The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Hoaxes Throughout History
Middle AgesEarly Modern1700s1800-1840s1850-1890s
1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s21st Century2014
PhotoBlocker Spray
image The makers of PhotoBlocker spray claim that their product will make your license plate invisible to photo radar, red light cameras, and infrared and laster cameras. Special crystals in the spray will reflect back the flash (or light source) used by these cameras, making your license look like a bright blur. Would this actually work? Would it be legal if it did? They say that the spray is invisible to the naked eye, which means that it won't be of much use if a cop pulls you over. Personally, I've always thought someone should make a stealth car, made out of the same material as the stealth airplanes. That would be cool. (via Red Ferret)
Law/Police/CrimeTechnology
Posted by The Curator on Tue Dec 07, 2004


Cranky, I think that you're arguing with someone (and probably only one someone, regardless of how many different names they post under) who has a vested interest in this company, and therefore this is an argument that you will never win.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Tue Feb 01, 2005  at  03:31 PM
Charybdis said:

"Cranky, I think that you're arguing with someone (and probably only one someone, regardless of how many different names they post under) who has a vested interest in this company, and therefore this is an argument that you will never win."

Yes, that's crossed my mind. You're probably right. I know I should probably just let it go. I just have difficulty letting go when faced with people who insist on "believing" (or pretending to believe) in highly unlikely things.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Feb 02, 2005  at  06:05 AM
Still waiting for a link to phantom being sued by end users????

I still only see alot of pro's for the product
even look at ebay the amount being sold on that.

One news artical that says nothing; means nothing
Posted by matt  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  12:38 AM
photoblocker has worked for me why would I sue them. phantomplate would have been a different issue if it did not work.
Posted by John  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  04:22 PM
How does it feel to be a tool, John?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  04:45 PM
Dont get you six pack,
but still waiting for a negative link????
Posted by matt  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  06:18 PM
Matt said;
"Still waiting for a link to phantom being sued by end users????"

Well Matt, here's the thing. You can't sue someone for not effectivly aiding and abetting you in a crime. For example, you would not be able to sue the manufacturer of a device that enabled you to recieve DirecTV without paying for it if it stopped working. Kind of a no brainer there. "Gee officer, he said it would be a whole Kilo of coke, but it was only 900 grams. Now he won't give me my money back"


"but still waiting for a negative link????"

Here's one that didn't take too much time to find;

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/231nd2.htm

So you don't have to read the whole article,

"...The Chicago Department of Transportation, which manages the program for the city, said products such as PhotoBlocker are the least of its concerns. Any threat was averted when the cameras were positioned at an angle to avoid overexposure.

No tickets have been thrown out because of the any special sprays or shields, city officials said. ..."


So, Matt, how DOES it feel to be a tool?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Sat Feb 05, 2005  at  12:00 AM
why only the one quote?

I like this one
"That is a testament right there: If it didn't work, why would they need to make it illegal," Scott said. "They are always saying they will make it illegal. They never do."

and if it does not work whay spend TAX money to change the law to say you can't add photoblocker to you plate????



2nd quote
""We are not saying this product is 100 percent effective, but it will give you a fighting chance," he said. "We are not encouraging anybody to run red lights, but you should have a fighting chance to protect yourself."

Sales of PhotoBlocker spray, Scott said, have surpassed 250,000. Less than half of one percent of all customers have complained about the results."

Plus down south newpaper are nothing compared to say
The Washington Post artical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A222-2004Jul20.html

OR

Ney York Times:
http://news.com.com/Safety+of+traffic-light+cameras+questioned/2100-7341_3-5515138.html

OR
LA Times

http://www.phantomplate.com/print_latimes.html

HERE is a good one,
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://www.phantomplate.com/print_wsj_pg1.html

LETS watch news Footage:

FOX NEWS:
http://real.phantomplate.com:8080/ramgen/~Phantomplate.com/foxnews-denver-dsl.rm

And so much more out there then some small newspaper,


Back at you buddy..


PS: is that why you only wanted us to read your one quote???
ROTFLMAO
Posted by matt  on  Sat Feb 05, 2005  at  12:28 AM
Here is a good link from NBC:

http://www.nbc10.com/consumeralert/2647033/detail.html

Im going to have to say Mat wins
Posted by Travis  in  LA  on  Sat Feb 05, 2005  at  01:35 AM
Matt, This is too easy.

From your Washington Post article;

" Speed Measurement Laboratories -- consultants to police departments and radar and radar-detector makers worldwide -- has tested most products designed to defeat photo enforcement, including car waxes and stealth sprays that claim to make cars "invisible to radar," photo-flash devices designed to flash back at cameras and the high-gloss tag sprays.

"There's a lot of good people in the industry who are honest and a lot of charlatans. But it doesn't work, that's the bottom line," says Carl Fors, owner of the Fort Worth company.

