guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely
especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...
okay, sometimes you guys seem intelligent and sometimes you try to be so open minded it just becomes absurdly moronic.
Watch the video again, around 1.35 her entire face and dress has been affected by the decode error as the movement is not enough to reset the frames, however she then moves her left arm around to gesticulate at about 1.40 she 'wipes' the area (around her left tit) and it is immediately cleared. In fact her left forearm never distorts because she moves it alot.
I feel slightly embarassed for some of you guys that this has to be pointed out...
again
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...
Really??????
sure
and your 'evidence' is hardly conclusive of the former either.....imho you look at things with a very rigid mind.....you cannot see this because of that fact
It's not 'evidence' it's just a plausible explanation for visual distortion versus a very un-plausible (but still possible) explanation. Sure no-one knows anything 'for sure' but it is stupid to rule out logic, experience etc because of 'mights' and 'possibilities'. That would be a world without science or reason. A world of dicks.
What are your thoughts on the video evidence for Fox anchors being aliens with crap disguises. Do you think it is more plausible that it is a video error or that it is in fact a malfunctioning alien disguise?
Sure, no-one knows, sure, nothing is absolutely provable. But don't you think one explanation is more or less likely than the other? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is your experience of badly maintained alien disguises greater than your experience of low qual video decoding online?
I am just amazed...
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:37 pm
by Motorway to Roswell
lloydnoise wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:
lloydnoise wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:haha this thread i funny
guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely
especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...
okay, sometimes you guys seem intelligent and sometimes you try to be so open minded it just becomes absurdly moronic.
Watch the video again, around 1.35 her entire face and dress has been affected by the decode error as the movement is not enough to reset the frames, however she then moves her left arm around to gesticulate at about 1.40 she 'wipes' the area (around her left tit) and it is immediately cleared. In fact her left forearm never distorts because she moves it alot.
I feel slightly embarassed for some of you guys that this has to be pointed out...
again
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...
Really??????
sure
and your 'evidence' is hardly conclusive of the former either.....imho you look at things with a very rigid mind.....you cannot see this because of that fact
It's not 'evidence' it's just a plausible explanation for visual distortion versus a very un-plausible (but still possible) explanation. Sure no-one knows anything 'for sure' but it is stupid to rule out logic, experience etc because of 'mights' and 'possibilities'. That would be a world without science or reason. A world of dicks.
What are your thoughts on the video evidence for Fox anchors being aliens with crap disguises. Do you think it is more plausible that it is a video error or that it is in fact a malfunctioning alien disguise?
Sure, no-one knows, sure, nothing is absolutely provable. But don't you think one explanation is more or less likely than the other? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is your experience of badly maintained alien disguises greater than your experience of low qual video decoding online?
I am just amazed...
Why is it very implausible though?
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 pm
by lloydnoise
Motorway to Roswell wrote:
lloydnoise wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:
lloydnoise wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:haha this thread i funny
guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely
especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...
okay, sometimes you guys seem intelligent and sometimes you try to be so open minded it just becomes absurdly moronic.
Watch the video again, around 1.35 her entire face and dress has been affected by the decode error as the movement is not enough to reset the frames, however she then moves her left arm around to gesticulate at about 1.40 she 'wipes' the area (around her left tit) and it is immediately cleared. In fact her left forearm never distorts because she moves it alot.
I feel slightly embarassed for some of you guys that this has to be pointed out...
again
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...
Really??????
sure
and your 'evidence' is hardly conclusive of the former either.....imho you look at things with a very rigid mind.....you cannot see this because of that fact
It's not 'evidence' it's just a plausible explanation for visual distortion versus a very un-plausible (but still possible) explanation. Sure no-one knows anything 'for sure' but it is stupid to rule out logic, experience etc because of 'mights' and 'possibilities'. That would be a world without science or reason. A world of dicks.
What are your thoughts on the video evidence for Fox anchors being aliens with crap disguises. Do you think it is more plausible that it is a video error or that it is in fact a malfunctioning alien disguise?
Sure, no-one knows, sure, nothing is absolutely provable. But don't you think one explanation is more or less likely than the other? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is your experience of badly maintained alien disguises greater than your experience of low qual video decoding online?
