Psychic's predictions for 2012 -- From 30 years ago. [CONFIRMED HOAX]

Not sure if this has been posted, but the show that is mentioned that he allegedly appeared on is called:

" The moment of truth, a television broadcast in France on Antenne 2 (now France 2) and led by François-Henri de Virieu from 1980 to 1988. "

Still trying to find more info.

EDIT: His name may also be "Albert Florintie" or "Sean McIver"

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
It has not been demonstrated it is a hoax

The evidence supporting hoax far outweighs the slim evidence to the contrary.

The video shows significant signs of having been created recently, with effects and alterations to make it appear 30 years old. The editing style also exhibits typical methods used in modern digital tools, not methods used by analog video editing tools used in the 1980's.

The "scan" of a "newspaper" article has been created in photoshop -- it's too clean and the photo has no dot-pattern, which should have been significant given printing methods (and high-dot gain paper) used in the 1980's.

reply to post by cassiopeia1966


You can't just create new accounts and quote a full post with adding your own opinion.

Or did you create that account to quote the post to try and get a message across, in which case that is against the T&C.

Does anybody know, why the pictures in the cut-sequences are brighter? Thanks.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That really bothers me. I understand that more people seem to think it's a hoax than real, but shouldn't it be left in the normal forum to invite further discussion? This has been one of the more interesting threads to read and investigate that I've seen recently.

Also, it bothers (and frankly annoys) me that you can just state matter-of-factly that the newspaper article was created in Photoshop, end of story. You offered some compelling information on how it could have been and the inconsistencies you felt it had, but to state that it 100% is fabricated when you have not seen the original, nor seen if there was an actual newspaper story from that time period that was altered bothers me. Also, your own article on moire patterns states that there is a myriad of scanning methods to eliminate moire from showing up, such as "scanning at 2X or more the desired resolution, apply a blur or despeckle filter, resample to half size to get the desired final size, then use a sharpening filter. Or using a Descreen filter".

reply to post by osneel


Those methods for cleaning a scan of a printed picture would have remove the noise in the white space, if applied.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Whoa, whoa, whoa, back the "confirmed hoax" train up.

First of all, I would like you to answer my questions regarding the source of your "expertise" in print media. I see your points, but you are presenting them as an "expert", when it is really speculation unless you have some kind of training to back it up.

Secondly, nothing here has been definitively confirmed nor denied.

Thirdly, this thread was moved to the HOAX! forum long before the article showed up. It was moved to the hoax forum relatively soon after its creation.

Fourthly, the video has not been proven false in any way other than that it is "too clear" and "can't be real because it doesn't look like a formal interview setup". Any video that is hosted on YouTube must be in a digital format. Thus, any film before the advent of the digital format would have had to be converted to a digital format and, therefore, exhibit signs of "modern" editing.

Again, there is no factual proof, only circumstantial proof. I see a lot of plausible scenarios, inconsistencies, and heresay, yes, but no solid proof.

Obviously the film has been edited, the font of the closed captioning and the 1980 are awful atypical for something from 1980. Also, the resolution of the video looks too good, to me; as if it was filmed with a newer digital camera and then the video was filtered...higher saturation and too sharp for the era...

I remember video from the 80s being softer and less saturated.

But I'm no video expert.

Originally posted by madhatr137
Obviously the film has been edited, the font of the closed captioning and the 1980 are awful atypical for something from 1980. Also, the resolution of the video looks too good, to me; as if it was filmed with a newer digital camera and then the video was filtered...higher saturation and too sharp for the era...

I remember video from the 80s being softer and less saturated.

But I'm no video expert.

The guy who posted the video said himself that he added in the subtites and the "1980" captioning. He even said he's not sure it's from 1980, but that was his best guess as to the year. He said it's definitely from the 1980's though.

Originally posted by ottobot
First of all, I would like you to answer my questions regarding the source of your "expertise" in print media.

Nothing I've said is difficult to confirm from a search standpoint.

My first business (early 1990's) was a graphic design and desktop publishing firm. I've lost count of how many ads I've created where I needed to create film or "camera ready" art for newspapers. Part of which requires knowledge of dot-gain parameters for each publication to ensure the photos and artwork reproduce as intended.

but you are presenting them as an "expert", when it is really speculation

I've been using Photoshop since version 2.0 and Aldus PageMaker beginning with the first version. And even taught classes for beginning desktop publishers "back in the day."

Secondly, nothing here has been definitively confirmed nor denied.