The bounce-back-the-flash concept does work sometimes, he says, but only on positive images traffic cameras produce. "If we reverse the image, go to a negative image, we can read every letter on a license plate," he says. "

And the News.com article ;

"Officials at Affiliated say that studies conducted by the company show the sprays to be ineffective"

And the LA Times story, with the only quote from a person who's actually SEEN the red-light camera images, "We see some occasional blurring".
Not exactly a gushing endorsment of the product, eh Matt?

Matt, you need to learn to distinguish between a salesperson pimping a product and reliable information. It'll save you a lot of money in the long run.

Oh, and remember that quote you liked so much?

"That is a testament right there: If it didn't work, why would they need to make it illegal," Scott said. "They are always saying they will make it illegal. They never do."

He states that they want to make it illegal, which proves that it works, but then in the next breath, he says that they "never do". Hmmmm, could he be blowing smoke up your ass?

And lets talk about all that tax money being spent to change the law (as a tax payer, I'm concerned, too). Well remember that first article? The Washington Post? (Would have been cool if you'd read the whole thing, Matt):
"For some law-abiding consumers, effectiveness may be a moot point. Many jurisdictions insist that such products are prohibited by laws that ban obstructing license plates. Ads for such products typically include a disclaimer about their legality."

Let's really see what that means. IF the spray works, then it's already illegal, so the fact that it's not illegal might lead one to think....

Let's not forget your heart-stopping "2nd Quote";

"Sales of PhotoBlocker spray, Scott said, have surpassed 250,000. Less than half of one percent of all customers have complained about the results."

That's the salesman talking there. You believe him? You think that's an unbiased source of information? I don't In fact, it smells like bullshit.

P.S. Why do you put so many question marks after your questions? Do you think it's more intimidating that way?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Sat Feb 05, 2005  at  01:47 AM
Joesixpack are you the audio guy?
Posted by chkris  on  Sun Feb 06, 2005  at  06:19 PM
chkris, I don't think I'm the "audio guy" because I don't understand the question. Could you be more specific?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Sun Feb 06, 2005  at  07:13 PM
Hello,
I worked for the Denver Police in there call center.
when they featured the storie about photoblocker, we were told not to tell them it workes. But that was a lie, most callers just wanted to know where to buy the spray.
Posted by Marcie Mistole  in  Denver  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  02:23 PM
Well of course you were told not to tell them it works. If you were to tell them that it works, you would be outright lying.

For all of the links that I followed, I never found one that was not trying to sell the crap that actually said that it was effective. Every single article that I read has a line something along the lines of "Do Photoblocker and similar products work? It depends on the type of traffic enforcement camera and how it's positioned".

Positioning of the camera so that the flash is not directly in-line with the photo's "light path" is quite simple. That is all it takes to defeat this stuff. Take a picture of a mirror, dead-on. then take another with the camera tilted up, down, left, or right by a few degrees, and take another picture. This will demonstrate how to get rid of the flash effect.

There is nothing in any of these articles that is convincing, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE CONVINCED AND IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.

I also ran into "Mary Ann"'s first post elsewhere. Carbon copy. Identical to her first post here.

The post here is dated Dec 22nd. The other post is dated Dec 20th. It's amazing that nobody was dead sure it worked (and coincidentally had links to sell it)until "Bitu" aka Mary Ann's first post on both of the threads.

Not that I believe that I could ever convince the people posting and saying how great it is, because they're trying to make money.

If anyone is interested (which I highly doubt) the link is http://engadget.com/entry/1234000033022775/
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  03:32 PM
Marcie,
There when you obviously meant "their"...

Storie ??? don't you mean "story"...

and finally, Workes ??? actually it works better this way...

Moral of this post... the city of Denver apparently doesn't require a diploma as a requirement for hiring.

smile
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  04:12 PM
Who uses 3 questions marks?
Posted by ENG 101  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  04:38 PM
Apparently a guy named "Mark", and along those same lines... who uses 3 instead of "three"?!?.?? Maybe a guy named ENG 101? Also, who uses all capitals in their names?????? Actually, the motivation behind the three question marks was to try and convey, over this medium, my extreme perplextion (?) that there were actually dispatchers, employed by the government, who had such a crappy grasp of their own language.
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  04:59 PM
Have to support MnJ here, three question marks looks one hell of a lot better than CAPS AFTER CAPS.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  05:01 PM
the reason the postes are the same is because it is from a BLOG, that is it, its being bloging postes.
Posted by Vince  in  Montreal  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  10:21 PM
some people just don't know how to type, like me.
teh
Posted by vince  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  10:24 PM
http://www.nbc17.com/automotive/2634685/detail.html

Found this from NBC
You know the only people that say it does not work are police and other Enforcers.
The ones fight it are Dealers.
With the amount that are selling on EBay (cheaper there if you want to buy it)

You would think there would be over 500,000 or more people screaming rip off, rip off, again I only see 6-8 people who say it doesn't work.

