irrefutable evidence of shapeshifting

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by Meatclown

 

1.) Irrefutable by nature implies that what you have put forth is in fact proof. The fact that you omitted the word does not make you any less culpable than anyone else that posts this drivel.

Yes, its proof of evidence of shape shifting. Obviously a slit eye does deductibly lead to a reptilian humanoid. However, based on eye witness testimony one can draw this conclusion with a reasonable degree of certainty.

2.) If you want to understand why is eyes appear as slits read The Examiner's post, he seems to know what he is talking about.

If i listened to people who "seemed to know what they're talking about" id probably be watching CNN instead of posting on ATS.

I draw my conclusions based on facts. Not by the interpretation of facts by "authority figures" who "seem to know what they're talking about." This includes diagrams that could be easily replicated by mashing my forehead against the keyboard.

3.)Again.... the reptilian part of this all is implied. Maybe not as overtly as the "proof" implication I mentioned in #1, but it's still implied.

No. It was assumed...by you.

4.)If you want to find other examples of similar optical effects, feel free to poke around youtube, you seem to enjoy the site.

I have and so far i haven't found anything like what is seen here and in the other shapeshifting videos. I believe there is still a 10,000 dollar reward on the table for somebody who can reproduce reptile girl.

5.) Yes, I did generalize since I didn't know anything specifically about your beliefs concerning reptilians. The general beliefs in the nature of reptilians seems to be pretty similar across the board, so yes I based my statement on that. If that was fallacious of me I apologize.

Apology accepted.

If you would like to the discussion to be based on the "evidence" then start by offering some actual evidence.

I did. Scroll up.

I just decided to say something because I disagree. Isn't that what these forums are for?

I believe so yes. If i was interested in a flame fest or an argument in semantics rather than objective discourse, this would be the last place i would come.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Meatclown]

reply to post by Meatclown


Based on what you are saying, you have fashioned yourself into an authority figure of your evidence, the type of authority figure you seem to be against.

I guess the majority of what I find irritating about this thread and threads that are similar in nature is the proclamation of it being the be all to end all evidence. If the original post was something along the lines of, "This is awfully strange, his eyes appears to be slits, what does everyone think?" It would open the thread up to more candid discussion, titling the thread the way you did immediately puts a lot of people on the offensive. I guess it depends on if you are looking for conflict or not.

Anyhow, I'm not going to dwell on this. I said my piece, we don't agree, and that's fine. I realize that disagreeing on the shape shifting phenomenon is like discussing the opposing points concerning abortion in real life. With that said, I'm going to leave you to your thread, and not be a bother. All and all it's better than most shape shifting evidence, I just don't feel it proves anything regardless of the fact that it is better by relativity..... gotta stop myself there. Like I said, I've got nothing against you, maybe sometime in the future we can have a good conversation on a thread.... but this isn't going to be the thread, and I'm sure you not looking for an epic argument anymore than I am. So.... enjoy your thread. Maybe some good points will be brought up for both sides. See you around.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Osiris1953]

reply to post by Osiris1953


Thats cool, i appreciate your .02. I find that no matter how one goes about phrasing this topic it is bound to push peoples' buttons.

Perhaps i should have used the word very strong evidence rather than irrefutable.

reply to post by Meatclown


I can only speak for myself, but if you had phrased it differently I would have reacted differently to it. Catch ya later.

I spend quite a lot of time on ATS because of all the theories flying around about UFO's, Bigfoot, and any other subject that interests me and no matter how much I study these subjects, at the end of the day I have to turn off my computer and return to the real world. Then when i go about my daily routine i never see or experience any of these things in real life. In reality you can discuss certain subjects with people and even get an interesting debate going. What I want to ask is, How many work mates or members of your family do you discuss shape shifting reptilians with and when you do, what is their response?
My own personal belief is that they belong with the fairies and goblins. I would like to think that Aliens and Bigfoot are real but I have yet to be convinced even with the vast amount of EVIDENCE out there.
The problem with reptilians is that the only evidence there is, is these videos of funny looking eyes and a few eye witness accounts. To go with a such a radical theory as reptilians amongst us, I think you will need far more evidence than you have and until then people are going to make fun of you and your evidence.
Just my take on this subject
Cheers
John.

He isnt shapeshifting at all, maybe he is just stoned?

Originally posted by PSP
He isnt shapeshifting at all, maybe he is just stoned?