While there is always room for surprising error, the materials provided exhibit attributes lending one to believe this is a contemporary hoax, created with contemporary tools, and most-likely a viral marketing effort of some type. Indeed, one recent contributor to this thread -- trying to refute the hoax nature -- registered with an email address that is the contact email for a marketing firm, and ONLY posted in this thread.

Thirdly, this thread was moved to the HOAX! forum long before the article showed up.

We have lots of experiences with hoaxes here on ATS. Just on the video alone there is enough to consider that the evidence supports hoax.

Fourthly, the video has not been proven false in any way other than that it is "too clear" and "can't be real because it doesn't look like a formal interview setup".

It's much more than that. In addition to all the points previously mentioned, the "hard cuts" shown in the video are extremely difficult (not totally impossible, but 99.5% improbable) with the analog editing tools of the day. The signal for analog video is recorded on tape diagonally (unlike audio tape)... making hard cuts as seen in the source video very, very hard to achieve.

Again, there is no factual proof, only circumstantial proof.

Of which there is an abundance.

Well, earlier in the thread it also was shown that the contact email for the HM2012 site is [email protected] and not [email protected] which the poster of the video provided and also has responded to myself and others from.

www.hm2012.ca...

reply to post by JeffTVQC


Jeff, do you know or can you find out which newspaper is the article from?
I suppose it should be from a local newspaper in the Sarthe region, right?

It should not be difficult, knowing the newspaper and the day of publication
(the pope visit, probably August 15 or 16, 1983),
to see the micro-film of that newspaper in a public library or ask information to the newspaper directly.

This would settle the question once and for all if the article is authentic or fabricated,
and consequently the video.

Thank you in advance.

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
This would settle the question once and for all if the article is authentic or fabricated

Fabricated... by the evidence so far.

Of course, we wonder if you have a vested interest... being involved with a marketing firm, and your first post attempts to perpetuate this story.

To be honest, I can't tell if the video is fake or real, but the BIGGEST factor that would make me think it is fake is this:

He at first is very cloudy as to what will happen in 2012, saying "I don't know if it's b/c that's when I will die or not, blah blah blah", but then all of a sudden he knows exactly what will happen and he claims it involves aliens landing and all that, as if it just came to him out of nowhere..

Originally posted by madhatr137
Obviously the film has been edited, the font of the closed captioning and the 1980 are awful atypical for something from 1980. Also, the resolution of the video looks too good, to me; as if it was filmed with a newer digital camera and then the video was filtered...higher saturation and too sharp for the era...

I remember video from the 80s being softer and less saturated.

But I'm no video expert.

"Obviously the film has been edited." My favorite part, wait for it, "But I'm no video expert."

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
This would settle the question once and for all if the article is authentic or fabricated

Fabricated... by the evidence so far.

Of course, we wonder if you have a vested interest... being involved with a marketing firm, and your first post attempts to perpetuate this story.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I have read this thread from day one and I DO NOT see anything here that proves that it is fabricated. As a matter of fact if one rereads the thread there's actually more evidence that the story is real. Some parts of the story have been debunked, but this mystery is still not solved.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
This would settle the question once and for all if the article is authentic or fabricated

Fabricated... by the evidence so far.

Of course, we wonder if you have a vested interest... being involved with a marketing firm, and your first post attempts to perpetuate this story.

SkepticOverlord, I do not want to put it personal – I do not like this kind of things – but, since you put it this way, here you go:

Do I have a vested interest in this story?

You wil soon discover, I guess.
But I feel you will get a gross delusion.

The topic of the thread is the Prediction Video, and not my job. But since you checked, you know also the names of the clients and brands I work with. And you really think I put my hands in a thing so small as this one?
where is the profit?
where are the tens of millions of dollars? (at least)

And, by the way, I read ATS quite often, since the golden years when John Lear was posting.
(what was it? 2004? 2005?)


Back on topic:
Yes, I want to know the truth about this Prediction Video, because if it is authentic (and I do not know if it is) it is a bombshell.

Besides, you will know about Remote Viewers and Psychics enrolled by the Black Projects of the US Navy, the NSA and other military/intelligence entities.

And you will surely know that many, many of them say the exact same thing:

“I cannot see anything beyond 2012”

This is the same sentence of this person in the video,
be his name Jacques Nietzermann or not.

So I want to know the Truth about it.
Plain and Simple.
I want this matter to be investigated.

And with an open mind.

“Your mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open”.

----------------------------------

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
The topic of the thread is the Prediction Video

...and that it is a hoax, supported by fabricated "evidence."

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Ahh, so even you admit that there is reasonable doubt.

We will see eventually, I suppose.

In the meantime, I will be interested to see what people can dig up about the newspaper stories from that time frame.