I am just amazed...
Why is it very unplausible though?
Aliens reading gossip pieces on LA tv????
WHAT THE FUCK??? are you insane seriously? Why is that implausable? uuuum
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:41 pm
by Motorway to Roswell
I just noticed I put unplausible.
I'm not insane.
Why is it implausible?
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:42 pm
by Pistonsbeneath
newsreaders do hypnotize people lloydnoise do they not?
do you not believe that too an extent?
maybe that's their primary function?
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:43 pm
by Motorway to Roswell
In the past if you'd said the universe was a hologram people would have said you were insane and scientists would have ridiculed you. Now scientists are saying it's plausible.
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:46 pm
by james fox
Pistonsbeneath wrote:newsreaders do hypnotize people lloydnoise do they not?
do you not believe that too an extent?
maybe that's their primary function?
sorry, what
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:48 pm
by Pistonsbeneath
james fox wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:newsreaders do hypnotize people lloydnoise do they not?
do you not believe that too an extent?
maybe that's their primary function?
sorry, what
so you don't believe the news is designed to keep people under control?
are you insane?
ever noticed how they speak in a slow monotone drawl?
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:52 pm
by lloydnoise
Pistonsbeneath wrote:newsreaders do hypnotize people lloydnoise do they not?
do you not believe that too an extent?
maybe that's their primary function?
No I don't believe that. I believe the news can be a powerful tool of implication and influence and of all the channels, Fox easily has the most questionable agenda. they have been linked to so much shit you can smell it but the idea that hypnotism is used is pretty out there. Hypnotism is a very specific technique for focusing someone's mind on something very specific OR very subconcious. It is not a trance, more a fully awakened state with more acceptance to audible input than any other. To hypnotise someone properly takes a great deal of preparation and that is once you have someone who is easily affected.
Words like hypnotism imply a sinister aspect, a mysticism if you will. Even Fox is just a clumsy conduit for Neo-Cons and right wing republican agendas and it doesn't need to be too eloquant when it's just trying to scare people into agreeing with things.
You give them too much credit sir.
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:52 pm
by lloydnoise
Pistonsbeneath wrote:
james fox wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:newsreaders do hypnotize people lloydnoise do they not?
do you not believe that too an extent?
maybe that's their primary function?
sorry, what
so you don't believe the news is designed to keep people under control?
are you insane?
ever noticed how they speak in a slow monotone drawl?
you ever tried to read Autocue while a dick shouts in your ear?
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:01 pm
by Motorway to Roswell
lloydnoise wrote:
Pistonsbeneath wrote:newsreaders do hypnotize people lloydnoise do they not?
do you not believe that too an extent?
maybe that's their primary function?
No I don't believe that. I believe the news can be a powerful tool of implication and influence and of all the channels, Fox easily has the most questionable agenda. they have been linked to so much shit you can smell it but the idea that hypnotism is used is pretty out there. Hypnotism is a very specific technique for focusing someone's mind on something very specific OR very subconcious. It is not a trance, more a fully awakened state with more acceptance to audible input than any other. To hypnotise someone properly takes a great deal of preparation and that is once you have someone who is easily affected.
Words like hypnotism imply a sinister aspect, a mysticism if you will. Even Fox is just a clumsy conduit for Neo-Cons and right wing republican agendas and it doesn't need to be too eloquant when it's just trying to scare people into agreeing with things.
You give them too much credit sir.
I agree with that.
Hypnotism could be involved but I doubt it. If we were hypnotised we wouldn't know.
This document contains over 60 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama’s use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of “hack” hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.
Barack Obama’s speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a form of “conversational” hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients without their knowledge for therapy purposes. Obama’s speeches intentionally contain:
- Trance Inductions
- Hypnotic Anchoring
- Pacing and Leading
- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
- Critical Factor Bypass
- Stacking Language Patterns
- Preprogrammed Response Adaptation
- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded
Suggestions
- Emotion Transfer
- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming
Obama’s techniques are the height of deception and psychological manipulation, remaining hidden because one must understand the science behind the language patterns in order to spot them. This document examines Obama’s speeches word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients. Obama’s mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because “Obama is the greatest leader of a generation” who simply hasn’t accomplished anything, who magically “inspires” by giving speeches. Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history.
