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

reply to post by RUSSO


its a psychic french clark kent lol

This is a bit weird because I haven't seen anything that proves that the video is a hoax.
Just because some of the people are saying "hoax, hoax, obv hoax!", doesn't make it so.
IMO yes, it's a hoax and I hope the hoaxer gets punished!

The Case Isn't Closed!!!

Originally posted by FeatheredSerpent
reply to post by Gerizo

 

Problem is the one who claims this guy killed his/her uncle and uploaded the newspaper pic is the same uploader on youtube who uploaded the photoshopped picture of him in the audience.

Reading back through the comments on youtube im not so sure,may have jumped the gun a little there

ETA- would it be worth looking through birth records for that name?

Regards to all

edit on 30/09/10 by FeatheredSerpent because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/09/10 by FeatheredSerpent because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/09/10 by FeatheredSerpent because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/09/10 by FeatheredSerpent because: (no reason given)

The comments I was referring too were on the French website. Nothing to do with youtube. The owner from that website is not the same guy as you are referring too.

reply to post by vulcanus


Yes,for many this is simply a hoax and there are many things that point towards it so i dont blame them.
But for me and some others i presume?,we just want to know the truth,hoax or not.
I mean what is the end goal here for the hoaxers?doesnt seem they are promoting anything?is it students messing about?is it some viral add?either way i want to know what the deal is.

Regards to all

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by FeatheredSerpent
reply to post by Gerizo

 

Problem is the one who claims this guy killed his/her uncle and uploaded the newspaper pic is the same uploader on youtube who uploaded the photoshopped picture of him in the audience.

Regards to all

edit on 30/09/10 by FeatheredSerpent because: (no reason given)

If thats the case, them this is pretty much case closed. This photos could
easily be hoaxed with photoshop.

Man it would be nice if people read the whole thread instead of just a few pages. The photoshopped picture was posted on french website to discredit the man. That picture is a hoax or fake, not the story.

AND...got another email from the mysterious Herbert Marlowe. Here it is, with the IP and all that that was requested before:

Guys from ATS!

Thank you so much for all the work you put into this. You did a terrific job analyzing this case.

Talking about jobs,-- I lost mine because of all this. As you can imagine, I wasn't supposed to expose this footage.

My (ex)employer fired me but didn't press charges. They said they would press charges unless I signed a non-disclosure agreement in which I agree, under threat of being prosecuted not to disclose any more information about the footage, the company, or the people who brought in the tape.

I'm flying to France tomorrow. You can guess what I'm going to be looking for over there.

Thanks again for all your efforts.

As I told you in my previous e-mail, I don't believe in psychics.

Peace to you all.


HM
My real initials, though I'm not Herbert Marlowe.



Delivered-To: me (removed my own email)
Received: by 10.112.9.201 with SMTP id c9cs32638lbb;
Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.170.3 with SMTP id d3mr3460276icz.7.1326582540111;
Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:09:00 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path:
Received: from nm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.90.73])
by mx.google.com with SMTP id ke8si2989779igc.67.2012.01.14.15.08.59;
Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:09:00 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 98.138.90.73 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=98.138.90.73;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 98.138.90.73 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected]
Received: from [98.138.90.54] by nm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jan 2012 23:08:59 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.198] by tm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jan 2012 23:08:59 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1056.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jan 2012 23:08:59 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 45077 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jan 2012 23:08:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ymail.com; s=s1024; t=1326582539; bh=N8/OHuzkXXjLbn2plCUcRkJ75HbBoZNDoLNZO/L+6r8=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-IDate:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=5PQ9eBUi6Ww0ZBOjNaLiN/rYtsV11M0qj3bnN2tMdUainrSkCjmC+y/CaUeCwUSTSuwMqvDHoTlYH/tacohfB4gdUMQdSCdzxKptgLHTStm3Ju9ip4jiO37ZKtFKRRnAuSlYy/S7mjULV+mZWZfM kcqjaIB8UkbQHfK/IeOC/pw=
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=ymail.com;
h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-IDate:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
b=BWCjqLlmWIjPwKWqa22hWZYrY0hehEXLxKl7rZo1kchr2IFvu3oomw8IklUqSAgLFZxMqeZHF9/q4YEgBElMUdFbGDJzyzGPpofjQZ3Y3YculXZ0ueqFX5zvkqcyoU1GdZHhRnkurknHztqcNlZp 74lmzb9dD7j155rb02kp8Ow=;
X-YMail-OSG: SSgHQ3AVM1kDpupL.n5sp_fIjCoYibhvU3agFS2j1xpfuQi
ZHqrHIQ_qCu2zEgi9vro0mTj8vXJ2gsAcKFkf0AFSLc0saFzZKuR094AsL9v
I3VzBvGQg6uYbyvTBkGR06AO7m1bx4sAnJYW4Aq7N9BUCL07ODxcPB8fzs6S
VoFJRqYXrcK1heacMOYxYPyL4OG..P1c8UXRs6vcvoai7c0fp8m4eiipNO.Q
ral9MA_jFZVE.263mEKx9.uI.OUXiC1P6GEWZ.4dxAM4cVdvzC_Y0BoVuVyY
4bEoO42KbFiKtSWLgLv2hY2PzzJHUKuJhMxn6bOE3gGQ0FlgYy7I7GJcjV7_
_3m_KcFWG.Z3UWCpMsMJt59eOGKPOC3FglCKXgGf1mzvstkus
Received: from [64.183.24.38] by web122003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:08:59 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:08:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Herbert Marlowe
Reply-To: Herbert Marlowe
Subject: Guys from ATS!
To: "me (removed my own email)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-790415396-41713915-1326582539=:34921"

