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

What makes the video more real than fake, is the fact of the age of Jacques. None of the skeptics can explain why this man looks so young in this video if this video is a newer faked video.

If the video was a newer faked video of Jacques Nietzermann, then Jacques would be much older than what he is in the video.

Explain that skeptics.

Everything else is just someones guesstimate. I give lots of guesstimates here on ATS, but this man's actual age is what changes everything when we look at a young version of this man in the video.

Who is this guy? I'm very serious. I want to see a RECENT photo of him to see if he's aged 30 years since that videotape.

Judging from the background, this guy planted himself in a corner of his parents' home - where the old folks kept their OLD longplaying records (they all look a bit shelfworn). I cannot prove that the videotape is recent but it seems better quality than most homemade videotapes from 30 years ago.

reply to post by RussianScientists


That's as much his name as you are a Russian scientist.

Someone's just throwing BS out there. No one's confirmed this guys real identity yet.

Well, first of all greetings to everyone in here,
long time lurker of ats and always enjoyed reading through your posts.
I only joined to point out something I haven't been able to track through the rest of the replies in this thread.

While clothes, styling and the general style of the video match the 80's era, the stuff in the room look extremely worn out. I imagine that the box from that Kodak Carousel 760H projector should be in better shape after only a couple of years of use. Same goes for the vinyl records behind him.

On the other hand right at 0:26 he answers a question of the "reporter" starting immediately with his reply.
From my experience with interviews (and I have a fairly big share of experience) when interviewing someone, it's part of the drill to explain to the interviewee that they have to include the question they were asked, within their answer. That because the interviewers voice and questions will be cut off in post production.
If you notice, after that specific part, the "psychic" conforms and starts replying while including the question he was asked, that means, that the reporter or interviewer reminded him to do so.

If it is a home production then they have a very good script, very good actor and a very good set designer. As far as the budget goes, it would probably cost a lot of money to purchase all the equipment JUST to shoot this clip. If however you do go to film school, you can get your hands on pretty much anything you wish. Including lights and betacams.

my 2 cents.

C.

Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by RussianScientists

 

That's as much his name as you are a Russian scientist.

Someone's just throwing BS out there. No one's confirmed this guys real identity yet.

This man is called Jacques Nietzermann. This was already discussed on page 31 of this thread. That is the man's name. The French website host already confirmed that.

reply to post by Gerizo


No disrespect intended, but I'm not buying it.

You can take that as all the confirmation you need, but a sole Youtube comment and phony baloney-looking (IMO!) newspaper article aren't making my nethers tingle.

>>This man is called Jacques Nietzermann. This was already discussed on page 31 of this thread. That is the man's name. The French website host already confirmed that.

reply to post by RussianScientists


i took another look at the video and only looked at the "actors" eyes while he was speaking. Either he's a ridiculously great actor or he has already had deep thoughts of the things he speaks of and is constantly revisiting them while the interview is going on. Thats my feeling. there's no in between and this isnt a school project, its too freaking good...like District 9 good. What throws me off is the editing and in-between cuts which can, in the right hands, be manipulated to say anything. Its what makes jersey shore a show that some people watch and enjoy when in real life its actually quite dull and low on excitement.

reply to post by buggy166


I dont feel like watching this video again, for the third or fourth time, but the only thing that struck me was the insertion of a few random black frames. Other than that this video is dead on replication from that era or it is from that era. I still say if it is a hoax that all equipment used, up to digitizing, was from that time period. Talking about the video only and not the other articles etc.

reply to post by ThickenedPlot


The problem here is - where is the rest of the footage? Even though this looks cut from raw footage but why doesn't the interviewer announce him? Where is the start and end to this video?

reply to post by buggy166


I think its very possible that the interview is from the 70's or 80's and that the interview was real without fakery intended.

Here is some interview clips of others from the 1970s and 1980s, the video quality is the same as what we see in this interview.

www.youtube.com...

Nice. I like how Skeptic Overlord just marked this as hoax, despite the ongoing discussion and interest and, in my opinion, the large number of people who feel it has validity. Deny ignorance, indeed!

Earlier back in the thread, when the video source was actively being debunked, there were so many great ideas floating around as to how this video may have been rendered, and how it may have been proven to be faked or real, being digitized from a film.

I said that I would try and get a video experts opinion, that of Dr Bruce Maccabee,

and I am sure most on ATS know who he is and his rather famous background.

Anyway, he actually responded to my query. I do not want to quote his entire email, since he has not explicitly given me permission, but I will quote an excerpt from what he said:

If you have an old analog video and digitize the signal coming from the analog video player I would expect that one would get a "perfect" (or very good) rendering of all the analog output signal (wanted images) and noise (electronic garbage) contained in original. Video back in those days was NTSC standard (except for special research type video machines) with 640 by 480 "pixel" resolution. (Video monitors of those days had the same limited resolution.) If, back then, one made a video of a high quality film, the resolution of the video would be 640 x 480 which is less than the resolution of the film. Thus I would guess that one could not distinguish between
a) using a 1980 vintage camera to produce the original source video (video the subject matter directly) or
b) make a high quality film the subject matter and then convert the film imagery to electronic analog format (not "digitizing") with a typical NTSC video camera to make a video of the subject matter
I don't know if this exactly answers your question... if not you can try again

Note that he said "Not Digitizing", which also infers that this method would leave telltale clues as to being non-original.

