) and spurious claims which I see that the EGI thread is full of such as The Rolling Stones and Paul Mccartney are women and the Duchess of Cambridge is a man.

        If you give credence to these ideas then I can only smile because I think it’s a joke.

Leave a Reply