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

Originally posted by ottobot
Ahh, so even you admit that there is reasonable doubt.

No. The potential for doubt is not reasonable. This has all the hallmarks of something fabricated.

The potential for authenticity is unreasonable... but certainty is not yet 100%... so exceptionally close as to be that, but not yet.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ottobot
Ahh, so even you admit that there is reasonable doubt.

No. The potential for doubt is not reasonable. This has all the hallmarks of something fabricated.

The potential for authenticity is unreasonable... but certainty is not yet 100%... so exceptionally close as to be that, but not yet.

Yes, the potential for doubt is reasonable. I am curious what hallmarks you are referring too? The potential for authenticity is unreasonable in your opinion, I am curious what professional expertise have you presented that allows for such a statement to be made? No one up to this point, however, as been able to prove that the video was hoaxed or that the man is/was not real. Stating alleged facts to win an discussion/debate is ignorant in my opinion. Isn't the motto of this website to Deny Ignorance?

Originally posted by Gerizo
I am curious what professional expertise have you presented that allows for such a statement to be made?

Nothing I've stated cannot be independently verified.
I've been editing digital video since it was possible to edit digital video (I was an Apple beta tester for QuickTime 1.0)... and more confirmation of my experience has been offered in this thread.

No one here has any obligation to justify why they think that the evidence which has been presented is good enough to state that it is a fake. Heuristics are a matter of everyday life.. we use them all the time. You asses evidence, make a judgement and move on. if you waited around for absolute confirmation on everything in your existence you would never have epistemological certainty with anything til it actually occurred - and if that was the way we operated in actuality you would have not survived long because you would have to wait for a brick to hit you in the head before moving out of its way. for example. but you get my point.

Yes it's a finite set is everything. whoopie do dah. Sometimes waiting around for 'absolute proof' on something aint' worth the time, because you have assessed it having such a small likelihood of being so (and then there's the debate of whether absolute proof even exists anyway if you like). Some people just prefer to live with certainties and risk probabilities for error because # works better that way. Some. high risk high benefit or something. whatever. it's your life right.

In the french article appears the names Jaques Nietzermann and Commandant Bertaud.

google: Jaques Nietzermann without result.

google: Commandant Bertaud

could be

Commandant Hubert Bertaud du Chazaud

or is the french article already debunked?

Originally posted by cassiopeia1966
......
or is the french article already debunked?

No, it's not.
I do not see any distortion of text where the fold lies.. (thumb looks distorted )
img827.imageshack.us...
but I doubt this is enough to prove anything.

I'm a beginner in photoshop and this is my first attempt to create an old newspaper article.
I forgot to add 'text distortion' effects
img215.imageshack.us...

Anyway, I come closer to believe that this whole thing is a dirty hoax.

I'm a beginner in photoshop and this is my first attempt to create an old newspaper article.
I forgot to add 'text distortion' effects

img215.imageshack.us...

My first post here yay! But may I ask how long it took you to make that 'newspaper article'? If only a matter of minutes then I'd be happier to agree that the original article is fake, but if it took more like hours then I'd be surprised to find a hoaxer who would spend so long on something so easy to dismiss.

reply to post by crcn11

My first post here yay! But may I ask how long it took you to make that 'newspaper article'? If only a matter of minutes then I'd be happier to agree that the original article is fake, but if it took more like hours then I'd be surprised to find a hoaxer who would spend so long on something so easy to dismiss

The hoaxer went through a great deal of effort to make the video in the first place. Why wouldn't they spend a little time on mocking up evidence to support it?

Originally posted by DJW001
The hoaxer went through a great deal of effort to make the video in the first place. Why wouldn't they spend a little time on mocking up evidence to support it?

Good point I never thought of. That just makes me ask 'why' in the entire first place. grrr

Originally posted by crcn11
My first post here yay! But may I ask how long it took you to make that 'newspaper article'? If only a matter of minutes then I'd be happier to agree that the original article is fake, but if it took more like hours then I'd be surprised to find a hoaxer who would spend so long on something so easy to dismiss.

Less than an hour. If you have the skills, then yes, It's only a matter of minutes and everytime you'll get better and better. Still, because we can replicate it, doesn't mean it's a fake

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by crcn11

 

My first post here yay! But may I ask how long it took you to make that 'newspaper article'? If only a matter of minutes then I'd be happier to agree that the original article is fake, but if it took more like hours then I'd be surprised to find a hoaxer who would spend so long on something so easy to dismiss

The hoaxer went through a great deal of effort to make the video in the first place. Why wouldn't they spend a little time on mocking up evidence to support it?

