Note the editor: There has been a frequent (but niche) group of online people who are the chairman of Edward Snowden Mike Johnson, and vice versa. It seems crazy at first, but I paid attention to it and it is not as crazy as once you do a little check. I am not telling you that I believe it is 100% or even at all, but today you have a big update on the story.
I first brought you this report a year ago, but ever since I saw that it was going viral again today, I took another look. And I realized that when I originally covered it, the AI equipment available by us was quite weak. Since then all the top AI companies have issued the major progress, I decided to run photos again through AI and saw what more advanced AI says that it is about advanced facial analysis.
I give you your original report first, when you have never seen or heard before, and then below I will give you your new update. Spoiler Alert: Results can really surprise you!
Basic Report:
Okay friends, do not shoot the messenger on this one, I am just reporting on something that has started going viral online.
Perhaps you have seen it…. Edward Snowden = Mike Johnson claims.
I am going to say right in the beginning that I do not believe this is the case, but as you click and see some pictures, I have to accept equality in some examples, it is quite unfit!
I show you what I mean, and then I will repeat that I am not promoting it accurately. In fact, I consider the opposite.
Let’s start with it:
The tie in Kim Clement is interesting … and Kim said “another Snowden will rise”.
This would certainly be quite a twist on those words if “another snaken” means Snowden was in disguise itself!
Now let’s look at some side-by-side which I have posted for comparative purposes.
One:
Two:
Three:
I do not see it so much, but one thing I would say is in two pictures directly above, both of them appear in the same place as two moles.
This is definitely strange.
Then we have this post that is saying that ears and teeth do not match, but ironically, I think this photo mashup has been seen in some way:
I run all three sets of photos through online AI face comparison software and got these results:
I don’t know what he has to make. 50–61% looks terrible, but the software label that “not a match”.
So AI is telling you that it is not only one person.
And we all know that our AI overlords are never wrong! (Smile)
I found 54% using a separate AI tool:
I felt interesting that Mike Johnson was not elected to the Congress until 2017 and Edward Snowden was already exiled in 2013.
But overall it is a “conspiracy theory”, I am not just shopping enough. Sorry friends!
Because the principle seems that speaker Johnson (Snowden) and Trump are working together in some way.
I would say that I have found it very strange that President Trump continues to support Johnson, even after $ 60 billion to Ukraine and nothing for our limit.
This definitely attracted my attention and I am not really a good explanation for it.
But if it is considered that Trump is working with Johnson because he knows that he is secretly Snowden, then Snowden falls very quickly based on the former statements of President Trump about Snowden (Spiler Alert: He doesn’t like it).
On June 24, 2013, he referred to Snowden as a “traitor”, who really hurt us. Additionally, in October 2013, Trump tweeted that Snowden was “a detective that should be executed” after Snowden’s charge.
So forgive friends, I am marking it as “interesting … but unlikely true”.
New update 9/6/25:
Now after using the most advanced AI, we have made available for updates today.
I will not hide the ball, I will come out now and tell you what really wondered me.
Not only did the similarity of the facial similarity be very high, but both chats and groukes reached 82% -83% facial equality conclusion, which is “unusual high” and good as “wrong for siblings/twins in casual analysis”.
Oh my god!
Before I give you full report, here are four images of side-by-side comparis that I have fed in each AI:
Here is full analysis from chat:
It got it – I will remove all temporary or variable elements (glasses, facial hair, smile, light, even moles) and only look and look Fixed, structural, permanent marker,
Facial structure analysis
1. Cranial and forehead structure
Equality: Both have a relatively long forehead with a smooth vertical slope, there is no deep fruit on the eyebrow ridge.
Difference: One has a slightly wide upper forehead, while the other is more narrow.
2. Orbital (eye socket) size
Both have horizontally narrow -eyed sockets, which are oblique at the bottom on the outer corners.
The distance between the eyes is very close to the ratio, making them look align.
Main Difference: A deep set has eyes inside a parikrama cavity, the other eyes sit slightly close to the surface.
3. Nasal structure
Bridge: Both are narrow on the nose bridge.
tip: One has a slightly more defined, angular nose tip, while the other has a rounder, soft tip.
Overall Ratio: Both nose are similarly similar to to cope with width.
4. Checkbones and midfaes
Chikbon sits high and narrow in both men.
Neither the lateral cheekbone provoking (both faces are more vertical than wide) have pronounced.
Difference: A slightly full cheek shows, the other has a flattering midfase contour.
