Phenomenon of posting old YouTube videos, faking that they're new

**syrwong** · 19th December 2016 16:55

It is quite obvious in this year there are many Youtube postings of old videos posing as new ones. As I do not believe I am living in a world of prankster and hoaxers, but rather in a world of conspirators, this phenomenon should best be explained as a conspiracy. As this occurs only on whistleblower videos, it is directed against the alternative media. Could someone theorize the method and the agenda?

Is this related to something that I am not certain if it is true, which is the bumping of very old threads that have lost importance or is of no concern?

**Bill Ryan** · 19th December 2016 17:20

Posted by syrwong (here)
It is quite obvious in this year there are many Youtube postings of old videos posing as new ones. As I do not believe I am living in a world of prankster and hoaxers, but rather in a world of conspirators, this phenomenon should best be explained as a conspiracy. As this occurs only on whistleblower videos, it is directed against the alternative media. Could someone theorize the method and the agenda?

It's 'click-bait' -- meaning, mindless opportunists re-posting old material (usually with no stated DATE for the original, which is often confusing for people: some of the re-uploads are several years old). It's because YouTube is so heavily monetized now.

Some channels are clear impersonations. One of the apparent sources of David Paulides' interviews has a name (and a real photo) that makes it seem as if the channel belongs to Paulides himself. But it's not him. All the new uploads are unaccredited, undated interviews from several years back.

All part of the cacophany of empty noise on YouTube right now, that benefits no-one apart from a selfish few. Ugh.

**DeDukshyn** · 19th December 2016 17:30

Opportunists looking to make a few bucks will check stats on topics and styles that people will click on or find intriguing enough to click or watch. The people posting content have no care to the content at all, the just want clicks and views because they are paid for them. Most common is websites that post stories, often old, ripped off, exaggerated or whatever, that are littered with ads, then make you click through 10 pages to read the whole story / see the pictures / video - all the while they get revenue from each page you visit and each ad you might click. Whatever content might get the interest based on stats is what they post.

At current time, in the days of easy internet, re-hashing old stories that might gain the clicks is a popular method for some to make some money - but it's also an annoying diluting of good info in many cases.

Some of it is part of larger "ops" but I am sure 95% of it is just people either trying to make money or just don't do any research at all before making a video / web page.

Bumping threads is something different altogether.

**syrwong** · 19th December 2016 17:43

Thanks for the simple explanation. I missed the simple truth that money is the origin of 95% of

evil.

**DarMar** · 19th December 2016 21:02

As I do not believe I am living in a world of prankster and hoaxers, but rather in a world of conspirators

And that's what pranksters counting on

**joeecho** · 19th December 2016 21:27

Have you seen where people are producing videos to make something look like a spontaneous event that they just happen to catch on their phone? From what I've seen, it is a growing trend. It's a guess but I venture a number of them are millennial's that have time on their hands to learn the ins and outs of making a buck on the 'net. Growing up from the beginning with computers and pervasive reality shows they are just continuing to ride that wave and be a part of it. Buyer beware.

**DeDukshyn** · 19th December 2016 23:58

Posted by joeecho (here)
Have you seen where people are producing videos to make something look like a spontaneous event that they just happen to catch on their phone? From what I've seen, it is a growing trend. It's a guess but I venture a number of them are millennial's that have time on their hands to learn the ins and outs of making a buck on the 'net. Growing up from the beginning with computers and pervasive reality shows they are just continuing to ride that wave and be a part of it. Buyer beware.

Actually, the majority of "spontaneous viral videos" are actually well crafted and well funded and planed out skits made to look like it was a spontaneous capture -- many confessions from big marketing firms on this.

**DeDukshyn** · 20th December 2016 00:19

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by joeecho (here)
Have you seen where people are producing videos to make something look like a spontaneous event that they just happen to catch on their phone? From what I've seen, it is a growing trend. It's a guess but I venture a number of them are millennial's that have time on their hands to learn the ins and outs of making a buck on the 'net. Growing up from the beginning with computers and pervasive reality shows they are just continuing to ride that wave and be a part of it. Buyer beware.

Actually, the majority of "spontaneous viral videos" are actually well crafted and well funded and planed out skits made to look like it was a spontaneous capture -- many confessions from big marketing firms on this.

Anybody ever see this one? Pretty funny stuff! The Jimmy Kimmel Show crew created this one, let it get viral, then did the expose in the show later and showed how they made it and had the actor on the show ... very well done, actually.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CddMD3QqTFs

Anyway ... back to topic.

**joeecho** · 20th December 2016 00:27

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Actually, the majority of "spontaneous viral videos" are actually well crafted and well funded and planed out skits made to look like it was a spontaneous capture -- many confessions from big marketing firms on this.

Videos like this come to mind:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CXgL39oy9x8

Of course this one isn't politically charge as some viral videos but it did make its way into leading news sites at the time. If examples like this can make it in to 'reputable' new sites then what else makes its way in that is presented as spontaneously captured events?

**Wolfman43** · 20th December 2016 15:02

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by syrwong (here)
It is quite obvious in this year there are many Youtube postings of old videos posing as new ones. As I do not believe I am living in a world of prankster and hoaxers, but rather in a world of conspirators, this phenomenon should best be explained as a conspiracy. As this occurs only on whistleblower videos, it is directed against the alternative media. Could someone theorize the method and the agenda?

It's 'click-bait' -- meaning, mindless opportunists re-posting old material (usually with no stated DATE for the original, which is often confusing for people: some of the re-uploads are several years old). It's because YouTube is so heavily monetized now.

Some channels are clear impersonations. One of the apparent sources of David Paulides' interviews has a name (and a real photo) that makes it seem as if the channel belongs to Paulides himself. But it's not him. All the new uploads are unaccredited, undated interviews from several years back.

