Debunk this.

[goldman]

Rest assured I've seen all videos about Reptilians, most of them are fakes or just not quite convincingly enough. Until I saw these two video's. More interestingly, they were talking about 'micro chipping'.

So can anyone debunk this footage? I looked at it hundreds of times, and I can't see any tampering with the material. My only doubts are the color changes, that can happen with video bitrate distortion, but the morphing of the eyes and the huge black pupils are undeniable.

part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qj8741m2jLc&feature=related
part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=07saol9YJ-s&feature=related

So, anyone up to debunking this one? :)

[bernardsmith]

Fucking around with the speed, and zooming in and out of very bad quality video is not proof of 'shapshifting'. That didn't look even remotely like anything out of the ordinary.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the possibility of reptilians and shapeshifting, I just don't think that ridiculous YouTube videos such as this do anything but undermine the credibility of the 'truth movement' in general, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they are put there deliberately by 'agents' for that exact reason...

By the way, was it you that made these videos? If so, why make out that they've been made by somebody else and that you just stumbled upon them?

[goldman]

No I did not make them, I stumbled on these two after investigating ALL video's posted there. It took me some time to find them back and post them here BTW. Well, I think the difference between this one and the others is that there is no 'reflection' of light involved, which debunks the rest who do have a certain degree of 'reflection' of light when the eyes move.

But if you look very closely -also without the zoom or slowdown- you can see if shifting very quickly, it took me some time, but after seeing it a couple of times I can't deny a certain authenticity.

I would be very interested in 'the original', is there a way to obtain the original footage from CNN? if so, that would be ultimate proof. :)

[logic bomb]

Without the original footage it proves nothing.. all I see are codec distortions in a compressed video.

[krakhead]

Show the original broadcast footage, not a compressed version. If it looks the same, I'll concur. Until then, they look like compression artifacts to me.

But I am sceptical about physical shapeshifting anyway, so I may be biased.

[goldman]

Sure, there are distortions, but if you watch if at full speed you really need not to blink with your eyes or you'll miss it :)
The rest are slowdowns and zooming parts of that, I wish that this author didn't do the zoom thing only a slowdown on the whole footage.

but when a person looks up with his eyes, and his complete eye is 3 times it's original size and shifts back to normal, It is pretty weird.

By the way the author means 'eyelids' instead of eyebrows (in case you didn't notice) ;)

Only thing I do not conform with are the colors of the eyes, but they can look purple and green if the pupil turns very dark, combined with distortions.

[goldman]

Show the original broadcast footage, not a compressed version. If it looks the same, I'll concur. Until then, they look like compression artifacts to me.

But I am sceptical about physical shapeshifting anyway, so I may be biased.

Yeah would be awesome to locate the original footage, I might try to do this when I have time.

I just saw that you can order original tapes:http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/help/#4
But I guess you must pay for it :(

[danster82]

Ok well they obviously are not codec distortions or even video distortions because they are exactly over the eyes and move with the movement of their heads, how could a random distortion happen directly on the location of both eyes and nowhere else on the video? A video doesn't distinguish objects as we do its simply a flat panel of colored pixels so a distortion to make the exact shape of the eye and then follow the movement exactly as the head moves and then duplicate that precise distortion exactly on the other eye is highly highly unlikely.

So that means its either deliberately faked, edited or its some odd lighting reflection off the eye or its real.

[goldman]

Well, I just found out that it's a total hoax -so I debunked it myself-. As i learned in Academic research it is important to compare sources. I just tried to locate the same video on Youtube, and there is no sign of the other video's 'eye' problems.

Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaLq0yhFgPI

I guess we can we call this a Hoax! :o I'm pretty much convinced now that almost all are either due to distortions and/or manipulations.

I don't have a Youtube account but I would like to comment on the person made it and show the comparing evidence!

[krakhead]

Well, I just found out that it's a total hoax -so I debunked it myself-. As i learned in Academic research it is important to compare sources. I just tried to locate the same video on Youtube, and there is no sign of the other video's 'eye' problems.

Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaLq0yhFgPI

I guess we can we call this a Hoax! :o I'm pretty much convinced now that almost all are either due to distortions and/or manipulations.

I don't have a Youtube account but I would like to comment on the person made it and show the comparing evidence!

That's a brave thing to admit. Not everyone has the ability to turn around, so quickly as well, and say - oops! I got it wrong!

Big kudos to you! :)

[disorder2k8]

I agree on being a hoax, I have noticed the eyes and mouth are sometimes lagging, and out of sync with the face. watch the eye placement in respect to the face, that shouldnt happen.

[goldman]

That's a brave thing to admit. Not everyone has the ability to turn around, so quickly as well, and say - oops! I got it wrong!

Big kudos to you! :)

Thanks, yes I think should have done this before posting the thread. On the other hand, I think this is all about finding truth for oneself. I am sure that many of David Icke's readers are people such as me that always question before running after the next person who says something interesting, and also not dismiss any theory how crazy it may sound.

But as far as I am concerned, I watched all video's by now and most of them can be explained by either:

- 'intense' light or circular lights (round tubes) used by light engineers and cameramen (not on purpose)
- video distortion (compare the two CNN video's the original did not had that much distortion
- CGI tampering of original material. (in this CNN video case)