It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

some proof! Reptilian photo

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The reptillian thing is a great theory... but silly

We need to realize that the reason this comes to our collective mind... is that some of us... operate from the Reptillian centers of our brain... have a greater disposition, to rank, order, heirarchy, sex, war... the baser animal instincts... affecting how we operate...then others...

Is Don rummie... or the whole admin...operating from the Reptillian centers of the Brain... SURE!

But is he really a Reptile... naw ...

And to be fair... all leaders of the world operate from these brain centers.. not all but most lol, when it's your job to defend territory...that's what your using mostly... no more Reptile than anyone else into power and territory...


And seriously...we'd be allot better off in the intimidation part of the war... if ol Donny and GW and Condi... could flare out Gills 6 feet across, reveal red and green colorations and spit Venom...personally this would be fantastic at the UN!!!!!

But alas they can't...because if they could you know Darn well they would!!!




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Oh god I swear some of you people belong in the 1300's killing cats because their eyes shine in the dark.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
david icke....be afraid, be very afraid

from wikipedia



The Green Party distanced itself from him in 1991 after he announced that he was "the son of a godhead," [2] (video) and a "channel for the Christ spirit." [3] He began to dress only in turquoise and maintained that the world was ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite", or "Illuminati", which he linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax [4] [5] based on older documents not referring to Jews.


You should know that Wikipedia is by no means an absolute authority if you want to seriously read about somebody - they only give you one side of the story and if the contributor happens to be very slanted or prejudiced in their view then to quote from them is very lazy indeed.

-The godhead remark was David Icke's way of trying to process the information, trying to say that we are all part of the same consciousness and we are all enlightened and our own gods - nothing wrong with that, John Lennon even wrote a song about it once. We all get caught in weak moments of expression and it's just silly to keep harping on about what was obviously a time of great change in DI's life and to do it in the eye of the public - how would you like it if you were a well-known person and suddenly had a rapid shift in your perception and come close to a breakdown? It's human, for goddsakes.. give it up!

-So what if he was wearing purple? He later explained its significance so what's wrong with that? It's like pointing out the weird little gothic girl over the street that wears her fairy wings - who cares? She's entitled to wear whatever the hell she likes, who cares what the gigglers behind her back think? I notice your avatar is of some hovering ghostie thing in purple.. it's purple.. should we all get behind and have a good laugh 'n' s'n-word' over it?

-Yes the Illuminati IS in control and I'm sure many of us would agree with that and we have provable grounds to show this. Why is that such a laughably crazy notion?

-Yes, the Illuminati are controlled by the Rothschilds, who have perpetrated a deception on the Jews over time - herding them up into the state of Israel and funding both sides of all the world wars so far - inflicting misery on everyone and profiting hugely from this hoax. It's all in the historical record and is far from a fantasy tale - Icke is 100% right. He can factually back this up very easily.

Where he doesn't have the full facts is in the notion of Reptilians. I found this an interesting thread and while no it isn't proof, I see no reason why the OP has been crucified like some evil heretic.

Also, someone mentioned that how would Rumsfeld even share the same bloodline as the Europeans.. WHERE DID THE AMERICANS COME FROM?
THEY DESCENDED FROM SOMEWHERE... I WONDER WHERE???!?!?!


Are you aware that the British Royal Family aren't actually an English bloodline? They are German. The Black Nobility clans.. I think Rose Kennedy also came from one of thse bloodlines. Do some reading around this - it's fascinating.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
From looking at the image I can tell you this is a normal artifact.

Its caused by 1 to 2 things.

The first is noise in the image itself, this creates a dithered effect and can be seen a light or dark 1 to 2 pixel thick blocks on the photo itself. These can vary in size but is mostly dependnt on the size of the image itself.

The second is the grain in the image, this occurs only from scanned image and has the same characteristics as noise from digital images.




So, the spot at the bottom of his left eye (picture wise) is most likely image grain/noise. Because you can see the grain/noise all over the image itself.
Take a close look at the inner white space on the flag to the left, you can see this grain/noise all over it.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Looks like he has had cataract surgery. Most likely when he was young. Back when they wasn't as good at it as they are now. I have had cataract surerys. My first one in 1968. That eyes pupil looks like a star, and it chaged the color of that eye from blue to green with a blue outer ring. The other eye pupil looks like it got streched out, and is still blue. They took my lens out so for 26 years I had glasses. Then they came up with lens inplants. My last 2 eye surgerys was getting those inplants. Now I can see real far away but I can't see the little print. So have reading glasses.
So him wearing glasses and contacts could have a good reason , and the pupil looking like a cat pupil could be cataract surgery scars, and the eye color could of happen when he had they surgery.
I have a permanent contact lens,and I wear reading glasses, and my pupil looks like a star, and I have differant colored eyes. I am not a lizzy



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xabora
So, the spot at the bottom of his left eye (picture wise) is most likely image grain/noise. Because you can see the grain/noise all over the image itself.
Take a close look at the inner white space on the flag to the left, you can see this grain/noise all over it.

