This poor girl, she's shapeshifting on live television.

Originally posted by CordDragonzord
reply to post by CapnCaveman

 

I understand what you are saying, the word "reptillian" does loose merit....especially on a conspiracy board.

I gotta say, why every time someone sees the word "Reptilian" and immediately they think is bs? Is it because it has been ridiculed in the past? I was not a believer but after doing some research in the matter and tying it to evolution, I do believe they could be real. Some people believe in aliens but not on reptilians? You people, get a history book and you will see REPTILES ruled this world in the past in the prehistoric era, They were called dinosaurs and existed in all shapes and sizes. Being able to shapesift isn't as far fetched as you might think, just take a look at chameleons. Comparing the probabilities of Greys or Reptilians living among us Reptilians should be a more valid one, yet is the most ridiculed.

Just my two cents.

I watched both videos. As much as I want to agree that this is some sort of reptilian being... I have to say no. Her teeth stay the same, its only the shadow that changes. Our eyes see scars on her throat, but really is nothing more then hair being placed at a way that by the shadowing appears to be something greater then just plain ol' hair on someones neck. As far as the other side of the throat area we see some strange movement and assume its shape shifting. She works out, and by the book she is promoting she does a lot of speaking. Meaning that it is simple muscle in her neck. No different then a vein getting enlarged as you scream or pick up a dumbbell. I watched the video several times and so much wanted this to be real....... I got to call BS on this on.
Oh and the slow mo of her swallowing... classic really! Watch your wife swallow after speaking for a minute. Oh no my wife is a shape shifter too! NO!

reply to post by muzzleflash


And a picture with bad lighting is a picture with bad lighting.

It's not necessarily subjective. Do you know what a white balance is? Do you know why they use it? It's not about subjectivity.

Exposure, resolution, shadows, angles, shapes - all effect the light.

Now add on some terrible compression and I think we have an answer.

I am reading it in proper context. If it's accidental light angles that cause illusions, than it follows those illusions should be randomly displaced no?

So why are the slits up and down, and never left to right, or horizontal?

And why doesn't it bleed out of the iris zone?

These questions call doubts on the artifact "accident" theory, in my humble opinion.

And lead me to a CGI hoax as a viable theory in it's place. Because CGI explains why it's the same all the time, and explains why it doesn't bleed out as bad as I would expect it should.

Originally posted by Enter Ruin

Originally posted by CordDragonzord
reply to post by CapnCaveman

 

I understand what you are saying, the word "reptillian" does loose merit....especially on a conspiracy board.

I gotta say, why every time someone sees the word "Reptilian" and immediately they think is bs? Is it because it has been ridiculed in the past? I was not a believer but after doing some research in the matter and tying it to evolution, I do believe they could be real. Some people believe in aliens but not on reptilians? You people, get a history book and you will see REPTILES ruled this world in the past in the prehistoric era, They were called dinosaurs and existed in all shapes and sizes. Being able to shapesift isn't as far fetched as you might think, just take a look at chameleons. Comparing the probabilities of Greys or Reptilians living among us Reptilians should be a more valid one, yet is the most ridiculed.

Just my two cents.

To me, it has nothing to do with past ridicule.. it has to do with lack of evidence and lack of origin .. there's no credible source for the theory to begin with so the origin of this reptile myth holds no water, or at least nothing I've seen so far.. and the evidence shown is really not in the least bit impressive to me..

So until someone can provide some good hard documentation on the origin of this myth and then back it up with any solid evidence, to me it's just a story that caught on and ignited like fire..

reply to post by miniatus


Thank you Miniatus. Finally someone who understands.


This thread contains a lot of ignorance. Instead of insulting me or knocking my knowledge, why don't some of you actually study photography and educate yourselves, instead of attacking the people who do know.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Why isn't CGI a good explanation?

We all know it's a popular meme, so wouldn't people fake it for fun?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I am reading it in proper context. If it's accidental light angles that cause illusions, than it follows those illusions should be randomly displaced no?

So why are the slits up and down, and never left to right, or horizontal?

And why doesn't it bleed out of the iris zone?

These questions call doubts on the artifact "accident" theory, in my humble opinion.

And lead me to a CGI hoax as a viable theory in it's place. Because CGI explains why it's the same all the time, and explains why it doesn't bleed out as bad as I would expect it should.

Why does red-eye only affect the eye? And not the face?

I'm not going to answer that for you, i'm going to let you do the research

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

And a picture with bad lighting is a picture with bad lighting.

It's not necessarily subjective. Do you know what a white balance is? Do you know why they use it? It's not about subjectivity.

Exposure, resolution, shadows, angles, shapes - all effect the light.

