1. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator Staff Member

    [UPDATE: both videos have been removed]

    I'm really not sure what to think of this one, so I'm asking for some insight. This video pretty much explains the theory, and it comes straight from Dutchsinse.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDKpyD1jPOM

    The Vimeo video he was playing is here.

    http://vimeo.com/53220123

    Not attaching "Debunked" as I'm too unsure to say so. Mick, you can change it whenever you feel it has been addressed.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So the theory is that since the video is dated Nov 10th 2012, and the attack was on Dec 14th 2012, then this "proves" the attack was preplanned:

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Ah, it looks like in Vimeo you can replace an older video with a different file, and then edit the name, and it keeps the date of the original video as the upload date. So the explanations are:

    A) It was deliberately back-dated as a hoax,
    B) It was inadvertently back-dated as Ametrano did something like overwrite an old video to save space
    C) Some bug

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Looks like the original was Dec 17th, according to his comment on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCokgkHOhGk


  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He's just updated the video with an explanation, which is B.

    https://vimeo.com/53220123

    [​IMG]

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The original upload was done on Nov 10th, auto-tweeted:

    [​IMG]

    https://twitter.com/bacmaster/status/267326143923904512

    So it must have been some unimportant video that he overwrite later so as not to pay for bandwidth. Vimeo is limited to 500MB per week, so if you create a lot of movies in one week, then the only way to upload them all without paying extra is to overwrite old movies.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He's made his Vimeo account and Twitter feed private now. He seemed quite upset by the attention.
  8. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    Great Debunking by Mick but a real bad story if this will end in a closing of the originated Channels.

    What do you think our friends with the tinfoil-caps would think about this?

    "The Video isn´t visible anymore! There is a Conspirancy running!!!!"
  9. adac

    adac Guest

    The problem is still the twitter post https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/737508_488942644491498_215912594_o.jpg .
    Because you can post a vimeo link on twitter and then on saving immediately the title and the description of the video is fetched and saved on twitter.

    When you now exchange the video on vimeo that doesn't seem to affect the old previously fetched twitter title and description from the old video. See: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...7073092.106418.296574443728320&type=1&theater

    Can you try to explain and debunk that?
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    yes:
    [​IMG]

    In the image above, the black rectangle with the Vimeo video is linked directly to Vimeo, so it's always current (technically it's an "iframe" element). But the text below it is stored and fetched in twitter, so it's not as current as the direct Vimeo video. It will only get updated when (and if) Twitter re-reads the description.

    So, it looks like the change is not immediate. The old description seems to stay there for a while. I suspect this is because Twitter is caching the old description to avoid having to re-read it from Vimeo every time the tweet is displayed. This saves bandwidth, and is a cost and performance optimization.

    https://twitter.com/dutchsinse/status/288902138724245504
    [​IMG]

    So the question would be how the cache gets updated. There seem to be three possible things going on:

    A) The cache is updated only when someone views the media attached to the tweet, then it's "stuck" on that version
    B) The cache is updated periodically, say every 24 or 48 hours, after it expires.
    C) The cache is updated only when it's viewed after the cache has been flushed

    If A is the case, then the description is not going to change, and the reason the Ametrano video has the new description is that nobody viewed that original "My Video" tweet's Vimeo media until after the title had been changed, so it got stuck on the second version. Another experiment would confim if this is the case (you'd need a twitter account that had no followers, to ensure nobody looked at the tweet's media).

    I suspect B is most likely, as caches usually work with an expiration time. So we just have to wait a day or two, and the dutchsinse tweet will eventually refresh with the new description (assuming dutch does not realize this, and takes it down to hide this). It might take longer though, as media titles are things that are unlikely to change, so the cache time-out might be set for a week or more.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Okay, I created a test account, tweeted a link to the video, and it got the new description:

    https://twitter.com/MickWest6/status/289498860135518208
    [​IMG]

    More importantly, when I looked at dutch's twitter feed, it was now updated to the new description, proving twitter vimeo descriptions can be updated after the initial tweet:

    as of 2:20PM Jan 10 2012
    https://twitter.com/dutchsinse/status/288902138724245504
    [​IMG]

    Hence, it was just being cached on Twitter, and either my new tweeting of the video flushed the cache, or it just expired naturally.