And it's also jpeg compressed which can generate some weird effects.
I can show you here exactly what is happening, the bright spots (shine) in his eyes is generating a weird shaddow-like effect on their right side, and that shadow is very near his left pupil and that's why it looks like it's a part of it.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Good Point, I completly forgot to bring up JPEG compression. >_



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
we had the same problem here in the uk a while back.

here we can CLEARLY see Maggie Thatcher...




posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
A reminds me of a certain picture of Johnny Depp that was the source of great entertainment for me.

Here we have several experts, like Zedd, plainly pointing out the possible reasons. The matter of the fact is that no digital (format) picture will ever serve as any kind of absolute evidence. As much good as photography does for any field of study, it can never be trusted 100% because the human eyes can so easily be deceived. A single, questionable picture will never be able to serve as "proof". The moment you have two different pictures, from different viewpoints, showing exactly the same anomaly, we can start talking proof...

BTW RavenWindfree, I've "researched" the whole reptilian topic. Always good for a laugh.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
He doesn't have triangular shaped pupils in this image

bbsnews.net...
and is it allowed to post images to other sites?

Most likely just a case of him being old.

The pupils and Iris are not as well defined. The black ring around the coloured part of the eye, whatever that is, is usually very clearly defined in younger people and is a sign of good health. He also has ruptured blood vessels, because he is old, and this is distorting the shape!



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Your mad. Plain and simple. This whole topic is probably the most concise and well documented pile of unsubstantiated, thoroughly farcical garbage I have ever seen. Are you serioulsy trying to present the previous picture - a slightly poor picture of an eye, that after some altering almost looks like it is not quite a normal pupil - as evidence that Reptiles are running the USA!

Thank God and all that is normal and sensible in the world that people like you will never be making decisons about people like me.

Your statements read along the lines of... look at this, its real, full stop - I'm right, your wrong, nahnah nah nahnah nah.

I can remember entering into a discussion about the 'Lacerta Files' or some such name similar to that and the only evidence I was given as to why they were not fake was 'why would someone make it up' - duh! There is no evidence, that is the only real full stop comment to do with reptiles, greys, fluffy pink egyptians with stargates and so on.

Why, if there are so many impassioned members on these forums that believe in these things, and so many accounts of alleged proof and events that have apparently happened to them - is there no proof. Circumstantial occurances, granted, but not one single person on this forum can show me anything by the end of today that means I can let my children grow up knowing that Reptiles exist.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Absolutely hilarious. And this is the best part:


the next images are not doctored in any way. I did not make that reptilian pupil. All i did was use the dodge tool to lighten his eye next to the pupil and I used the burn tool to darken his pupil.

Seriously.. You rep-dudes needs to come down..



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   
It looks strange atleast.. i would say both eyes are leaning towards the upside down triangle shape.. but if someone had a bit of fun with photoshop and accidently put up the wrong image.. i dont know



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
The whole REP topic realy should be binned to the BTS forums. It only ever causes arguments, there is no evidence and apparently it never leads to intelligent discussion either.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mezzanine
Proof for reptilians?

I admittedly don't know alot about UFOs and Aliens, so can you please tell me what a Reptillian is, and what they want?

Is there any evidence for Reptillians like the implants found in reported abductees by the Greys?

I guess, what I want to know is why you believe so strongly in these Reptillians, and why you think that a picture of Donald Rumsfield is somehow, "proof".


According to David Ike and probably others =)

The various european ruling families, leaders of the government in the USA etc.. are all or atleast many descendants of Alien human halfbreeds.. or possibly it was Nordic/Reptilian aliens halfbreeds. The Nephilim mentioned in the bible etc.. where those that came from above interbred with the daughters of mankind.. to create the Nephilim.. i think these are the same as the *reptilians* or reptilian halfbreeds as they probably should be called.. ok this is all i know


But it would be fascinating if it where to be true right


[edit on 28-9-2006 by SilverSurfer]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Interesting. I have some historical points to add:

Enki (Enki-Ea or just Ea) was called the "Great Dragon" in sumerian texts, before there was even a historical precedence for the word. The translator of the text had to view engravings with accompanying stories, such as a seven-headed dragon in an ancient akkadian story and the words used to reference its appearance, before it could be established that a dragon in 5000 BC was the same thing as a dragon in any other age of human history. Yet, according to the same stories, Enki was also said to be the offspring of a bull. So was he a bull or a dragon? Whenever the bull references were made, it was usually in regards to his "privy member" or his "physical strength", rather than his overall appearance. Yet one has to wonder how a dragon could also be humanoid in appearance? Amongst many of those who believe Enki actually existed, the general concensus is that the flying/fire-breathing reference is in regards to his choice of "extra-terrestrial" transportation (et.al, a flying device of some sort that emits fire or glows/shines/pulsates like the sun or emits fire/laser/some other kind of destructive beam of light), whereas the "lizard" or "reptilian" reference would be related in some manner to his physical appearance. Those who have researched the texts of that timeframe and the texts relating to that timeframe, believe he is the biblical serpent, the "seraph" in the Garden of Eden (see sumerian E.DIN). For a scholarly study on the subject of the seraph, see Michael S. Heiser's "The Nachash and His Seed" (a pdf file) www.thedivinecouncil.com...

