 |
|
Topic started on 15-10-2007 @ 11:30 PM by CanadianVandal
|

Here are two new videos I made in last couple days. They are GREAT evidence
How can you deny this?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:36 PM by DunJinn
|
While I can't comment on whether or not McCartney is a reptilian, I do feel this strongly: He ain't Paul! RealPaul was replaced sometime in late
1966! How else do you explain that he used to have brown eyes and they're now blue (before contact lenses). How did a grown man grow three inches!
*angry, creepy, lunatic rant over*
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:40 PM by pluckynoonez
|

You made? You mean, doctored?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:48 PM by redmage
|

Triiiiiiipy!
Paul, with severe motion blur, in slo-mo.
And to think, that's probably exactly what he looked like to a lot of those kids (on drugs) in the late 60's & early 70's.
Beatle (with poor dental hygiene, and motion blur)... Yes.
Reptilian... No.
Congrats, you've discovered the magic of motion blur! I took Lucas awhile to get the hang of stop motion photography while filming the special
effects for the origional Star Wars trilogy. Specifically, in regards to his (I.L.M.'s) creation of
" go motion"; a technique to add motion blur to the still frames of his animatronics.
[edit on 10/16/07 by redmage]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:48 PM by Cuhail
|
  
Hey, lizard or not, Paul is one of my all-time favorite writer/composers.
I am done thinking Hillary is a reptile. Period. Plug ugly? YES! Horrible as a candidate? Hell yeah! A shapeshifting reptile? No. Plug ugly? Yes.
And she's plug ugly too.
Cuhail
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:55 PM by lightworker12
|
It never ends with this guy.
Guess what I'm a reptilian because I was in a video and compressed it for youtube.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:58 PM by djohnsto77
|
I'm more interested in who (or what) was the cameraman in that Hillary video?
It looked like it was filmed from about the height of E.T.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-10-2007 @ 11:59 PM by CanadianVandal
|
reply to post by lightworker12
It is not doctored in any way, watch it from the original source in the description. At least you watched it and noticed that can't be humanly
possible, unlike this guy
reply to post by pluckynoonez
who is simply blinded by his belief system.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 12:18 AM by Karlhungis
|
What exactly is the undeniable proof with the hillary video? I see some creepy hands, but..... I am not sure if that makes someone a lizard.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 12:45 AM by lightworker12
|
 
You might have misunderstood me, I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of crappy compressed video as evidence of supreme reptile leaders.
In case you aren't aware people are tired of your spam.
[edit on 16-10-2007 by lightworker12]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 12:46 AM by Conspiracy Theorist
|
  
Is the OP serious.
How many badly compressed youtube videos are we gonna have shoved in our faces as "Undeniable Proof."
This thread and all others like it should be deleted and the OP banned for posting such obvious rubbish.
To the OP:
Answer me this.
How come Hillary only transforms on compressed youtube footage.... but never infront of network television cameras being broadcast live around the
world???
CT
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 12:48 AM by Conspiracy Theorist
|
reply to post by CanadianVandal
who is simply blinded by his belief system.

And of course. Your not. Because you have youtube as proof? lol. what a joke.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 02:30 AM by Meatclown
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 02:39 AM by Meatclown
|
Anybody who thinks thats normal is in denial.
[edit on 16-10-2007 by Meatclown]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 02:41 AM by Karlhungis
|
OK, color me stupid. Please explain to me in no uncertain terms what you are talking about. She has a creepy hand... but that can't be what you
are getting at is it? I must be missing something here.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 03:38 AM by anhinga
|
Good work on the McCartney find CanadianVandal..... until some people in this thread, I commend your work on these finds, also; reptilian stuff has
been moved to the Skunk Works forum, people can either not post here or stop threatening that others should be banned for their post choices. Don't
be fascist because you don't like the thread's topic.
Also, the McCartney is obviously from pre-digital age, so the "compression" lines are getting boring and tired -- at least they tried a new one,
"motion blur" -- yeah, you're all photographers now.
It's called shutter speed(s) and apertures. Whereas slit eyes just happen minus any special effects or tape (?) warping or going "blurry" --
right?
[edit on 16-10-2007 by anhinga]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 03:44 AM by Techsnow
|
You say this isn't doctored and I gotta say I believe you b/c I don't have any idea what would be doctored. Wanna tell us what you are trying to
point out here before you put up these nut job shapeshifiting videos.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 03:46 AM by CanadianVandal
|
Any one who thinks this is normal needs to seek mental health.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 03:56 AM by anhinga
|
Shoot, I didn't notice the teeth, guess they'd be called fangs....
I don't know, either way, I wish a discussion could happen that is a little more then "fake" and "real" in relation to these videos.
This IS a conspiracy site, the imagination has to go out there to grasp some of this stuff -- aside from the fact that there's slit eyes on these
people. To "doctor" these tapes wouldn't be possible to follow/manipulate eyes fluently.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 04:18 AM by redmage
|
 
Originally posted by anhinga
Also, the McCartney is obviously from pre-digital age, so the "compression" lines are getting boring and tired 
You do realize that it has to be converted to digital, and compressed, before it can be posted on youtube... don't you?
And yes, motion blur is a natural photographic phenomenon.
[edit on 10/16/07 by redmage]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |