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.

 

A David Icke Reptile caught on vid?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
the blue thing over her shoulder is clearly the crisp packet being held up for an instant.. or did she buy these specific chips because her reptillian freinds like to be color co-ordinated with the local potato products? . get real pls

its exactly the same color as the bag even down to the brown /orange color that is a logo on the bag

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Quantum_Squirrel]




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
You know looking at this video again, it really is weird, and a bit creepy. Something is not right, either someone has messed with the video, or were seeing something unexplainable.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
My first guess would be its poorly encoded into the computer. Second, We should never use F K N YOUTUBE TO DEBUNK THIS GARBAGE.

COME ON NOW... LET'S BE HONEST, IF THIS WAS REAL, THE STORY WOULD BE HUUUUUUUUGGGGEEE...


WHAT THE F K PEOPLE?



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I'm usually disappointed by how quickly most threads are"debunked" by the so-called "skeptics" on this site, but on this particular occasion, not so much. This is ridiculous. I would never have the nerve to offer such a "questionable" piece of evidence to the members of this site, knowing how quickly even the most compelling evidence is dismissed around here. So,thanks but no thanks.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Ok, this is at sub 10fps. Why? Because its easier to fake as you only have to manipulate 1/3rd of the amount that you would with a normal framerate.

Why is the resolution so bad? If you had proof of something, why would you down convert the fps and resolution to something so bad that you cant make out any detail?

Its the same with the supposed alien photos posted last week, they look like they were taken on a 20 year old instant camera.

The only answer it because its a whole lot easier to fake with a bad quality video like this.

Anyone who believes this is a gullible fool and its stuff like this that makes me not tell anyone that I believe in UFOs because they will think Im a fruitcake like the reptilian believers.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
all i see is an ugly spanish woman with pointy features on a badly lit, badly filmed shaky cheap cell phone.
No need for fancy photoshopping either, try it and see for yourself, take a video using a crappy phone and analyze each frame, you will find whatever you want in the artifacts and distortion.
Im still waiting for my $2500 they claim people will get for debunking it.
What a pathetic video and this Icke crap really has to stop, try researching who he is and where he has gone wrong before buying into this bs.
Hey Icke, im still waiting for explanations to where all your predictions went wrong and are you still claiming to be the son of god? (theres a good chance he will read that seeing as he likes to see how many muppets buy into it.

[edit on 21/7/07 by eagle32]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
oh my god.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....gasp...HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

stop it, really it cant take it anymore my side are spliting.
every1 stop looking now, weve got ther proof we need!



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Have you ever noticed that all of these "Shapechanger" videos are of the absolute lowest quality possible? Why is it that no one can catch someone "shape shifting" w/ a normal quality recording? They're never 1st generation (meaning the actual recording itself), is always a copy, or a copy, of a copy, thats posted on crappy youtube, or at the very least a horrible cell phone vid saved, distributed, saved again, and eventually posted....on youtube.





[edit on 21-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Look in a mirror and shine two flashlights at your eyes from both sides of your head, volla! You would appear to have reptilian eyes because the light is so intense and even on both sides that the video taken of your eyes at a medium distance would appear that you have a only slits for irises.

Same goes from pro lighting setups I've used many times on set. The lights are inside these large diffuser bags and hang from the light. Some photographers have these lights at 2:3 ratio so that one side of the face is slightly brighter that the other. Others have them on at 1:1. What ever their lighting situation was, it is clear to me without any doubt a "lighting effect," and not a lizard woman.

I'm also the same person that told the people that there weren't holes on mars, it too was an artifact of high intensity light.




posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
ok first i see NO versions of the video i posted on here. yes i see the video but it was analyzed by a different person so ill repost the video i posted on another thread because it IS different not by much but enough to not be a waste of time to look at. please dont say youve seen it here when ive already looked at the links and the vid posted. it isnt by the same guy.

DIFFERENT analysis of the reptillian girl vid



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
heres why i say the reptillian girl seems plausible as authentic:

1. if anyone were going to tamper with footage,to make it seem believable that there are reptillians among us, i would NEVER wanna use such crappy footage as is on here. the first thing any skeptic would point out would be the horrible and i mean HORRIBLE quality of the footage.

2.The overall quality of this vid seems to suggest its old footage,not ancient but deffinately before video phones were as good as they are now, it could be a video phone, and i actually want to believe it is, one of the first vid phones that came out maybe, even really crappy ones nowadays are better by far than this. so if the tampering of this footage was perpetrated youd have a hard time making it all seem fluid. its hard to imagine such choppy quality being from modern technology and if i were going to tamper with any footage id be using the best technology in the realm of cgi tools i could to insure the best quality. old footage and new technology would present a problem, cgi makes things blend well, unusually well and in this video there is little if any smooth characteristics.

