Actually convincing footage of shapeshifters, aliens and UFOs caught on film

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: natoshis
The problem is that you've given piss poor examples, that have historically discredited discussion on this issue because admittedly, even in the OP I said, a lot of it is unbelievable and based in conjecture.

Remember that this thread is for compilations of *actually convincing* cases of shapeshifting recorded in the media, what you linked is all unbelievable BS.

That list by UpThenDown included the same Jenna Bush video you were arguing for on page 2 of this thread, this is what you said on page 2, not that it was a piss-poor example:

originally posted by: natoshis
Jenna Bush, turned back and forth into a zebra, no one else in the room did. It's unlikely to be a faulty camera I think, maybe you're the one grasping straws for the most unlikely scenario?

The Jenna Bush video you referred to in that post on page 2 of this thread is the same video as in this old thread that was classified as hoax:

originally posted by: UpThenDown
Reptililan Shapeshifters: Are these videos genuine from way back in 2012 and includes your jenna bush video, oh and it ended up in the hoax bin.....again

So one minute youre telling me "you're the one grasping straws for the most unlikely scenario?" when I try to explain the Jenna Bush video has a logical explanation, and now you seemingly discard it in a blanket statement that UpThenDown posted "piss poor examples".

So you can't seem to tell the difference between a "piss poor example" and a video you seem to think is credible evidence since you're discussing the Jenna Bush video in both ways.

You also didn't answer UpThenDown's question about the Captain Disillusion video who explained why these things happen in discussing p-frames and i-frames. Did you watch the video? I twas already posted in this thread:

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Data mosh

If you understood the technology, you wouldn't be asking questions like these which an understanding of the technology such as p-frames and i-frames can help explain.

originally posted by: natoshis
Also, in this video zebra like patterns appeared on this female news presenter's face, and then the compression didn't happen to all 3 of her colleagues? They're in the same room. Same camera.

The segment with the distortion runs from about 27 to 57 seconds, and it looks like after the p-frame at the beginning, there dont' seem to be any more p-frames during those 30 seconds, which is why the artifacts keep growing just as explained int he Captain Disillusion video can happen when you dont get more p-frames. Then when the camera switches to the other host, no it's probably not the same camera, because the camera doesn't pan from one to the other like it would if it was the same camera, but not only is your claim it's the same camera wrong, it's also not even relevant because it shows you don't understand the technology, because the problem doesn't happen in the camera in any case. The compression happens after the camera, in the way the camera's output is handled and compressed using p-frames and i-frames.

So at 57 seconds there's a new p frame when they switch cameras to the other host., then she's only seen for 2 seconds, not long enough for much distortion to accumulate.
Then at 59 seconds they switch back to the original camera, and because of the scene change, there's a new p-frame, and that's why you no longer see the distortion on her face that was accumulating from 27 seconds to 57 seconds earlier.
Then at 1:02 the scene changes again, so, we get yet another p-frame (each major scene change results in a new p-frame).
Then at 1:03 another scene change and another p-frame.
Then at 1:04 another scene change and another p-frame.

So you have a long, 30 second scene from 27s to 57s where i-frame artifacts accumulate as explained in the above Damtain D video, then after that you have a series of short scenes that only last a few seconds, no time for much distortion to accumulate. In the scene from 27s to 57s, you don't see any distortion in the first 5 seconds of that either. It's all perfectly consistent with the way the technology works as Captain D explains, but you still seem to have no understanding of how the technology works, so maybe watch the Captain D video and try to explain things in terms of p-frames and o-frames if you want to sound like you have any clue of how the technology works.

Also, explain the behaviour and rhetoric of the female and male news presenter colleagues? Why was the male news presenter getting yelled at in the year over something she did? What did she even do? She didn't do anything wrong.