Cannabis does not make your pupil a slit. He CLEARLY has slit eyes. Humans have ROUND pupils. Why don't people understand this? Why are people so DESPERATE to ignore this?

wowee.... I knew rudy was evil at heart... but I never would have thunkd that he was really a snake-man/lizard-boy whatever...

Can anyone verify that the images and video isnt a hoax? Because if its not then this is pretty good evidence but most of the other stuff I seen was all bad pixels and no clear images but this is pretty clearly visible a double slit pupil.

Meatclown, the problem here is that you have not shown us evidence of shapeshifting at all, only your interpretation of the footage.

In terms of unbiased evidence, what you have shown us is a video of Rudy Giuliani in which for some reason or another, his eyes do not appear normal. What you have failed to show us is the correlation between the appearance of his eyes and shapeshifting. That is why this fails to be proof of anything.

Thus far, TheExaminer is the only one that has given any sort of explanation as to what is causing this phenomenon with Rudy's eyes. If you wish for us to accept this as evidence of shapeshifting, then you need to show us how you came to the conclusion that the strange appearance of Rudy's eyes means that he is a shapeshifter.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by somedude]

reply to post by somedude


After thinking about this, in retrospect, you are entirely correct. I cannot prove that this has anything to do with shapeshifting. Logically speaking, any assertion on my behalf would be conjecture at best.

I still think it is strong evidence of a physical abnormality. Draw whatever conclusions you will. Seeing no other possible explanation, my conclusions rest on the historical, mythological, and eye witness accounts of alleged shape shifting demons, but i understand that these claims are in no way substantiated.

Originally posted by Slickinfinity
Can anyone verify that the images and video isnt a hoax? Because if its not then this is pretty good evidence but most of the other stuff I seen was all bad pixels and no clear images but this is pretty clearly visible a double slit pupil.

You can varify it yourself by going to cnn.com's video archives, thats where i recorded it from. Do a search for "giuliani bush speech" it should be the only thing that comes up.

Originally posted by jon1
The problem with reptilians is that the only evidence there is, is these videos of funny looking eyes and a few eye witness accounts.

A theory lacking evidence isn't a theory disproved.

Who'd heard of a 400 year old clam before the 30th October?

www.world-science.net...

Originally posted by dznetworks
How does THIS prove shapshifting? Ever hear of bright studio lights and having a hard time from not BLINKING all the time?

Nooo, say it isn't so.

A rational reason for why we should not accept Youtube videos?

NEVER !!! LONG LIVE THE ALLIANCE AGAINST REPTILESSS!!

/sarcasm

this video did nothing for me except make sure when I'm his age, I wont widen my eyes that far, it's ugly..

Originally posted by Meatclown
Good point. I chose to classify it as shapeshifting becuase, while i didn't capture the shift occuring, this isn't the normal shape of his pupil.

Ahhh So his shape shifting abilities are more stable in high quality still images, but are somehow deteriorated in low quality youtube videos.

They need to work on their skill, these reptiles.

Some overlords they are, coh..



Edit - I'm moving this thread into my OWN personal BUNKWORKS. Where bunk is ignored.

Tara..


[edit on 1/11/2007 by badw0lf]

Originally posted by badw0lf
Ahhh So his shape shifting abilities are more stable in high quality still images, but are somehow deteriorated in low quality youtube videos.

Not at all. I supplied the information on how to obtain the original footage for yourself. I recommend you reserve your judgment until you check it out, you'll find the quality of the youtube and the original quality are identical, with the anomalies present in each.

Being a studio photographer I concur what TheExaminer wrote regarding lighting... It couldn't be more simple.

But if it makes sense to you Clown to go chase reptilians and shapeshifters then by all means have fun. Its good to have something to do with your life...

reply to post by flice


Can you produce a video example of this lighting phenomena?

reply to post by Meatclown


Still life sure.... I don't do video. But it's the same thing basicly...

While im trying to dig out an example here's a link to a random google search that shows the same thing, only this one is done with lighting a little higher than the camera and softening plate or lamp beneath the model... in other words, the same lighting turned 90 degrees in a clockway motion:

Google search

Now on this photo you can clearly see the whiteness made by those lamps. That's because the area they border up to are darker (the eyelids).
But... if the whiteness was bordering up to the white in a persons eyes you wouldn't notice it. Instead you would focuse on the greater contrast which is the new pitch black slit shape of the pupil.

Think about it, people always post videos from tv programs as proof of Reptiles... but guess what, the lighting regardless is pretty much the same everytime because it's decent lighting for a person appearing on a tv program. It doesn't bring out all the # in their skin