This concept is supported by the biblical texts and a few others, according to some researchers, who believe that Genesis 1:2 suggests a pre-existing earth prior to the rise of homo sapians, in which "Lucifer" (et.al.the serpent in the Garden) existed and ruled a civilization that grew to be highly advanced, technologically. So advanced, in fact, that they had spread to some of the neighboring planets and moons. Then a "war in heaven" occured, during which the civilizations were destroyed. This is why the water "recedes" to reveal the "land" in Genesis - the land was already there, simply buried under frozen water.

Anyway, food for thought. More where that came from.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I want to believe in Reptilians but nothing I have come across so far has given me any kind of evidence or made me want to research further. A politician gets angry live on tv, his face gets red, his brow furrows and a vein bulges on his neck. I come on here the next day and somebody is using a screencapture to prove that reptilians are ruling the world.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Undo,

I have read your stargate threads and your online books etc plus much of the reference material you quote to support.

It has been some of the most refreshing and well researched material I have read for some time. I don't agree with all your theories, but I can't present strong arguments to appose them either.

The problem with this topic is that we are trying to prove current existence or lack of. The general feeling on these many pages is that the reptilean thing is like your embaressing little brother that just wont shut up.

I am not interested in theories or twists on stories that appear to support a given argument.

All I want is proof. Black and white, scaled or unscaled, fork tongued or not - simple proof that answers the question. Theories are great for trying to understand the past or the future - but the argument here is the present, so the evidence and proof needs to be in the present.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quackmaster
Undo,

I have read your stargate threads and your online books etc plus much of the reference material you quote to support.

It has been some of the most refreshing and well researched material I have read for some time. I don't agree with all your theories, but I can't present strong arguments to appose them either.

The problem with this topic is that we are trying to prove current existence or lack of. The general feeling on these many pages is that the reptilean thing is like your embaressing little brother that just wont shut up.

I am not interested in theories or twists on stories that appear to support a given argument.

All I want is proof. Black and white, scaled or unscaled, fork tongued or not - simple proof that answers the question. Theories are great for trying to understand the past or the future - but the argument here is the present, so the evidence and proof needs to be in the present.


Thanks, and I see the dilemma. The only comfort (if you can call it that) I can offer in this regard is to point out that if indeed there are offspring of the "nachash" (seraph) on the planet, they would naturally be in contact with their earthly and not so earthly progenitors. They would, if truly more advanced than homo sapians, have long ago established a native (to the current earth population) appearance. And they would naturally be the leaders.

According to the sumerian/akkadian/hindu texts and the biblical and hebrew pseudopigraphical texts, the Anunnaki brought kingship to the people from the heavens by impregnating human females and/or by genetic manipulation. From that time forward, humanity has been ruled, to one degree or another, by these same offspring (also according to these ancient texts), usually of their own free will (doh). In fact, the biblical texts state that behind the rulers of the nations of the world, are powers, principalities, rulers of darkness in high places (all references to fallen angelic beings of various sorts). Let's take for example, the passages in the bible where the prophet Ezekiel is addressing the king of Tyre, but is really talking to the authority behind the king, who the texts reveal to be the fallen "Lucifer." Too bad the texts don't also reveal the response of the King of Tyre. He probably wasn't very surprised that Ezekiel was talking past him, afterall, these rulers were their offspring.

Of course, this is all contingent on how much of ancient history you consider to be factual and how much you don't. There's certainly precedent for this in other parts of the world, as well. Seems rather odd that it should be so widespread, so far removed geographically, and yet so very similar. However, I do agree that since there's no "proof" other than the texts and eyewitness accounts, there's really not much satisfaction for those who have as yet to see these things. I would venture a guess that there's at least as much evidence for the texts as there is for the dating of geological layers - which are typically dated once and then assumed to always contain artifacts of that time frame (anything considered to be out of place with that single dating, is discarded as contaminated. What that translates to for the average human being is, science could feasibly be throwing away the evidence on the assumption that modern looking items are out of place artifacts contaminating the dig).



[edit on 28-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
quackmaster there is nothing stoping you from saying what you think with out resulting to insults, quack quack quack, suitable name...


let there be peace..



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join