This document contains over 60 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama’s use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of “hack” hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.
Barack Obama’s speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a form of “conversational” hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients without their knowledge for therapy purposes. Obama’s speeches intentionally contain:
- Trance Inductions
- Hypnotic Anchoring
- Pacing and Leading
- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
- Critical Factor Bypass
- Stacking Language Patterns
- Preprogrammed Response Adaptation
- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded
Suggestions
- Emotion Transfer
- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming
Obama’s techniques are the height of deception and psychological manipulation, remaining hidden because one must understand the science behind the language patterns in order to spot them. This document examines Obama’s speeches word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients. Obama’s mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because “Obama is the greatest leader of a generation” who simply hasn’t accomplished anything, who magically “inspires” by giving speeches. Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history.
I got trained in NLP in several jobs. News readers, public speakers, politicians will all be given some background in these techniques as they are key to being a good orator. Presidents have used these methods for decades as have speech writers and advertisers.
Most news just reports on stories, some channels have a more sensationalist agenda but this is generally manifested in the language they use. If a story is big, it will get reported on. Most news channels will show stories that they think will get the highest ratings. Most politicians will say things they think will get the most votes. Most advertiser will do things that they think will sell the most products. This is all normal. You are reading to much into it. I don't want to sound patronising but it's not as bad as you think
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:26 pm
by james fox
ah yes, crazymotion.net - my first port of call for rigorously peer-reviewed scientific analysis.
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:01 pm
by Pistonsbeneath
james fox wrote:ah yes, crazymotion.net - my first port of call for rigorously peer-reviewed scientific analysis.
as opposed to swallowing everything from official sources
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:06 pm
by lloydnoise
james fox wrote:ah yes, crazymotion.net - my first port of call for rigorously peer-reviewed scientific analysis.
also, it's just a weird advert. not sure what the point was..
I'd love to see some evidence for reptilians that isn't poor quality video distortion (srsly, that's all there ever is) as it's quite a cool idea and as Parson mentioned it's been a part of human mythology for centuries/millenia (maybe?). Since seeing a fairly intelligent bloke like Icke spend his entire life looking into it makes me wonder but as there is no proof it just becomes a laughable novelty. I am always open minded but when dogmatic zealots can only point to the same shoddy nonsense everytime they are asked for proof it makes them seem closed minded and all the more absurd.
I WANT TO BELIEVE but I can't cos it all stinks of bullshit
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:09 pm
by Pistonsbeneath
if you were really interested in it then surely you would have read up on it?
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:11 pm
by lloydnoise
Pistonsbeneath wrote:
james fox wrote:ah yes, crazymotion.net - my first port of call for rigorously peer-reviewed scientific analysis.
as opposed to swallowing everything from official sources
mate, the video you posted was of a news woman reading a piece about a guy ripping of supermarkets by hypnotising the cashiers before turning into an advert for a conversationalist hynotism tape.. what was you're point?
The news doesn't hypnotise people but then if the news told you that you would'nt believe them because they'd be trying to hypnotise you....
Seriously scary delusional line of reasoning. Are you the sort of person that 'sees' hidden patterns where no one else does. You might need help (i'm not joking)
Pistonsbeneath wrote:if you were really interested in it then surely you would have read up on it?
I have, it's insane and makes no sense
Re: Our world may be a giant hologram
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:16 pm
by hackman
lloydnoise watch alex collier interview
and tell me if you think he is lying/insane
there's just too many people saying this stuff that are not IMO insane or liars, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is lying i think
also as you mentioned every ancient culture references them
theres hundreds of witness accounts on the internet of people encountering reptilians, more often than not underground, mining, etc
also the accounts of people seeing them on acid/dmt, and sleep paralysis
theres an interview transcript of a suuposed security guard at an underground military base in dulce, new mexico, where there was military and reptilian co-operation, who has since gone missing
there's just so much stuff out there, that it becomes more and more crazy to not think they exist in my opinion
also this video, i'm not saying its a reptilian, just that if nature can produce something as fucked as that, then why can't it produce reptilians, which are supposed to look very similar
I just noticed I put unplausible. 