At 43 seconds she's saying something off-script, so yes she did something wrong, and she wasn't completely on script before that, because of the way at 31s she sand a very long "aaaaaand...that it might actually be bipolar (could be that)" Her "could be that" was also likely off-script since nobody would write a script that says "aaaaaand...that it might actually be bipolar (could be that)" the way she read it, so she was sort of botching up the reading even before 43 seconds, at which time she went totally off-script for a couple of seconds, seemingly admitting a problem. So, she didn't do a perfect job reading the script, though it wasn't that bad, and none of that has anything to do with the p-frames and i-frames which you need to learn about if you want to discuss this topic intelligently.

Nice reply, I dismissed the videos linked because 7/8 of the links either had no videos (broken links) or very bad examples.

The one issue I have with your hypothesis, is that if it was p-frames interpolating over i-frames or skipped out i-frames, then you would expect to see such an anomaly only last until the next i-frame would you not?

The issue is that the amount of time and duration these types of distortion occur, last way longer than they should if it was a video glitch due to p-frames approximating the location of pixels with a bad reference because of a skipped i-frame.

In these two videos, you have the effect last for at least 10-20 seconds. That's far too long an amount of time for there to be up to 100 i-frames if not more, so your explanation falls flat on its face there.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

The video you posted was good though, I'll happily agree that a lot of material on this subject indeed falls within that category, such as momentary prolonged blinks and eyes visible through eyelids (there are a couple videos in the OP showcasing those videos but the type of anomaly i'm focusing on is far much more noticeable, it affects the whole face (not just the eyes), and it lasts for far far longer than just a split second of a frame which would make sense if such an anomaly was caused by a missing i-frame.

originally posted by: natoshis
Nice reply, I dismissed the videos linked because 7/8 of the links either had no videos (broken links) or very bad examples.

What about the Jenna Bush video? You seemed to be arguing it was a piss poor example, but earlier you were seemingly arguing for it as credible evidence. By the way a flood of links that perhaps overwhelmed you in that reply is not much different from what you do in this thread, so that "gish gallop" type strategy of posting too many links came back to bite you, didn't it? It's not a good strategy; better to pick the top three examples and start from there, instead of posting dozens like you did.

The one issue I have with your hypothesis, is that if it was p-frames interpolating over i-frames or skipped out i-frames, then you would expect to see such an anomaly only last until the next i-frame would you not?.

What I have found in looking at different videos with avidemux (a free program you can download that shows you which frames in the video are p-frames and which are i-frames) is that the number of seconds between i-frames can vary a lot. Some videos seem to have a new i-frame every few seconds whether there's a scene change or not, while other videos can go 30 seconds between i-frames if there's no scene change. This is sort of on-topic where the video demonstrates avidemux and how it can identify i-frames, then it shows how you can drop or delete a i-frame and create the "moshing" artifacts similar to what we are discussing:

Glitch Out With DATAMOSHING (may cause confused pixels)

The issue is that the amount of time and duration these types of distortion occur, last way longer than they should if it was a video glitch due to p-frames approximating the location of pixels with a bad reference because of a skipped i-frame.

In these two videos, you have the effect last for at least 10-20 seconds. That's far too long an amount of time for there to be up to 100 i-frames if not more, so your explanation falls flat on its face there.

No, I've seen 30 seconds between them.

Another thing to consider is the age of the video. The Jenna Bush video for example goes way back, it was being discussed almost a decade ago, so the video has to be older than that. Over the last decade we've seen youtube use various methods to compress videos, and the more modern compressions based on x264 seem to have fewer artifacts, though I still see some artifacts. Also as a result of the changes in compression at youtube, I think what you get when you download a video from them may not be what was originally uploaded. Youtube may have poorly compressed an uploaded video years ago, and then changed the compression they use as that compression technology has advanced. But someone here, I think it was Chadwickus, said he managed to find a copy of the Jenna Bush video without the artifacts, so they weren't in the original recording. I think that was mentioned in the thread about that video that was moved to the hoax forum.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
(may cause confused pixels)

The issue is that the amount of time and duration these types of distortion occur, last way longer than they should if it was a video glitch due to p-frames approximating the location of pixels with a bad reference because of a skipped i-frame.

