It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 36
71
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andromerius
I am sorry but are you pulling the "i'm better at this then you" card?

I qualified it as experience.

The video shows very compelling indicators that it was edited with contemporary digital tools (hard cuts), with add-on effects to simulate an NTSC VHS recording.

The newspaper article "scan" was not scanned from a newspaper.

A supporting image showing the "psychic" in the audience of a 1980's French TV was fabricated.


How much more is needed?




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Andromerius
I am sorry but are you pulling the "i'm better at this then you" card?

I qualified it as experience.

The video shows very compelling indicators that it was edited with contemporary digital tools (hard cuts), with add-on effects to simulate an NTSC VHS recording.

The newspaper article "scan" was not scanned from a newspaper.

A supporting image showing the "psychic" in the audience of a 1980's French TV was fabricated.


How much more is needed?


I accept your take on the newspaper and about the TV show, that was done clearly to make people believe the video was fake or some other obscure reason. Take away the newspaper and the French TV bs, you cannot be 100% sure it is fake, yes, there are indicators, but you can't possible tell me you know it is fake... and that is my point. But anyway, i see your mind is set and there is no point in arguing with you. Case closed for me.

Regards,
Andro



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well I joined almost 4 years ago and still don't know for certain if it's a hoax or not. A lot of stuff could be phony, or it could be real. So-called "expert" opinions really don't count for much when they're not able to examine the actual items in question (I equate this to a police investigator, however qualified or experienced, trying to come to a conclusion on a crime scene without actually being there).

Regardless if it's real or not I think the discussion has been interesting and when it's a subject of this magnitude, I don't think it should be discarded until it can unequivocally be proven as fake. Until then, treated with skepticism or wariness, sure.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the person who posted the photo of him on the TV show and the photo of the newspaper is not the same person who uploaded the video, correct?

Therefore, we need to only look at if the video is faked or not, and I still see no proof one way or the other.

A lot of people are saying some modern digital software was used, but didn't the original uploader say he ran it through some modern-day program to make it digital? And isn't it then possible that when he did it it made it look more "current' but some qualities of the original footage still showed up? Just my thinking...still no proof



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Is there any french newspaper (1980+) using the Rockwell font?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The video shows very compelling indicators that it was edited with contemporary digital tools (hard cuts), with add-on effects to simulate an NTSC VHS recording.



NTSC VHS ????

This is expertise?

No, sorry, it isn't.

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

Video Studio Recording: 1" Professional Videotape on an Ampex Tape Recorder.

Audio: on Nagra Professional Tape Recorder at 7.5"/sec
or on a Studer 1" Tape Recorder at 15"/sec
------------->> performance: 70dB S/N ratio, 20-20KHz frequency response +/- 1.5 dB

The microphone: probably a Neumann Condenser in cardioid configuration.

After Post-Production, archived on a professional 3/4" U-matic video cassette.

All this equipment was standard in the 80's in the Professional Environment (TV Studios)
I was working in TV Production, in the 80's.

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

just about expertise ...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Am I the only one whose interest has sailed on the S.S. Whogivesatoss?

Attention span in the internet age is a fickle mistress. In my opinion, the creators have squandered their opportunity by not following this up with some further fudged evidence. Whatever product or service they're hocking, I'm out. Good day, sirs!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
by the way, in the case this all thing is a hoax, it costed between $60,000 to $90,000

and required a crew of 9 to 12 persons (Professionals, not amateurs).
This is a Professional Production.
And Professionals are expensive.

Now, in case it is all a hoax, the question is: "cui prodest?" - who benefits?

Who would want to throw $60,000 to $90,000 out of the window?
would you?

and for which gain?
and which profit?

a brain is a useful instrument only if one uses it.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by osneel
Well I joined almost 4 years ago and still don't know for certain if it's a hoax or not. A lot of stuff could be phony, or it could be real. So-called "expert" opinions really don't count for much when they're not able to examine the actual items in question (I equate this to a police investigator, however qualified or experienced, trying to come to a conclusion on a crime scene without actually being there).

Regardless if it's real or not I think the discussion has been interesting and when it's a subject of this magnitude, I don't think it should be discarded until it can unequivocally be proven as fake. Until then, treated with skepticism or wariness, sure.



I totally agree.
It could be either way, authentic or hoax, I do not have a settled opinion about it,
but it is worth investigating.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
NTSC VHS ????
This is expertise?

The "artifacts" present in the YouTube video are created specifically to mimic what is seen when one digitizes an NTSC VHS video tape. PAL VHS and PAL BetaMax (and 3/4 and 1 inch variants) exhibit different (and less) over-scan and tracking artifacts when digitized.