    Either way, it's debunked.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  12. adac

    adac Guest

    Thank you.

    my first thought also was about a cache that is periodically updated with title and description. In the meanwhile dutch'es vimeo tweet has been (automagically) refetched and new title is there. So this looks like as if it is debunked.

    However what we not know for sure: Did twitter always do update the cached that before today ;-)
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Dutch has deleted his posts about this, seeming to claim that the Twitter post had been retroactively changed.

    [​IMG]

    In reality NOTHING changed in the tweet. The tweet is exactly as it was. All that changed was the description of the video that the tweet linked to, and that was simply not updated immediately, as it was cached.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  14. Anonymous012

    Anonymous012 Member

    Did anyone do this debunking as well? The reason I posted in here because you guys were talking about the dates, so this is like one of them even though it's different subject!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn848Pd_xMQ&list=FLSYEEnTsfvmSRHY-F0NxRAg&index=3
    Sandy Hook "Donation Sites UP Before Shooting!" BUSTED! PART 2/2

    It has other stuff in the video, but this guy shows that Union Way of Western Connecticut was scamming people for donations because their link was posted on December 11, 2012. I think Google fixed it by now, but the nay-sayers still believe it's a "cover up."
    United Way of Western Youtube Clip.jpg


    Here's the donation page: https://newtown.uwwesternct.org/ When I was investigating, I had to click on Facebook, and found this reply, a few days ago. 01.08.2013

    Here's their Facebook response:
    UntitledWay of Western Connecticut Facebook Response.jpg
    Source: https://www.facebook.com/pages/United-Way-of-Western-Connecticut/44789157732?ref=hl
    It looked like an issue was from Google's problem, and not the United Way of Western Connecticut.

    And here's another one that can be debatable, it's from the same guy who upload the video one I've posted up top.
    Youtube Video Screen Shot.jpg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgnpKR1-jg
    Sandy Hook "Donation Sites UP Before Shooting!" BUSTED! PART 1/2

    On video 0:44, he's talkin about a lady name Desaree Juarez who had a GoFundMe site, and she put down asking for donation for the victims of Sandy Hook; however, it was created on 12.13.2012.

    Here's the Google Search I did:

    Desaree Juarez Google Search.jpg

    Edit on picture: *The day I view the video....

    The page is no longer available; however, there's always Google cache:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...y-hook-victims-fund &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    In her defense: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Responds-to-26Acts-of-Kindness-183989591.html
    She left a comment about why her GoFundMe page was made on 12.13.2012
    Desaree Juarez Response.jpg

    However, I don't know how legit she is, but just saying that because GoFundMe can have legit people or have scammers. Her GoFundMe page was down, but it's either due to harassment, or it was due to something else. And if GoFundMe allows you to replace pages and keep the same date, this could be debunked as well. :confused: However, the first one is more understandable as it was Google's fault, and I'm pretty sure both sides keep their e-mail as proof of evidence.
  15. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Senior Member

    Google has trouble with dynamic pages. You can check out this search on google:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=san...=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/10/2012&tbm=

    Note the 4th link down, discussing the supposed foreknowledge of the event itself.....on Dec 2nd.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous012

    Anonymous012 Member

    Thank you for this! lol! Oh wow on the dated links! Here's the 4th link if this is the one you're refering to: http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wor...-massacre-evidence-of-official-foreknowledge/ The person wrote it on December 21. In a joking way, Google's mix-match of incorrect dates; it's like they can predict things before they even happen! Google sees all! :D
  17. methinks

    methinks New Member

    Good job. I debunked this one in less then 5 minutes after YouTube hoaxter "MaxMalone" went nuts over it. Glad to see others actually do more then watch the YouTube videos before joining the chorus.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page