In these two videos, you have the effect last for at least 10-20 seconds. That's far too long an amount of time for there to be up to 100 i-frames if not more, so your explanation falls flat on its face there.

No, I've seen 30 seconds between them.

Another thing to consider is the age of the video. The Jenna Bush video for example goes way back, it was being discussed almost a decade ago, so the video has to be older than that. Over the last decade we've seen youtube use various methods to compress videos, and the more modern compressions based on x264 seem to have fewer artifacts, though I still see some artifacts. Also as a result of the changes in compression at youtube, I think what you get when you download a video from them may not be what was originally uploaded. Youtube may have poorly compressed an uploaded video years ago, and then changed the compression they use as that compression technology has advanced. But someone here, I think it was Chadwickus, said he managed to find a copy of the Jenna Bush video without the artifacts, so they weren't in the original recording. I think that was mentioned in the thread about that video that was moved to the hoax forum.

Nice contribution again. I don't quite see a space of 30 seconds in the second video though. I said 7/8 videos were ridiculous, the 1/8 that I didn't consider ridiculous was the Jenna Bush one.

My next question to you is that if you suspect such a video anomaly occurs due to compression errors due to lost i-frames, then why does it not occur to the objects in the background of the image? If the i-frame is lost and all reference for p-frames are lost as well, you ought to expect that compression errors would indescriminately occur over the whole frame, as you get in "Datamosh" videos.

We do see persistence errors happen to peoples eyes (such as eyes remaining closed), I'll accept that it occurs due to prolonged frames in that instance due to lost i-frames, but the type of compression error we're talking about does not relate to the persistence of previous frames - it relates to seeing visual anomalies and colors that ought not to be there at all, and whenever I've seen such anomalies in datamosh videos you have that effect occur indescriminately in the foreground and background of the shot, not fixated and localised to one spot in the video.

Even in the video you linked, when it demonstrates examples of datamoshing it looks totally different to the type of abberations I've presented, in the sense that the anomalies i've shown are not related to frame persistence - and they are localised in one spot.

I'll agree that frame persistence affecting the eyes may very well be due to lost i-frames, however a localised anomaly which doesn't affect the background is a different matter to persistent previous frames or artifacting on the foreground and the background instead of artifacting of something that wasn't in the frame before, localised to a certain part of the frame whilst the background remains normal.

RT news anchor's finger becomes a twig, cysts growing on arms and neck and then dissapearing, claws appearing and dissapearing on the end of her finger, skin tone changing, eye socket growing deeper. Explain this? Video compression doesn't make people grow cysts or claws.
ibb.co...

Also, what the # is this thing? What exactly do you suggest it is? ibb.co...

In this video www.youtube.com... - This shapeshifter turned into the male it was sitting next to. Poor dude passed out from shock and then got up and chased the thing. Another indication it's real. Also filmed from two camera angles. I noticed that you didn't address this in your reply at all.
Camera angle 1: ibb.co...
Camera angle 2: ibb.co...

originally posted by: natoshis
My next question to you is that if you suspect such a video anomaly occurs due to compression errors due to lost i-frames, then why does it not occur to the objects in the background of the image? If the i-frame is lost and all reference for p-frames are lost as well, you ought to expect that compression errors would indescriminately occur over the whole frame, as you get in "Datamosh" videos.

In the studio videos like the Jenna Bush video, for the most part the cameras are stationary, and so is the background. So I would expect minimal artifacts to occur in the background in that event. In the datamoshing video, the camera is hand-held and not stationary, so the background is not stationary, and that's the difference, and why the background accumulates artifacts in a hand-held camera where they might not with a stationary acmera

I'll agree that frame persistence affecting the eyes may very well be due to lost i-frames, however a localised anomaly which doesn't affect the background is a different matter to persistent previous frames or artifacting on the foreground and the background instead of artifacting of something that wasn't in the frame before, localised to a certain part of the frame whilst the background remains normal.

RT news anchor's finger becomes a twig, cysts growing on arms and neck and then dissapearing, claws appearing and dissapearing on the end of her finger, skin tone changing, eye socket growing deeper. Explain this? Video compression doesn't make people grow cysts or claws.
ibb.co...