Now add on some terrible compression and I think we have an answer.

I'm a photographer.. I also deal with video editing and visual effects in my daily work, I absolutely know imaging and I know what I'm talking about, you're just being anal and overly specific .. Now if you were in the studio with her when this happened and you witnessed it and then I said the light hit her eyes wrong then you would be spot on in your response because the context would be that of a direct witness without not just one camera, but two cameras and a television/computer screen thrown into the mix.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Why isn't CGI a good explanation?

We all know it's a popular meme, so wouldn't people fake it for fun?

I never said it wasn't. It could be. But i'm doubtful, as most of the things can be explained with what i've tried to explain already.. Just ask anyone in the industry.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If it were simply compression artifacts, wouldn't it go out the top of the eyelid or the bottom of it randomly sometimes?

Apparently, you only see what you wish to see.

I've explained it. The reason is a very mundane and well-known attribute of digital videos. Something that is readily observable on nearly any lower-quality video uploaded to YouTube, faces or not.

It is a hoax. If you refuse to believe it, you are aiding the hoax.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by miniatus

 

Thank you Miniatus. Finally someone who understands. I felt like I was in a room full of chilren for a second trying to explain how a camera works.

This thread contains a lot of ignorance. Instead of insulting me or knocking my knowledge, why don't some of you actually study photography and educate yourselves, instead of attacking the people who do know.

You are coming off as completely full of it to me.
That's why I question you. Because you're not God.

I did not "insult you" or knock on you ever. Until now. I have to let you know your only human just like me, you have no upper hand or specific advantage over me.

I don't see whats so hard about explaining and discussing things like a human being to a human being?

It's nothing personal and like I said I don't like believing in things I don't know without at least a rational explanation.

Is there a reason why it's impossible this could be a long running series of CGI hoaxes???

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Why isn't CGI a good explanation?

We all know it's a popular meme, so wouldn't people fake it for fun?

I never said it wasn't. It could be. But i'm doubtful, as most of the things can be explained with what i've tried to explain already.. Just ask anyone in the industry.

Can't say for sure but it almost wreaks of troll in here..

But I agree CG doesn't need ruled out but that it's unlikely when it can be explained by other means that can occure quite "naturally' given the video of a video situation especially

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If it were simply compression artifacts, wouldn't it go out the top of the eyelid or the bottom of it randomly sometimes?

Apparently, you only see what you wish to see.

I've explained it. The reason is a very mundane and well-known attribute of digital videos. Something that is readily observable on nearly any lower-quality video uploaded to YouTube, faces or not.

It is a hoax. If you refuse to believe it, you are aiding the hoax.

Honestly you are only seeing what you want to see.

Why isn't it a long running series of CGI hoaxing? Why?

My debate is between what type of hoax, actually. I never claimed it was real. EVER. Not Once.

I don't know about the eyes, the teeth maybe but the neck looks normal to me. I don't know exactly which specific part of the neck, but the part where it points to it (and that part of her neck through the whole video) seems like its just her hair

reply to post by muzzleflash


Muzzleflash, i wasn't referring to you. You have quite happily asked questions. It was another member who was insulting me.

Sorry if it came across that way.

Yes you're asking questions, and yes there are thousands of subjects that I have zero knowledge, and no doubt you can teach me many things, but in this case, i truly believe this topic has been answered.

This video proves absolutely nothing. When a person smiles (especially if their smile is extra wide) it causes the muscles in their neck to contract, changing the way it looks.

reply to post by Unity_99

Its funny how I take a bath, or do the dishes, connect with water and ideas formulate. Water connects us to the earth grid energy, so we should be meditating and praying in the shower and sending positive light into the earth grid!

I certainly agree to this opinion, and a lot of your posts / ideas I have seen in threads are good ideas Unity99, however, with the best intentions, and I do believe in aliens and dimensions, the whole reptile thing just doesn't ring true for me, it sounds too contrived, like straight from a David Icke website, who also probably has some great ideas, but it sounds like it was dreamt up, so much detail from people supposedly 'communicating' with Light Federation or somewhere and getting precise details....sounds like a movie plot rather than real 'communication'.

My own 'sixth sense' advises me to be wary of believing it and when there are zillions of youtube vids of ordinary people being finger pointed as evil shape shifting reptoids, it makes me wonder who really are the 'bad guys'....or the misled guys.

reply to post by CapnCaveman



poor dental care, thats all.

this reptlian nonsense is getting toooo far, the video quality speaks for itself,

And id just like to add that those " vertical slits" you see in the eyes are reflections of people/objects standing behind the camera.

the only real proof i see of reptilians are ancient artifacts, I doubt there on the news channels though lol.