---790415396-41713915-1326582539=:34921
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Originally posted by Gerizo
I don't think that the newspaper clip was forged. It looks like someone scanned it and uploaded it.

I have extensive experience with scanning on everything from low-end consumer flatbed scanners, to 2400 ppi high-end drum scanners. The provided image is suspiciously exceptionally clean for something that has been scanned.

Most notably, the "blackest blacks" in the photo have the same pixelated "noise" pattern as the whitest whites of the paper. That indicates a high probability that, in Photoshop, a gaussian noise filter was applied to the entire image.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Gerizo
I don't think that the newspaper clip was forged. It looks like someone scanned it and uploaded it.

I have extensive experience with scanning on everything from low-end consumer flatbed scanners, to 2400 ppi high-end drum scanners. The provided image is suspiciously exceptionally clean for something that has been scanned.

Most notably, the "blackest blacks" in the photo have the same pixelated "noise" pattern as the whitest whites of the paper. That indicates a high probability that, in Photoshop, a gaussian noise filter was applied to the entire image.

I apperciate your expertise and knowledge and effort you put into this thread. I however respectfully disagree that the uploaded newspaper article was photoshopped.

Originally posted by Gerizo
I however respectfully disagree that the uploaded newspaper article was photoshopped.

It's using a modern version of the Rockwell font face, which is a default font set on Mac computers. Here's the comparison:


The top half is a 300% enlargement (without blurring) of an area of the supposed "newspaper' scan."

Below-left is a clean render of some of the text in the default Rockwell font on a Mac (using Photoshop), and below-right is the same font render, against a gray background, noised added, and a mosaic pixelization filter.

Those experienced in typography will notice kerning pairs typical of digital fonts, that are not typical of the typesetting methods used to create the metal drums on high-speed newspaper printing presses.

While the Rockwell font has been around for nearly a century, it was rarely used for body copy... if at all.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So are you completely ignoring what the French website owner stated on page 32? He stated that the person that commented on his French website contacted him directly and that he we going to upload more pictures and documents that will verify what he is saying. Thanks for your awesome description on the font on the newspaper article, I see what you are saying. I am anxious to hear if the French website owner comes back with anymore info.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So, would the article have these same artifacts if it had been scanned to a computer, then resized and color corrected or adjusted in photoshop?

ETA: When I look at the comparison of the "real" and "fake" types, I see the font is close to identical. However, in the portion of the article you used, the blacks are all uniform, including the black of the photo. The example you rendered with filters was noticeably lighter and the white background took on a distinct grey-ish tone.

And another thing: I looked at the article again and I see that there are several different colors of black - in the copy AND in the image. You happened to select an excerpt right above the "crease" that looks darker than the rest of the font. This would make sense because it would likely be pressed further against the scanner than much of the rest of the paper if it had been folded for a substantial length of time.

Originally posted by ottobot
So, would the article have these same artifacts if it had been scanned to a computer, then resized and color corrected or adjusted in photoshop?