Not to mention that hard-cut edits in analog video tape were still very, very difficult to achieve.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Gerizo
 



Nothing has official been declared a hoax. What evidence have you presented that makes it a hoax? Have you even bothered to read the whole thread?


Being put in [HOAX] is about as official as you can get. Since you have not read any of the evidence I have presented, perhaps you are the one who needs to go back and read the whole thread.


Not exactly, it was marked hoax the same day when it was thought to be a viral marketing campaign. Which was debunked, and the hoax tag was never removed. I have posted on this thread multiple times and if YOU actually read the thread then you would already know this. Again, you have provided no new proof that it is a hoax either, so go back and cheer quietly on the sidelines.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
seeing how this still hasnt been proven concretely one way or the other, i retract my apologies from earlier in the thread.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Andromerius
I am sorry but are you pulling the "i'm better at this then you" card?

I qualified it as experience.

The video shows very compelling indicators that it was edited with contemporary digital tools (hard cuts), with add-on effects to simulate an NTSC VHS recording.

The newspaper article "scan" was not scanned from a newspaper.

A supporting image showing the "psychic" in the audience of a 1980's French TV was fabricated.


How much more is needed?


How about some actual hardcore proof? The newspaper article "scan" was not scanned by a newspaper in your own opinion is what I think you meant to say. Because other than typing technical words you have not provided anything that actually can prove 100% that the it was not scanned from a newspaper. Someone already pointed out earlier in the thread and asked you how would you know what time of font was used in a French newspaper from 30 years ago? You avoided that question all together.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Ok, even the Net has its limits. Could some french speaking guy phone 5 old Couples and ask Them about this medium.
If the arrest of this man was big news in the region sarthe, they should now about him.
5ct per minute.
But if the french article is already debunked, than it is lost time.

If the film is from 2012, than I find it strange, that nobody knows this guy. He works, he has a family, relatives, friends, old classmates and so on. Even if he has a wig on his head.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
by the way, in the case this all thing is a hoax, it costed between $60,000 to $90,000

and required a crew of 9 to 12 persons (Professionals, not amateurs).
This is a Professional Production.
And Professionals are expensive.

Now, in case it is all a hoax, the question is: "cui prodest?" - who benefits?

Who would want to throw $60,000 to $90,000 out of the window?
would you?

and for which gain?
and which profit?



may I have - from anyone of the "hoax/no discussion" party - an intelligent and reasonable answer to these questions?

I would be delighted



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
NTSC VHS ????
This is expertise?

The "artifacts" present in the YouTube video are created specifically to mimic what is seen when one digitizes an NTSC VHS video tape. PAL VHS and PAL BetaMax (and 3/4 and 1 inch variants) exhibit different (and less) over-scan and tracking artifacts when digitized.

Not to mention that hard-cut edits in analog video tape were still very, very difficult to achieve.


sorry, above you said just "NTSC VHS"
now you change your mind?

so, you are an expert in everything:

- graphic design
- scanners
- Professional TV Production
- Audio Electronics
- Sound Recording

and what else? probably even Astrophysics, Plasma Physics, Greek Philosophy,
Minoan Civilization, the paintings of Paul Klee, the music of Stravinsky...
is there something in which you are NOT an expert?

ok, ok, I understood: even the Monna Lisa now at the Louvre is a Hoax,
made just with a scanner and Photoshop, right?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Sorry, I am a new member an this was an handling error. One Click to much.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think this is most likely a hoax.

Where is the info about this guy? This should be already here, if this guy was real deal.

Ps. Hope SOPA dont pass.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
I really do not understand why this thread has been moved to the Hoax section.

It has not been demonstrated it is a hoax (prove me wrong),
and it has not been demonstrated it is authentic, from 1980.

Until there is not certainty, it should be open to discussion in its proper section.
Personal opinions from moderators are just that: personal opinions.

Therefore, I invite moderators to move it back where it does belong.
Thank you.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd
by the way, in the case this all thing is a hoax, it costed between $60,000 to $90,000

and required a crew of 9 to 12 persons (Professionals, not amateurs).
This is a Professional Production.
And Professionals are expensive.

Now, in case it is all a hoax, the question is: "cui prodest?" - who benefits?

Who would want to throw $60,000 to $90,000 out of the window?
would you?

and for which gain?
and which profit?



may I have - from anyone of the "hoax/no discussion" party - an intelligent and reasonable answer to these questions?

I would be delighted


The estimated cost is merely your opinion.

I think it would cost $600-$900 dollars depending on who's doing the filming and the equipment already possessed.

What makes your opinion on the cost any more/less valid than mine?




top topics



 
71
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join