I see no basis for saying any of those are not video compression artifacts. The fact that you give them alternate descriptions doesn't change what they are.

Also, what the # is this thing? What exactly do you suggest it is? ibb.co...

In the lower center and lower right views it's obviously a man, though a bit distorted in those. The rest of the frames have exceptionally bad distortion. The thing you should consider is your attempt to draw a line between what are "normal" and what are "abnormal" compression artifacts is arbitrary. What we expect to see with a variety of videos, a variety of codecs with a variety of compression settings is a spectrum of compression artifacts, and anytime you have a spectrum of effects they can range from mild to extreme, so you just managed to find an extreme example. That doesn't mean it has a fundamentally different cause then the milder examples you admit can be compression artifacts.

In this video www.youtube.com... - This shapeshifter turned into the male it was sitting next to. Poor dude passed out from shock and then got up and chased the thing. Another indication it's real. Also filmed from two camera angles. I noticed that you didn't address this in your reply at all.
Camera angle 1: ibb.co...
Camera angle 2: ibb.co...

I don't see much to address, they are low quality videos with compression artifacts. The only thing that's unusual is the man dropping to the floor, but we don't know why that happened. You have your own speculation, but we don't know if it's some kind of medical condition which caused that. We see a bunch of people apparently leaving, and when the man regains consciousness, it looks like he is leaving too.

If you find some artifacts you can make up some narrative to go along with delusions about the artifacts, but it's still a contrived narrative, since we have no evidence the man collapsed due to "shock" as claimed, we don't know why he collapsed. "shock" wouldn't be at the top of my list of possibilities; I would be thinking of something like maybe low blood pressure and getting up too fast, or a seizure, or something like that as discussed here:

Understanding Fainting -- the Basics

Many different conditions can cause fainting. These include heart problems such as irregular heart beats, seizures, low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), anemia (a deficiency in healthy oxygen carrying cells), and problems with how the nervous system (the body's system of nerves) regulates blood pressure. Some types of fainting seem to run in families.

While fainting may indicate a particular medical condition, sometimes it may occur in an otherwise healthy individual.

If anyone cares to take this further……

Here’s the member that found the original clip from the news station FoxLA (Fox 11 Los Angeles) back in Jun 2009…As you’ll notice the red arrow points to the still active link found here www.abovetopsecret.com... but the link has been updated to a foxla webpage at which to search from. But here’s the fastest way…..
FoxLA Clips
In the Jenna Bush screenshot the red arrow points to …. myfoxla.com …..which over the years has changed simply to foxla.com



For me, I for one am satisfied that the member has already done the due diligence and found the original version without the anomalies straight from the TV station that broadcasted it way back when.

So…..anyone, except for me cause I’m done with this, can go to the Clips link above and contact them for a copy of the original clip…probably from their video archives.

Name of morning show is Good Day LA….

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: natoshis
My next question to you is that if you suspect such a video anomaly occurs due to compression errors due to lost i-frames, then why does it not occur to the objects in the background of the image? If the i-frame is lost and all reference for p-frames are lost as well, you ought to expect that compression errors would indescriminately occur over the whole frame, as you get in "Datamosh" videos.

In the studio videos like the Jenna Bush video, for the most part the cameras are stationary, and so is the background. So I would expect minimal artifacts to occur in the background in that event. In the datamoshing video, the camera is hand-held and not stationary, so the background is not stationary, and that's the difference, and why the background accumulates artifacts in a hand-held camera where they might not with a stationary acmera

I'll agree that frame persistence affecting the eyes may very well be due to lost i-frames, however a localised anomaly which doesn't affect the background is a different matter to persistent previous frames or artifacting on the foreground and the background instead of artifacting of something that wasn't in the frame before, localised to a certain part of the frame whilst the background remains normal.

RT news anchor's finger becomes a twig, cysts growing on arms and neck and then dissapearing, claws appearing and dissapearing on the end of her finger, skin tone changing, eye socket growing deeper. Explain this? Video compression doesn't make people grow cysts or claws.
ibb.co...

