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

Third line down: *you're as in you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. not your.

you reckon i didn't understand you were being sarcastic wtf? you didn't see the fact that I was being sarcastic in return to yours? maaaaaate you're the spatula round' ere'. lololol

arright is slang. However your use of 'your' instead of you're is a mistake. I also sometimes don't use capitals as my style, I always write like that and if you no like it I no care.

I have no intention of providing you with anything to change your 'said opinion' mate, because the point IS, that it has already BEEN confirmed a hoax and if you canna not SEE that then you are but for entertainment purposes only.

Trust you on this? LOL seriously mate: FAIL

Originally posted by Gerizo
I am curious, does changing the thread title already prematurely marked a "Hoax" have a different meaning than, "CONFIRMED HOAX"? There still has been no real proof that 100% confirms this a hoax even with the new technical explanation that was recently given. So am I curious is writing the words in capital and bold form change the actual meaning and value to the words???

Show us one video at 1920x1080 HD from 1980's era that has an interlaced effect (1pixel) on it.
img823.imageshack.us...

The problem here is not the width of the video but the height. A non HD source height is way too small UNLESS this video was an SD widescreen. For whatever reason and youtube just flagged it as HD.

I am convinced this is a hoax, and I respect, in fact, admire the overlords work on this, but I have to ask, is it not possible to convert a video to 1080i?

I believe they have used analogue film to film this, the tracking lines at the bottom and random glitches prove this, then converted to 1080i.

Either way, it is clear it is a hoax, a very good one.

reply to post by woogleuk


Do you agree that this video never was an HD 1080 video. I dont usually upload to youtube so i cant test. Source footage 720x576 put on a widescreen SD project then sent to youtube and youtube puts the 1080 option. Is this possible?

reply to post by woogleuk


Yes it is.... But the resulting up-res would not show traces of 1080i interlacing.

reply to post by Numino

i studied some neuro linguistic programmation by myself, and i'm not a pro in this, just a curious person, and i had your same impressions watching his behaviour. he believes to what he's saying, or he's an excellent actor.

reply to post by vulcanus


Yes i saw that aswell and did post a link whilst it was still up but dont think anyone saw it.IThadnt been cropped or anything,didnt look as clean as the digitized version and was 27 seconds long.

ETA-The same day he uploaded that 27 second clip of the original he uploaded this-

Link-www.youtube.com...

Regards to all

reply to post by Malcher


I'm sure Youtube will only give the option for the max res of the original video, I upload 720p vid all the time and 720p is the max option available on playback.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


OK, thanks for the info, I really wasn't sure, I thought any interlaced playback would show the interlace lines.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Aucuparia




Third line down: *you're as in you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. not your.

you reckon i didn't understand you were being sarcastic wtf? you didn't see the fact that I was being sarcastic in return to yours? maaaaaate you're the spatula round' ere'. lololol

arright is slang. However your use of 'your' instead of you're is a mistake. I also sometimes don't use capitals as my style, I always write like that and if you no like it I no care.

I have no intention of providing you with anything to change your 'said opinion' mate, because the point IS, that it has already BEEN confirmed a hoax and if you canna not SEE that then you are but for entertainment purposes only.

Trust you on this? LOL seriously mate: FAIL

edit on 22-1-2012 by Aucuparia because: (no reason given)

Well I reckon that you again did not provide any "new" evidence to this conversation and that mate will not change my opinion that this is not a hoax. You are entitled to think whatever you want to think. I rank that right up there with alleged armchair experts who post technical opinions and insist for everyone else to just believe them. I have read the thread and after all this discussion there is just as much proof that this is fake as there is that its real. Just because some people choose to drink the cool-aid, doesn't mean I have too.

Wow over 40 pages of replies. I have seen the video, but without me having to read through every page (*Sorry - no time!*) has this been confirmed as a hoax, a fake video?

Well, they did a re-do on ET.... That doesn't mean that ET wasn't filmed back when it was....

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


applause, this is just awesome!!
I'm not familiar with these formats, but when do humans have 1080i recording tech?
does 1080i means this is definitely shot in digital, or there is still a chance that in analog?

Is it possible that this was shot around 2000's ? (which might explain why he had false predictions after 2000's....)


and I saw a guy here
www.youtube.com...

he claims that this video was surely an old video and was re-mastered and digitalized, I'd like to know if there's any way, or using any programs that can convert a non 1080 video into a 1080i one and add these interlaced pattern?
maybe they use some kind of technology that can digitally raise a video's qually, is that possible?

Thanks!!!

I STILL don't see how this is confirmed a hoax?

The only evidence even close to being "solid" comes from people saying there are these "lines" that only appear in modern 1080i work or whatever.

However, we have other people saying they can easily re-create that or that there are plenty of videos from back in the 80's (Caddyshack, E.T.) that have been converted to Blu-ray/1080 and also have these lines.

So why couldn't it have been this way with this particular video? Maybe it was just converted?

Also, wouldn't we assume that the person uploading this video had something to do with it? Then why do they keep saying it's fake? Or are you going to argue that they are saying that so people think it's more believable? Some sort of reverse psychology move...

Originally posted by anydaynow18
there are these "lines" that only appear in modern 1080i work or whatever.

Correct. Interlaced video -- when not de-interlaced for digital/web work -- shows tell-tale artifacts.

videos from back in the 80's (Caddyshack, E.T.) that have been converted to Blu-ray/1080 and also have these lines.

Because you have a high-quality original (film) of sufficient source quality to be up-converted to 1080i for HD video.

Video from 1980's did not have this level of original quality, but film did.

So why couldn't it have been this way with this particular video?

Because in addition to the 1080i interlacing this video also shows artifacts consistent with digitizing NTSC VHS video -- the head-tracking over-scan at the top and bottom. The two artifacts are incompatible, we'd have one or the other, not both. Additionally, the "VHS effect" at the bottom picks up the 1-pixel 1080 interlacing, clearly indicating it's a filter/effect of some type added in post-production in order to fool the viewers into thinking it's an older video.

If this video was digitized from a VHS tape, and the resolution expanded to 1080, we'd see interlacing closer to 3-pixels in size and a much more pixelated scene.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



What if they DO have a HD source film of that?
And they just add the VHS bottom effect to it,
We cant assume that situation is impossible.
(Though it is very unlikely to have a HDVS or something like that with them, but we just can not prove they dont.)

reply to post by balaguba


The source was supposedly U-matic,heres part of the message the uploader sent to me.

In answer to the many technical questions: the original footage was on a 3/4" U-matic tape which I digitized to FinalCutPro in HD through a MNR11 noise reducer. I re-EQ'd the soundtrack, added the subtitles and the "1980" in HD on FinalCutPro, exported it in HD and uploaded it to YouTube - that's actually my day job.

Regards to all

Cmon people. If this guy was sitting on a story this big with video footage and all, he'd have some big TV special and be making millions off that and a book, while hitting the lecture circuit and not trying to evade answering questions.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it probably is a duck. And this guy seems to be a quack to me.

here's another picture of this medium

www.casimages.com...