Spiritual Forum

Replies

• 

  1 darkstar August 10, 2014 at 4:28pm

  Creepy. Real or not I couldn't say.
• This reply was deleted.
  • 

    Malcolm August 10, 2014 at 2:14pm

    Would you still like the series if Dexter sliced up living animals instead of humans?
• 

  Acute Observer August 10, 2014 at 12:06am

  Because THAT reply was just a re-written re-affirmation of what he had just posted.
  
  To type out his most inner thoughts on this forum without his permission would be a SERIOUS invasion of mental privacy.
• 

  Acute Observer August 9, 2014 at 11:07pm

  Only Paul can make such a request.
• 

  Acute Observer August 9, 2014 at 10:40pm

  This is the second time I see you misconstrue something into the complete opposite at a weekend. I suspect alcohol. :)

  Paul does not think that 8 years is short. He's saying the exact opposite. :)

  It is YOU who claim the series were short lived, in the TOPIC even.
• 

  Acute Observer August 9, 2014 at 2:20pm

  "Sorry people, light changes do not cause the eyes to create this slit-pupil image seen with the eyes"

  No, but compression-algorithms do among many other things that can disrupt a video-file.

  And since these videos have been copied, compressed, decompressed, copied, copied, uploaded, downloaded, compressed, re-compressed, put through youtube and then through yet another datatransfer-stream before it reaches YOUR eyes, you could safely assume that it's more likely these videos are proof of what happens to digital video material when it gets copied too many times, rather than proof of reptilian DNA in those filmed.

  I long for the day when Malcolm starts to believe in things that are actually real. One Small Step for Malcolm. One Giant Leap for Ashtar Command. :)
  • 

    Malcolm > Acute Observer August 9, 2014 at 9:37pm

    ACUTE OBSERVER: I long for the day that you provide evidence of your claims that extend beyond words that you type, which anyone can do. The video compressions anomalies that you talk about affect the entire image, and not just a part that requires a magnification of a small part of the image (in this case the eyes of the actors) which was examined and enlarged in the videos I presented, and which all show the same controversial image. Also note that I placed this post under the "Conspiracy Theory" category, which means it's questionable but possible.

    You are still a legend in your own mind.
    • 

      Acute Observer > Malcolm August 9, 2014 at 10:10pm

      This time it's YOU who don't know what you're talking about. :)
      
      
      "The video compressions anomalies that you talk about affect the entire image,"
      
      No mate, they affect the data clusters that are affected. If a data-loss would affect the entire picture there would be no movies at all beyond physical films that play on projectors.
      
      
      "Also note that I placed this post under the "Conspiracy Theory" category, which means it's questionable but possible."
      
      But you are intellectually insulting everyone who knows a little about digital video-handling.
      I've seen MANY old movies that have these effects in them. Children who turn into pixelated monsters every now and then.. The effects weren't there on the original but since then they've been recorded from 8mm film to a screen to video to digital to mpg (worst format ever btw, that format dominates the "pixelations"-world) and then copied in absurdum.
      
      What I see in the vid you have posted here are the same things I've seen since I made VCD's out of all my downloaded films. And it IS the result of data degradation.
      
      Your constant arguing to support the opposite may indicate early mental degradation.
      You should look into that before you turn into a carrot or something. ;)
      • 

        Malcolm > Acute Observer August 9, 2014 at 10:42pm

        You are correct that any video can be manipulated.  But these anomalies were spotted by individuals not involved in video editing. And I am not arguing about anything, except that the videos feature eye shapes of which when magnified feature the same controversial images that have been seen with many unaltered videos and photos of so many actors and actresses in Hollywood, as well as so many politicians in our government, and have been reported to be seen by so many ordinary people (AND FEATURE THE SAME APPEARANCE AND SHAPE).

        The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdT2E7lNZP0 that I displayed above was done by a separate individual, and it refers to the same actor featured in the video done by the other individual's video I presented. Note that this video in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdT2E7lNZP0 is crystal clear and does not feature any compression whatsoever.

        The photo of Ted Kennedy (below) was taken by United Press International and is not altered in anyway.  It features the same reptilian eye (left) that had to be magnified to be seen in in the videos above, and this same eye shape and appearance has been seen over and over again by ordinary people in real life and via video and film.

        

        You are correct that anyone can alter film and that film pixels can create distortions over time. The problem is the "distortions" are all similar, and they are all the same type reported by MANY ordinary people. 
        • 

          Acute Observer > Malcolm August 9, 2014 at 10:59pm

          "You are correct that any video can be manipulated."
          
          I said nothing about manipulation.
          I'm talking about regular happenings in the world of video-handling.
          
          
          "But these anomalies were spotted by individuals not involved in video editing."
          
          And therein lies the problem. They have no knowledge nor experience about what it is they're seeing hence, they draw all the wrong conclusions about it.