It's exceptionally hard to achieve the crispness of fonts represented by the scanned image, when scanning text. Not impossible mind you, but not hard.

As for the other points...

That's in just a couple minutes.

With more time, I could get closer to something like this:

Coincidentally, I just made that today to hang in our bar. The full size version is a much higher resolution, and I made the paper texture (rips and all) mostly in Photoshop.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Yes, I see that you can use photoshop. I can too.

I would be significantly more impressed if you could create a convincing (I'm sorry, but neither your article nor your placard are convincing to me) fold across an image of a human hand.

Even then, there is no way to prove if the article is or isn't false without searching for the actual newspaper or speaking with the alleged author of the article.

Also, when you state that this particular font is rarely used in content, are you speaking from experience as a graphic designer, newspaper printer, magazine printer, print shop owner... what? And, how can you be sure that this would be unequivocally true for all print media, specifically, thirty years ago in France?

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I would be significantly more impressed if you could create a convincing (I'm sorry, but neither your article nor your placard are convincing to me) fold across an image of a human hand.

Just to clarify - I wouldn't have a clue how to use photo shop, never used it. However, I would like to ask if it is possible that a person constructed it on photo shop, printed it out, then folded it and then scanned it, to add authenticity like the fold. Is it an added detail like the props in the vid?
And how about [someone who knows what the f*ck they are doing with that stuff] comparing at high magnification the text which is used in the article about Chirac with the text used in the main article. Likely the Chirac one is original. Are there any discernible differences? And seriously, why has the article not been left with a reference? It's not hard to say what newspaper an article came from. Then it could be verified without delay, no?

Everything is screaming hoax to me, although very well done. That could just be my rational skeptical mind trying to force me to debunk this.

One thing I will say is that despite the opinions of some others on this thread, you can clearly see tracking lines at the bottom of this video, and there is other artifacts right through the video normally associated with tape (57 -59 seconds in for example).

To me this says this was clearly recorded to some form of video tape, whether due to video being authentic, or simply filmed recently on an old camcorder, or even recorded from digital media to VHS.

But yeah, I'm going with pretty damn good hoax, only because there is no proof to say otherwise.

Hi, although i only registered today and for replying to this thread, i have been following ATS for quite a few years now. I would like to point out that despite people saying "FAKE!" or "LEGIT" until now, i haven't seen a single proof for either case. There are a few points i would like to bring out:

1. The video is genuine in the sense that it EXISTS (regardless of what is in it).
2. The person in the video EXISTS or EXISTED (regardless if it is a psychic or an actor).
3. The quality proves nothing because that kind of quality has existed back then, and it will even be better if you pass it through modern expensive filters.
4. There is no way to be certain about the veracity of the video by looking at the items in the room since they EXISTED back then. Could be props or not, but you cannot say with 100% certainty if it is a fake.
5. The only way this will ever be debunked or made 100% legit is to find the person in the video, and, if alive, get confirmation from that person.
6. Nobody here or anywhere can completely dismiss or accept this video out of hand because "it feels wrong", "it feels fake". This is about facts, not personal feelings or ideas. Everybody can be deceived by their senses and even professionals cannot do that.
7. Evidence is not proof! Every theory presented here so far as been circumstantial at best and would never be accepted in a court of law.
8. There are other issues with the video besides the authenticity of the person in it. EVEN if the person is legit, his predictions or visions might not be. Who knows he wasn't seeing something else. Is this person epileptic? Does he takes drugs, or have a neurological condition? He might believe every word he is saying, but is it true what he saw?
9. Believe what you want, in the end, it does not matter if you are right or wrong. Events will happen or not.
10. Bottom line is this: Until we know for certain who this person is, there is no way to prove it or disprove it.

Cheers, Andro

Concerning images quality, i invite you to watch this California jam concert clip filmed in 1974, the images are very very clean!

Black Sabbath / War Pigs / 1974 California Jam
www.youtube.com...

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.

Also... The "scan" is not from a newspaper. There is no moire pattern from scanning the dot pattern used to print photos. Should have noticed that sooner.

reply to post by HeywoodFloyd


Extreme apologies on behest of the staff, my liege. They surely had no idea of the level of error to which their acts rose.

Seriously, don't join a discussion forum and then make your first post a lecture to the Moderators. Just poor form.