My 2 cents
Posted by wow this is back  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  11:04 PM
Wow. And you know where your two cents will get you...
rolleyes

You're so right. Only "6-8 people" say it doesn't work. NOT. Try reading some of the articles that are constantly referred to. Not a single one of the news sources will actually go on file saying that this works as advertised.

The article you linked to is a good example. They interviewed a guy who claims it works. Big deal. The news station itself does not say anywhere in the article that they believe it works. They take the tone of someone who is sceptical, for instance "...a controversial product that's supposed to shield license plates..." and "Photo Blocker is supposed to make license plates so reflective the tag becomes unreadable". They always say "supposed" because this product has not been proven to them to work.

It may work, it may not. But you'll never prove to anyone that it works by linking to news articles that consistently do not endorse this product. Another way to look at all of the posted links is that all of the news sources that have been listed (NY Times, Various TV stations, etc) are all people who have FAILED to endorse this product.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  12:38 AM
I think photoblocker is not that expensive. Why is it so hard for people to just try one and decide if it works or not for themselves.
Posted by Mathew  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  02:34 PM
I'm only gonna post once since in this argument the people that think it does not are CONVINCED that it does NOT work and the people that think it does work are CONVINCED that it does. What I find funny is that both sides are promoting shoddy news sources that can't even tell the truth in bigger news stories such as the war in Iraq etc... and now you want the honest truth about a small story such as this one. It is true. There are two people here. The law inforcment agencies that try to manipulate the reader to saying it does not work and the sales people that try to push the product that it does.

Well the truth is it does AND it doesn't THAT IS the fact!!!

I have it. I took mulitiple picktures. What I found was that depending where I was positioned, whether or not my flash was on and the type of camera I used includeing the weather and how I opperate the cammera, I got a different result every time. Now the truth is FOR ME!!! NOT FOR YOU!!! is that I have not got a ticket for running a red light. However I have taken 4 or 5 pictures on my digital camera and only one was unreadable. That picture cam out in adimoned chape block much like the ad predicted. All the other photographs were clearly seen and visible!!

I've read over both links and BOTH are false and shoddy. Both are throwing around blatent accusations and Both have a hidden adjenda! Which makes me very wary when reading such things. They are both accusing each other for doing THE EXACT SAME THING!!! Which is disinformation to bring about FUD! One poster made it quite clear. It is only $30 bucks or something. So I tried it and it suited MY needs but it may not suit yours and it is NOT going to save you 100% from a photo radar ticket! But to ME it is at least something. We all have to make our OWN decision in the matter.

All I have to say is. To the lurker be wary of both sides. Their both full of shit!
Posted by Solaris  in  barrie ontario  on  Fri Mar 18, 2005  at  05:37 PM
Yeah, no prob, come in, call everyone assholes, and not stick around for the results.

Idiot.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Fri Mar 18, 2005  at  07:17 PM
. Hello,
I sell Photoblocker and allot of it, I would like to thank all the people here both sides ....
this post is on Google and people are coming to my site to look further, this post has sold more then 36 cans for me smile there is always people who don't want to believe it that fine but many people have been burned by photo radar and they spend 30.00 and it saved them at least once. Others have never got a ticket, they bought a can just to be safe, again 30.00 will do 4 plates get 4 friends and put 8.50 each in the pot and buy a can.
Posted by Make  in  Canada  on  Fri Mar 25, 2005  at  06:01 PM
Well, Make, since you make so much Do Re Mi off the site, why don't you take out a Real Ad here on Museum Of Hoaxes? Just a thought, cheapo
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Mar 25, 2005  at  06:49 PM
Make said:

"there is always people who don't want to believe it that fine but many people have been burned by photo radar and they spend 30.00 and it saved them at least once. Others have never got a ticket, they bought a can just to be safe"

In other words, the results of using the stuff are about the same as you might expect if you DIDN'T use the stuff. Maybe you get caught, maybe you don't. Wow, that's some endorsement!

Here's MY solution to getting tickets for speeding: Buy a frozen chicken and rub it on your license plate. Maybe photo radar will see your plate number, maybe it won't. MY solution is every bit as effective as YOUR solution.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Mar 25, 2005  at  07:31 PM
along with Mark,
what is this sites Ranking for SE's
A ad could be placed.
Posted by marty  on  Sat Mar 26, 2005  at  10:09 AM
That's one of the dilemmas of having a site about scams and hoaxes. By talking about them you're simultaneously giving them free advertising. No way around it really.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Sat Mar 26, 2005  at  10:48 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 8 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.