I see no basis for saying any of those are not video compression artifacts. The fact that you give them alternate descriptions doesn't change what they are.

Also, what the # is this thing? What exactly do you suggest it is? ibb.co...

In the lower center and lower right views it's obviously a man, though a bit distorted in those. The rest of the frames have exceptionally bad distortion. The thing you should consider is your attempt to draw a line between what are "normal" and what are "abnormal" compression artifacts is arbitrary. What we expect to see with a variety of videos, a variety of codecs with a variety of compression settings is a spectrum of compression artifacts, and anytime you have a spectrum of effects they can range from mild to extreme, so you just managed to find an extreme example. That doesn't mean it has a fundamentally different cause then the milder examples you admit can be compression artifacts.

In this video www.youtube.com... - This shapeshifter turned into the male it was sitting next to. Poor dude passed out from shock and then got up and chased the thing. Another indication it's real. Also filmed from two camera angles. I noticed that you didn't address this in your reply at all.
Camera angle 1: ibb.co...
Camera angle 2: ibb.co...

I don't see much to address, they are low quality videos with compression artifacts. The only thing that's unusual is the man dropping to the floor, but we don't know why that happened. You have your own speculation, but we don't know if it's some kind of medical condition which caused that. We see a bunch of people apparently leaving, and when the man regains consciousness, it looks like he is leaving too.

If you find some artifacts you can make up some narrative to go along with delusions about the artifacts, but it's still a contrived narrative, since we have no evidence the man collapsed due to "shock" as claimed, we don't know why he collapsed. "shock" wouldn't be at the top of my list of possibilities; I would be thinking of something like maybe low blood pressure and getting up too fast, or a seizure, or something like that as discussed here:

Understanding Fainting -- the Basics

Many different conditions can cause fainting. These include heart problems such as irregular heart beats, seizures, low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), anemia (a deficiency in healthy oxygen carrying cells), and problems with how the nervous system (the body's system of nerves) regulates blood pressure. Some types of fainting seem to run in families.

While fainting may indicate a particular medical condition, sometimes it may occur in an otherwise healthy individual.

You avoided addressing the RT news presenter, that doesn't align with your narrative at all.

I guess you can't really explain people growing claws and cysts appearing and dissapearing on their skin with compression then can you?

originally posted by: natoshis
You avoided addressing the RT news presenter, that doesn't align with your narrative at all.

I guess you can't really explain people growing claws and cysts appearing and dissapearing on their skin with compression then can you?

I did address the RT news person:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I see no basis for saying any of those are not video compression artifacts. The fact that you give them alternate descriptions doesn't change what they are.

What makes the "cyst" appear? Too many p-frames without an i-frame.
What makes the "cyst" disappear? A new i-frame would make it disappear. This is perfectly consistent with how p-frames and i-frames work. Calling some artifacts a "claw" doesn't make them a claw, they are just artifacts.

You've presented no evidence these artifacts can't be created by the p-frame and i-frame explanation.

Most of these have been debunked.

Video pixelation, super imposed images and videos that are CGI.

Come on….

I find the subject interesting but the evidence to be lacking.

a reply to: natoshis

a reply to: natoshis


These "shapeshifts" are video codec errors. This was not visible when aired. The errors where introduced when the video was converted to post on youtube. You can also make sure this happens with the right (or wrong if you will) configuration before doing the actual eideo encode.

From Shutterstock q&a….(even if you pre-compressed your video file with your own video software, prior to uploading)


From YouTube help…..(quality loss also encompasses any/all of these requirements, and if not met, may induce anomalies)

I’ve always found the reptilian shape shifter videos intriguing but does anyone have an example of it in modern higher resolution video?

Is the lack of these videos a sign that the algorithms for their holo projections are now so good that we’ll never see this phenomenon again.

Or

Could it be that the whole thing is BS.