3. if i were going to make a vid to hoax reptillian existence id use a smoother camcorder or video phone just to rule out the skeptics id foresee critiquing the unclear nature of most of the footage. id also not have messed up in the porportions of eyes and did you catch that blip where her titty was bare? im asking wheres the nip on that bad boy??



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
no i disagree completely, i know of NOTHING that makes the human eye look like a cat eye for one moment and then back to normal the next. before that last shot of the woman there is a brief moment that my link shows where the cat eye is obvious in INDIRECT light aswell. watch it and then decide.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Isnt it getting a bit sad when the 'reptilian' mob have to start using completely innocent vids to support their case?
Do they not have a hobby or something? I mean its almost as bizarre as people speaking of 'Soul Collectors' on the moon.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Averysmallfoxx, there are only a handful of shape-shifting videos that are around. None of them are really proof of anything. I'd have to say that this one is the worst quality. Yes, it is freaky but the quality is so bad, that it might just be a result of bad quality. As much as ive read David Ickes books and read so much about reptilians, i am open to the possibility, but this video isn't going to be the smoking gun.

There is no background whatsoever for this video. I would love to know who this girl is, where shes from, if she even knows shes a reptile! Without any information, and considering the quality is horrible, this video will just disappear.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific
Even the worst 'UFO' footage ive seen does not reach the crappy quality of this movie. Is this a joke or what?


okay then, that being said why would anyone bother to tamper with it? theyd know that would be THEE first thing anyone would argue as a reason to dismiss it. if i were going to tamper with a vid id use a far better video machine than this horrible thing (which i believe could maybe be a cellphone, but then,if it was why would it last longer than 30 seconds, which is what most camera phones are limited to even now as the quality is infinitely better.hmm i dunno about the source i guess).



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
if you seen MY link to the video which is not by ARCHANGEL SYSTEMS you would see the cat eye effect in non direct light and direct two COMPLETELY different shades of light, disproving the theory of intense light causing a reflection that looks cat eye like. just pay attention, 5:50 seconds in you see what im talking about and then you see it again where everyone obviously sees it in the exposed direct light.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Originally posted by Cygnific
Even the worst 'UFO' footage ive seen does not reach the crappy quality of this movie. Is this a joke or what?


okay then, that being said why would anyone bother to tamper with it? theyd know that would be THEE first thing anyone would argue as a reason to dismiss it. if i were going to tamper with a vid id use a far better video machine than this horrible thing (which i believe could maybe be a cellphone, but then,if it was why would it last longer than 30 seconds, which is what most camera phones are limited to even now as the quality is infinitely better.hmm i dunno about the source i guess).


But thats the point isnt it? The video hasnt been tampered with at all. Its just a cheap crappy telephone video which is incredibly low quality and the low light has pixelated the darker parts of her eyes wider than normal. A normal video camera would probably have shown her to be completely normal (if that can actually be said of any woman:lol



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I dont think you can make that argument reasonably based on what i proposed in my prior post, TWO points where the eyes go into the cat eye phase in DIFFERENT lighting conditions. AND what about the part where her chest for a moment is blipped and not breast,not nipple nothing is shown, just a flat piece of skin and then the shirt magically goes back over it? TELL me how even the WORST cam could strip a portion of an article of clothing for a frame and then put it back on. please tell me.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
I dont think you can make that argument reasonably based on what i proposed in my prior post, TWO points where the eyes go into the cat eye phase in DIFFERENT lighting conditions. AND what about the part where her chest for a moment is blipped and not breast,not nipple nothing is shown, just a flat piece of skin and then the shirt magically goes back over it? TELL me how even the WORST cam could strip a portion of an article of clothing for a frame and then put it back on. please tell me.


Nope Im not going to tell you anything because many people already have.

If you want to believe it is a 'reptilian' and that makes you happy then fine, believe it. Every piece of logic in the world will tell you there are no such things but ignore that and continue with your beliefs and be happy.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
wow. nobody has covered MY points on what the vid I linked has, it IS different and you obviously never even gave my vid the time to look. i already layed my points out clearly reread them and have an open mind, you and the judgemental fashion of your posts are the example of refusing to consider the possibilities, im not a fanatic, if it can be disproven reasonably and without judgemental bias ill listen intently.







 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join