So, this backs up what Sceptic Overlord had analyzed earlier on, that the quality is too good for NTSC video, That a copy taken from an original NTSC camera, or a recording taken from high quality film and then converted to electronic analog format (not digitizing ) would be indistinguishable. Further, it implies a film that was digitized, would show artifacts consistent with the use of modern equipment.

Don't know how much this helps in this stage of the game, but having him comment was great.

reply to post by osneel

Nice. I like how Skeptic Overlord just marked this as hoax, despite the ongoing discussion and interest and, in my opinion, the large number of people who feel it has validity. Deny ignorance, indeed!

Just because you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax doesn't mean that it's not a hoax. In two months, all will be revealed.

Originally posted by charlyv
Anyway, he actually responded to my query. I do not want to quote his entire email, since he has not explicitly given me permission, but I will quote an excerpt from what he said:

...Video back in those days was NTSC standard (except for special research type video machines) with 640 by 480 "pixel" resolution. ...

Actually, his information is not quite correct. NTSC is an interlaced format of two 243-line fields. Video professionals typically anticipate an actual "resolution equivalent" of 704x480 pixels once an NTSC video is digitized and deinterlaced.

PAL format (European) is also interlaced, but has more lines of resolution, and the resolution equivalent is 704x576 pixels.

So we a bit of a dilemma. PAL video tape records at 25 frames per second, while NTSC records at 29.97 -- but playback equipment (in so far as mechanics and spinning heads) is very similar. So since PAL has less data in the same linear inches as NTSC, the result is actually fewer and different artifacts on-screen (just like magnetic audio tape records at higher quality at faster reel rates -- the analog data is more spread-out with less noise).

The dilemma is that the actual video exhibits the apparent quality of PAL (actually a bit better than expected), but also mimicking the overscan and tracking artifacts of NTSC VHS. Not to mention that those add-on effects to simulate a digital VHS tape intrude into the black bands at left and right -- meaning the effect/filter package was layered over the bands that simulate a 4:3 aspect ratio.

So the quality is too high for NTSC VHS.
-- It's not film because of the tracking/overscan artifacts...
-- It's not PAL because of the artifacts...
-- It's not a higher-quality video format because of the artifacts...
---> It's 1080 or 720 HD video masquerading as a digitized NTSC VHS video.


And please... no one from that era keeps their LPs in stacked open corrugated cardboard boxes like we see in the corner. They don't last long that way -- take if from a former DJ from that era who had over 400 12-inch vinyls. It looks like someone took their beat-up LP collection out of storage, and stacked them in the corner.

reply to post by Gerizo


I love the fact that you are 100% sure the guy's called Nietzermann just because someone said so and yet you are not willing to believe anything that marks this as a hoax. Just to make a quick recap:

* It has been established that the picture of the guy in the audience has been photoshoped.
* Right after we discover this, a newspaper clipping appears out of nowhere although the source is never mentioned.
* The name of the guy brings nothing up in Google even though he was supposedly a killer on the run for 20 years and "killed a lot of people".
* Someone supposedly have a lot of information on this guy but he hadn't shared any except for that little article.
* The editor of the video, who's mail appears at the end, has been responding his mails from a IP that belongs to the Writers Guild of America.

The fact that the article and the photo came up means someone is going to the trouble to create all this. I will give you an idea: google "french newspaper archives" and search for this guy's supposed name on them. You would not find a single mention of him. Don't you think it's a little strange considering he was a killer?

I said it before and I say it now, this whole thing is probably a viral marketing campain trying to get a picture from someone (the writer that uploaded this video) made.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by osneel

 

Just because you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax doesn't mean that it's not a hoax. In two months, all will be revealed.

In two months? What am I missing here? Or, do you just mean that since this is, allegedly, a marketing stunt that the "reason" will become apparent in a couple of months?

reply to post by Radiobuzz


I did a ton of research last night, read up about mass murderers and serial killers of France in the past 5 decades. I also looked into their prison system to see what I could find about "notable prisoners". I only found 2 prisoners whose age would fit this fellow's age range: one of them only killed young women, and the other did not become a known killer until the late 90's/early 2000's.

The name "Jacques Nietzermann" would most likely be from the Alsace region of France (not Sarthe), so I checked around there for similar names in this area. I tried many variations of "Nietzermann" (Nietszchermann, Nietscherman, etc) and could find nothing.

I was always extremely dubious of the here-say quote from the French website, but that pretty much summed it up for me.

The article, for me, was related to this supposed "reality check". However, there were inconsistencies with that as well - the French in the "Nietzermann" article does not flow as smoothly as the French in the surrounding articles, for one. The image does not seem to fit with the text. However, I do acknowledge that I prefer to get to the bottom of things before I label them as "fake" just by sight.

The video, I still have no clue about. The majority of the technical jargon above means nothing to me, and since there are varying accounts by various "experts"... I cannot agree that this has been proven as 100% staged.

At any rate, this has all been a very interesting experience.

>

Same thoughts here.

But for my peace of soul, I would like to know the name of this guy (actor).
If he is from 2012, should not somebody recognize him, particularly at high resolution.
Maybe they used someone, who does not use internet, facebook and has few friends. So he could be a "lone wolf" or he has true friends, who all keep silent about this hoax. It is strange. In either case, thumbs up for this team, if it is a hoax.

Please report holes in my thoughts.

reply to post by ottobot

In two months? What am I missing here? Or, do you just mean that since this is, allegedly, a marketing stunt that the "reason" will become apparent in a couple of months?

Because that's when the winners of the viral marketing competition will be announced. Do try to pay attention. That was established after three or four pages.