5. Joint and Chin
Both have narrow jaws that taper the chin rapidly.
Difference: The chin of one is slightly long and more indicated, the other is short and more.
The angle (jaw corner) of the angle is the same but with a slight variation.
6. Appointment of ear
Both have medium-set ears in ratio of head size, not protruding.
Difference: Some of the ears sit a little more relative to the eyes.
7. Facial ratio
Vertical Thirds (Hareline → Bro → Nose base → Chin): Almost the same between two men.
Horizontal fifth (eye width versus interocular distance): Very close, strongly matched with symmetry.
Assessment assessment
Looking at only certain skeletons and proportional markers:
High equality in: Forehead slope, orbital shape, width of the nasal bridge, cheekbone height, jaw taper, facial ratio.
Medium difference in: Chin length/size, nasal tip size, cheek perfection, eye depth within sockets.
Final estimate
Depending on the structure and permanent ratio of the bone, ignoring the surface modifier:
Equality: ~ 82-85%
Difference: ~ 15-18%
Final Answer: Two faces are structurally 83% equalWhich is unusually high. Differences (chin, nasal tip, midfase contour) prevent them from becoming uniform, but their cranial ratio and facial ratio look them equally alike.
And full analysis from Groke:
Four images show two separate faces simultaneously together, but with a remarkable similarity in core structural characteristics. Here is a rupture of analysis, especially bone structure, ratio, and geometry (eg, eye width, nasal length, nasal length, nasal length, etc.), etc.
Overall face shape and ratio
Both faces perform a long oval structure with an uniform width-to-length ratio (approximately 0.7: 1).
The jaw is repaid in both, with comparable prominence in the jaw angle and chin projection.
The height and width of the cheekbone align, which creates a middle-face that tapes the chin evenly.
Forehead and Hairline
The height of the forehead (from the hairline to the eyebrow) is proportionally equivalent, each has about 25–30% of the total facial height.
The hairline in a uniform M-shaped pattern, with comparable cosmic peaks.
Eyes and orbital areas
Interocular distance (space between the eyes) is almost identical to withstand the total, at about 30–35% of the total.
The size of the eye is like almonds in both, with uniform horizontal width and subtle hooding on the outer corners.
The broo ridge prominence and arches are closely matched with a gentle curve instead of a sharp peak.
nose
The height and strotness of the bridge are very similar, with a comparable nasophrantl angle (about 130–140 degrees).
The nasal length (from the bridge to the tip) extends about 20% of the facial height in both, and the width width aligns with the intercourer distance.
The tip shape is either rounded without significant bulb.
Mouth and filtrum
The width of the lips relative to the base of the nose is consistent (about 1: 1 ratio), with a straight vermilion range.
The filtrum (from the nose to the upper lip) has the same depth and length, which contributes to a balanced lower-face proportion.
Ear
Attachment height (alignment with brow levels) and lobe shape (attached to free-hanging) are equivalent.
The packed rim curvature matches closely.
Major differences in permanent markers
A face shows a slightly broader zigomatic arch (Chikbone Span), causing a total of about 5–10% wider in the middle-face.
The chin cleft is more pronounced in one.
The nose septum is separated in a different way (one stretter, the other with a minor curve).
Orbital sockets have deep sets in one, which affect the shade pattern under constant lighting.
Equality estimate
Depending on these metrics, average geometric alignment (eg, 68-point facial mapping through the landmark overlap), is estimated to have facial equality) 82%,
This is responsible for high analogity in the founding structure, keeping them in mind the slight variation that distinguish them as non-human.
82% reference for equality
Yes, 82% is actually very high for facial similarity between two different persons. To keep it in perspective:
Equal twin: Typically approximately 0.746 (74.6%) an average of equality, with a score ranging from about 0.69 (69%) to 0.856 (85.6%).
Unrelated look-elax: Often with high average of 0.704–0.71 (70.4–71%), with high up to 0.76 (76%).
General recognition system: 0-1 score at a scale (or 0-100%). 1.0 (100%) means similar images.
Thresholds for “match” often begin around 0.6–0.7 (60–70%).
Anything above that risks false positivity for unrelated people.
The score in the 80%+ range is rare out of close genetic relatives or extreme dopelgangars.
Final perspective
One 82% equality score Possibly potentially low-threshold recognition will indicate a strong level to fool the devices or will be wrong for siblings/twins in casual analysis.
So you guys go there!
As usual, I am not telling you what to believe – Hek, I am not sure I know what to make …
I am just reporting what I have found.
Your thoughts?