There's this more fringe theory going around Anon groups about "reptilians." Bear with me.

So, there's this site that allows you to train yourself to spot fake people (some call them GANs): http://www.whichfaceisreal.com/index.php

I'm going through, picking out the GANs, then I start to notice the same issue with the slit eyes as these supposed "reptilian" people on TV (see attached photo). Here's an example of Bret Baier (from Fox): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTeM-lcFJ_U

There are others of Baier, and some of them are a lot more obvious. But, I wanted to link to something for reference.

Some of these people do seem to make public appearances. So, this isn't to say that these people don't physically exist somewhere. It's just to say that their news casts on TV don't always seem to be them.

Think of the possibilities. You scan a person to use their skin as an overlay, like a Snapchat filter, though more sophisticated. Then, you can create a persona around that physical appearance: Tough conservative? Sweet hometown girl? Snarky woman with the quick comebacks? Old fashioned gentleman? Then, you create a show/segment that works with that persona. Then, during the use of that persona, you overlay that appearance on some generic actor/actress (if you even technologically have to). During the bulk of that time, because so much of it is computer-generated, you have full control of the behavior of this "person." All behavior is sculpted and deliberate with no loose ends. It allows a network to essentially create a human avatar (i.e. marionette puppet) to sculpt to their whims, and which they have total control over the behavior of, in every way.

As per Occam's Razor, it requires fewer variables as a theory (no reptilian life forms and the basic technology already exists). It also has numerous possible applications beyond the sphere of TV news. Consider, for example, how this would play out if Jack Dorsey, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg or other such high-powered figures were just human avatars? They show their face to the public, put on a show, answer questions, and seem like they're responsible for what's going on. So, when things go south, who is the public going to blame? The "person" that they've seen.

It's just a theory, but it would explain the "reptilian" eyes. It could also explain the abundance of Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and Gates-like people. Think about it for a second. Don't their personalities seem like cardboard cutouts? Like bad extras from some B-movie? They have little or no depth. They behave similarly. They also provide a generous public appearance for people to direct all their blame at when things go wrong. And, when the public gets emotional, do they stop to think if they're blaming the right person? Do they dig further? No, they never do, do they? And, maybe that's entirely the point. The nameless, faceless ones in charge are safely elsewhere, as these human avatars are tried and convicted in the public court.

So, to that end, everyone loves to call out George Soros and the Rothschilds. But, my question would be: Who HASN'T been named?

>>9774392

There have been some big arrests of traffickers in AU. So, I don't think they're going in the wrong direction over there. Maybe try checking out AU and NZ specific news sources. You might get more info that way. There isn't a lot about them in US news (which is almost funny because AU news is pretty obsessed with the US).

>>9774399

Secret royals? Like family members of EU royal families that have been kept out of the headlines and off the radar? Or that guy in the UK (I think that's where he's from) who's claiming he's the rightful heir to the UK throne?

>>9774407

The TV shows are really brainwash-y with the "new normal" and everyone wearing masks and talking about social distancing. I just shut it off and started getting my news in written form from reliable sources (like Anons) and watching old shows on DVD. They're better than the crap on TV now, anyway. Coincidentally, I'm the least freaked out, most well-researched person in my area in regards to COVID.

TV really does rot your brain.

>>9774421

Have these morons actually read the research on masks?

When I looked up what virologists wear in labs and saw a pic online, I laughed hysterically. Those things are airtight. There's no way in Hell cloth masks and surgical masks are doing a damn thing by comparison. (The meme about the size of the holes in the fabric of these masks that's been circulating backs that up. There's also a great research paper on it that's been circulating.)

It's a seriously alarming trend with these people, though. They've shifted the burden of proof. In fact, it started with impeachment. They said that Trump had to prove his innocence. No, that's not how it works. YOU have to prove his guilt. But, they didn't. Then, they move on to draconian lockdowns and tyrannical EOs from governors. You want them to stop? YOU have to prove that you're not at risk. But, you can't prove a negative. That's the problem here. That's also why innocent until proven guilty was always such an innate part of the justice system. You can't prove a negative. So, they shifted the burden of proof, locking us into this insanity and the only way out isn't to try to prove a negative (because you can't). The answer is to shift the burden of proof back onto them. They had to prove that we were a danger in order to make us wear masks and to lock us up at home, but they didn't do that. All the "what if"s in the world don't matter. They didn't prove it. Ergo, their actions were without basis.

>>9774428

Jesus does not go with porn.

Do you get that a significant part of this movement is to stop human trafficking? And, your answer to that is what? To show images of really young, potentially underage girls right next to "prayers"?

Sick.

>>9774456

Thanks, Anon!

Checking it out. o7