UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
Siro, what do you think is going on in this video?
Controversial YouTube video seems to show a non-human
- Thread starter Ferguson_Mellochill
- Start date
Siro, what do you think is going on in this video?
Nothing? If I was to venture a guess, I'd say a bald guy with a possible disfigurement to his mouth area, made more striking because of the distance and lighting.
"An alien in public in broad day light" would be so far down the list of possibilities, I doubt I could even count all the way down to it in my lifetime.
I'm not trying to assert a belief, and I'm not personally invested in making an argument here. I'm trying to see how people react. I've got your feedback, thanks.
BTW, that abovetopsecret site is a joke, since clearly there wouldn't actually be a public web site collecting things that are top secret. I'm guessing you know that...
But suit wearing aliens attending a press conference is a totally reasonable assumption?
Here are what I see as being the distinct possibilities:
1) It's a horribly disfigured soldier (burn victim) who has effectively lost his nose, ears, lips and other primary facial features, while also having some sort of skin condition (to be determined) that leaves his skin tone to be greenish gray. Yet, his condition does not render him unable to perform his professional responsibilities. Perhaps there is a fully functioning ear on the other side of his head, or perhaps his role does not require him to wear an earpiece.
2) It's a hoax made by a skilled post-production artist who edited the footage prior to broadcast (assuming it's not a live broadcast) and somehow it got by the executive producer and other staff.
3) It's a non-human entity that has regular dealings with the U.S. executive branch, including the President's security detail, and whose normal method of disguise is not currently functioning. Moreover, his role is so commonplace among the other security personnel and perhaps attendees who can see him, that it doesn't stop the progress of the press event or even raise much if any alarm.
4) It's a non-human entity that has regular dealings with the U.S. executive branch, including the President's security detail, and whose normal method of disguise is currently functioning well enough to deceive the attendees, but is out of synch with the frame-rate (or high-pixel resolution?) of the news camera that is filming him.
That didn't take a lifetime to lay out. If there are any other possibilities, please feel free to suggest them.
1) It's a horribly disfigured soldier (burn victim) who has effectively lost his nose, ears, lips and other primary facial features, while also having some sort of skin condition (to be determined) that leaves his skin tone to be greenish gray. Yet, his condition does not render him unable to perform his professional responsibilities. Perhaps there is a fully functioning ear on the other side of his head, or perhaps his role does not require him to wear an earpiece.
2) It's a hoax made by a skilled post-production artist who edited the footage prior to broadcast (assuming it's not a live broadcast) and somehow it got by the executive producer and other staff.
3) It's a non-human entity that has regular dealings with the U.S. executive branch, including the President's security detail, and whose normal method of disguise is not currently functioning. Moreover, his role is so commonplace among the other security personnel and perhaps attendees who can see him, that it doesn't stop the progress of the press event or even raise much if any alarm.
4) It's a non-human entity that has regular dealings with the U.S. executive branch, including the President's security detail, and whose normal method of disguise is currently functioning well enough to deceive the attendees, but is out of synch with the frame-rate (or high-pixel resolution?) of the news camera that is filming him.
That didn't take a lifetime to lay out. If there are any other possibilities, please feel free to suggest them.
Unless this guy is a serious burn victim with a unique assignment or a post-produced Voldemort in the evening news, there doesn't seem to be another conclusion to draw. Of course, you're welcome to draw any conclusion and believe anything you like. I'm sorry if you're offended.
Two of those are not possibilities at all. Just a bunch of meaningless nonsense that appeals to the seemingly-human need to believe in the absurd. If they were, I could come up with a million.
1. A human from the future who evolved beyond the need for a mouth.
2. A visitor from an alternate universe who wants to see if our Obama is similar to his.
3. A demon summoned by an anti-Semitic witch.
4. The result of a failed human-worm cloning experiment.
5. A robot made to scare little children.
6. An actor who lost his way to a horror movie set.
It'd be funny if it wasn't such a tragic waste of the most complex machine in this part of the universe (that alien not withstanding).
1. A human from the future who evolved beyond the need for a mouth.
2. A visitor from an alternate universe who wants to see if our Obama is similar to his.
3. A demon summoned by an anti-Semitic witch.
4. The result of a failed human-worm cloning experiment.
5. A robot made to scare little children.
6. An actor who lost his way to a horror movie set.
It'd be funny if it wasn't such a tragic waste of the most complex machine in this part of the universe (that alien not withstanding).
Considering most secret service agents have military backgrounds, I'd say disfigurement is just a tiiiiiny bit more plausible than that garbage about non-human entities being out of sync with whatever.
Okay, then you can go with that explanation.
I don't need any explanation at all. It's a non-event. Making something up doesn't give me the same comfort it gives you.
And typically at this point in the conversation, the nonsense peddlers accuse me of being close minded THEN imply that they don't need to rationally explain themselves. You skipped a step.
You don't need an explanation, and this is a non-event, but you've posted more than anyone in the thread, and rather emphatically too. So just say, "nothing to see here," and move on.
Based on my experience, I would say that #4 is the most plausible explanation. You obviously don't agree. So we can just agree to disagree. And you're free to think anything of me or this topic you like.
Based on my experience, I would say that #4 is the most plausible explanation. You obviously don't agree. So we can just agree to disagree. And you're free to think anything of me or this topic you like.