Hmmm?

a reply to: natoshis

The issue of your visual evidence through videos is not my interest. You'll continue to argue in favor of reptilians, shape-shifters or whatever, that I also feel is nonsense. You'll always find something somewhere that can fit in that belief. I'm more interested in your comment about the evolution of a highly intelligent dinosaur which would have a path of indisputable physical evidence.

Nature obviously favors simple intelligence and the basic needs of survival. That's been the end objective of all life, including dinosaurs. Human beings are an outside result of rare and unique circumstance that went far beyond just the need for survival. So we're a fluke. Earth has shown us that fact by it happening once across billions of years and hundreds of millions of species.

Dinosaur fossils have been found since the early 1800s. In order to make your fantasy idea of the bipedal humanoid-like dinosaur a reality, I'd like to know how you are making that conclusion. What dinosaur has been discovered to back up this claim? All life has to go through the process of evolution and would leave physical evidence of their past. We haven't found every species of dinosaur that has existed, but I think an intelligent species of dinosaur would not only leave behind fossilized bones, but examples of their intelligence through other ways. I'm not aware of any.

Where's the fundamental basis of this fantasy? Without it, you can't make a realistic argument that these are shape-shifting anything.

We are truly technologically getting to a point where we really won’t know what to believe.

NVIDIA Research develops a neural network to replace traditional video compression

Source: www.dpreview.com...

………” The use of artificial intelligence to modify videos isn't new; most major video conferencing apps now include the option of replacing one's real-life background with a different one, including intelligent AI-based background blurring. However, NVIDIA's real-time AI-based video compression takes things to a new level by using AI to not only generate the subject in real time, but also modify them in convenient ways, such as aligning their face with a virtual front-facing camera.”…….

Who knows what AI use in video will conjure up for your gullible eyes…….times are a changing pretty fast.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: natoshis

The issue of your visual evidence through videos is not my interest. You'll continue to argue in favor of reptilians, shape-shifters or whatever, that I also feel is nonsense. You'll always find something somewhere that can fit in that belief. I'm more interested in your comment about the evolution of a highly intelligent dinosaur which would have a path of indisputable physical evidence.

Nature obviously favors simple intelligence and the basic needs of survival. That's been the end objective of all life, including dinosaurs. Human beings are an outside result of rare and unique circumstance that went far beyond just the need for survival. So we're a fluke. Earth has shown us that fact by it happening once across billions of years and hundreds of millions of species.

Dinosaur fossils have been found since the early 1800s. In order to make your fantasy idea of the bipedal humanoid-like dinosaur a reality, I'd like to know how you are making that conclusion. What dinosaur has been discovered to back up this claim? All life has to go through the process of evolution and would leave physical evidence of their past. We haven't found every species of dinosaur that has existed, but I think an intelligent species of dinosaur would not only leave behind fossilized bones, but examples of their intelligence through other ways. I'm not aware of any.

Where's the fundamental basis of this fantasy? Without it, you can't make a realistic argument that these are shape-shifting anything.

I'm not the kind of person who's unwilling to change their position. I've changed my position and conceded several times in this thread already.

I do have some evidence but I need to look for it buried somewhere - I'll get back to you or I may start a new semi related thread which covers the evidence behind dinosaurs and our ancestors soon

a reply to: natoshis

some more insight into video artifacts

Any person or persons who believe that celebrities are "shapeshifting" and/or "morphing" ON CAMERA are idiots, in my opinion.
Think about it for a minute. Condone this nonsense and be forever on my list of "Idiots of ATS".
Not that it matters to the fans. They're beyond help anyway.

originally posted by: Kreeate
Any person or persons who believe that celebrities are "shapeshifting" and/or "morphing" ON CAMERA are idiots, in my opinion.
Think about it for a minute. Condone this nonsense and be forever on my list of "Idiots of ATS".
Not that it matters to the fans. They're beyond help anyway.

I feel the same way about people who believe we came from mutated pond goo

a reply to: natoshis

The pope is due to editing.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: natoshis

The pope is due to editing.

No that was live. It can be a glitch tho.