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?

As far as i can see, this case is not yet closed. As i re-read the entire thread and watch the video for the 105th time, i am starting to lean more to the authentic side. I will still keep an open mind though... but until PROVEN fake, i will stick to believing it is a true video. I have been reading the books from Dolores Cannon and a few other more obscure material this past days and it seems there are a lot of people talking about the period after 2011 being very cloudy and regarding it as the "time of troubles". We are coming into a nexus with infinite possibilities...
I disregard any evidence based on beliefs or personal feelings.

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.

I am a bit confused now, it says there: "[HOAX!]: Dedicated forum for ATS threads that have been proven to be hoaxes, frauds, misrepresentations, part of deceptive schemes, or grossly errant theories/speculations on a variety of topics. Topics in this forum will range from those that have proven to be an actual hoax to those where a significant majority of ATS members believe the subject matter to be based on fraudulent material."

I have re-read the thread again and cannot find the "proof" said in "...threads that have been proven to be hoaxes..."
And the statement in itself is a bit badly structured when it says that "... to those where a significant majority of ATS members believe the subject..."

You can believe whatever you want, it will never change the fact that it is true or false. Besides, how can you prove something using a belief?
Until PROVEN false or true, it is not an Hoax and the only way to prove it or disprove it is to find the man in the video.

Well it seems that it will be in stand by friends!
Somebody or something higher not wanting to know ...yet!
Not big problem isn't it?

Happy

Originally posted by Happyface
Well it seems that it will be in stand by friends!
Somebody or something higher not wanting to know ...yet!
Not big problem isn't it?

Happy

yeah, for some reason, i do not think we will have a good answer to this, maybe we aren't supposed to...

reply to post by Andromerius

yeah, for some reason, i do not think we will have a good answer to this, maybe we aren't supposed to...

Go back and try clicking some of the links that have been posted on this thread. Some of the "evidence" is mysteriously disappearing as its authenticity gets disproven. This is all a viral marketing stunt.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Andromerius

 

yeah, for some reason, i do not think we will have a good answer to this, maybe we aren't supposed to...

Go back and try clicking some of the links that have been posted on this thread. Some of the "evidence" is mysteriously disappearing as its authenticity gets disproven. This is all a viral marketing stunt.

At least say "I THINK" or "I BELIEVE" this is a viral marketing stunt....we have no proof of anything so far. The only thing that is for certain is that we are uncertain whether or not this is true. I think it would be very interesint to look into this further and I have a feeling some people from this forum are...

Originally posted by Andromerius
Until PROVEN false or true, it is not an Hoax and the only way to prove it or disprove it...

We and our members have a great deal of experience with hoaxes here on ATS. Over time, many "markers" become apparent that are typical of Internet hoaxes... beyond just the obvious problems with the "evidence."

One such marker is new member accounts that register soon after something like this is shown to be a hoax, who only post in the hoax thread in an apparent effort to deny the hoax label. Such as what you (and others in this thread) are doing.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Andromerius
Until PROVEN false or true, it is not an Hoax and the only way to prove it or disprove it...

We and our members have a great deal of experience with hoaxes here on ATS. Over time, many "markers" become apparent that are typical of Internet hoaxes... beyond just the obvious problems with the "evidence."

One such marker is new member accounts that register soon after something like this is shown to be a hoax, who only post in the hoax thread in an apparent effort to deny the hoax label. Such as what you (and others in this thread) are doing, and doing it from an obscure proxy server.

I am sorry but are you pulling the "i'm better at this then you" card? I have been following this site for years since it's inception and i did register back then with another name that has been long forgotten. Please do not patronize me or insult my intelligence because i am not doing that to you. If you took the time to read all my posts you would know that i do not consider this video to be legit, nor do i consider it to be an hoax simply because there is no enough proof for either case. It seems you are the one trying to pull the issue to your side. "It is a hoax and that's that."
Yes, experience is good and makes it easier to spot anomalies, but it is not proof.
Let's discuss the video instead. Which markers does it have for you to consider that in your vast experience, it is a hoax?

Regards,

Andro