All part of the cacophany of empty noise on YouTube right now, that benefits no-one apart from a selfish few. Ugh.

Bill, as I watched the new project Camelot video (uploaded 5 days ago,) this video has a very dated feel to it. Is this the intention or is this an old interview just now being posted? Either way it is always thrilling to listen to what "Billy" has to say.

**Carmody** · 20th December 2016 16:02

'adblockplus' (and only adblockplus) is the program to use. Adblock is a fake copy that functions, but collects all your data and sells it. Adblockplus is the original program and programmer.

Using that software....I've not seen a single advert on youtube in at least ..oh...all known or recalled memory of youtube use.

**ThePythonicCow** · 20th December 2016 19:08

Posted by Carmody (here)
'adblockplus' (and only adblockplus) is the program to use. Adblock is a fake copy that functions, but collects all your data and sells it. Adblockplus is the original program and programmer.

The aspiring computer geeks in the house might also check out uBlock Origin, available for Chromium and Firefox, a more powerful and flexible blocker that uses fewer system resources.

Here are a couple of reviews comparing the two:

The developer of uBlock Origin states here that AdBlock Pro is based on an earlier version of the open source uBlock code, with a Google Analytics hook added to AdBlock.

This Reddit comment sums it up: "uBlock Origin hands down. Blocks more ads and uses fewer resources."

However uBlock Origin, especially with the "advanced user" settings enabled, is on the "geeky side" of flexible in its options.

This comment, on another site, sums up my personal views of uBlock Origin rather well:

It is very light, no questionable privacy policy, no paid ad whitelist and its advanced mode is near perfect. Ublock Origin advanced mode puts it on another league.

**Star Tsar** · 20th December 2016 19:54

Adblockers only block adverts from your browser a hosts file blocks at the TCP IP / DNS level so those sites connot even connect to your machine and in turn it is healthier for ones machine!!!

You can find it here with installation instructions but if you need help PM me.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

**WhiteLove** · 20th December 2016 21:01

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by syrwong (here)
It is quite obvious in this year there are many Youtube postings of old videos posing as new ones. As I do not believe I am living in a world of prankster and hoaxers, but rather in a world of conspirators, this phenomenon should best be explained as a conspiracy. As this occurs only on whistleblower videos, it is directed against the alternative media. Could someone theorize the method and the agenda?

It's 'click-bait' -- meaning, mindless opportunists re-posting old material (usually with no stated DATE for the original, which is often confusing for people: some of the re-uploads are several years old). It's because YouTube is so heavily monetized now.

Some channels are clear impersonations. One of the apparent sources of David Paulides' interviews has a name (and a real photo) that makes it seem as if the channel belongs to Paulides himself. But it's not him. All the new uploads are unaccredited, undated interviews from several years back.

All part of the cacophany of empty noise on YouTube right now, that benefits no-one apart from a selfish few. Ugh.

Beautifully said Bill!

**ThePythonicCow** · 20th December 2016 21:51

Posted by Star Tsar (here)
Adblockers only block adverts from your browser a hosts file blocks at the TCP IP / DNS level so those sites connot even connect to your machine and in turn it is healthier for ones machine!!!

You can find it here with installation instructions but if you need help PM me.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Yes - running a hosts file that blocks dubious websites is a good idea. I run several of them myself. They don't stop anyone from connecting into your computer ... firewalls and routers handle that task. But these special hosts files do prevent software running on your computer from connecting out to any of the dubious websites by name - you and your software can still connect out to such a dubious site using the raw IP address.

**Bill Ryan** · 20th December 2016 22:27

Posted by Wolfman43 (here)
Bill, as I watched the new project Camelot video (uploaded 5 days ago,) this video has a very dated feel to it. Is this the intention or is this an old interview just now being posted? Either way it is always thrilling to listen to what "Billy" has to say.

Well, it's a new video, as best I know: Kerry wouldn't sit on any interview she'd filmed. And even if it'd been recorded a little earlier, Bill Tompkins has only been on the interview circuit for a year.

**Innocent Warrior** · 20th December 2016 23:42

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Wolfman43 (here)
Bill, as I watched the new project Camelot video (uploaded 5 days ago,) this video has a very dated feel to it. Is this the intention or is this an old interview just now being posted? Either way it is always thrilling to listen to what "Billy" has to say.

Well, it's a new video, as best I know: Kerry wouldn't sit on any interview she'd filmed. And even if it'd been recorded a little earlier, Bill Tompkins has only been on the interview circuit for a year.

Confirming that's definitely a fresh interview, William refers to Obama as the president they just got rid of.

**DeDukshyn** · 21st December 2016 00:11

Posted by Innocent Warrior (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Wolfman43 (here)
Bill, as I watched the new project Camelot video (uploaded 5 days ago,) this video has a very dated feel to it. Is this the intention or is this an old interview just now being posted? Either way it is always thrilling to listen to what "Billy" has to say.

Well, it's a new video, as best I know: Kerry wouldn't sit on any interview she'd filmed. And even if it'd been recorded a little earlier, Bill Tompkins has only been on the interview circuit for a year.

Confirming that's definitely a fresh interview, William refers to Obama as the president they just got rid of.

I hate to say it but Kerry's interviews are really poor from a production perspective (haven't seen this one) ... after cringing the whole while through watching some of her interviews I wanted to reach out to her and ask if I could please be technician and director.

I especially recall the interview with Eva - Kerry had the microphone in front of herself, and not another one for Eva, so obviously there's almost no audio (except for Kerry's questions - which are clear), and together with Eva's accent, the interview is almost unintelligible even after supposed "restoration". Maybe some people should get together and raise some money for a new camera and and some proper microphones / lights / recording equipment for her (or Bill if he gets back into the interview / video work).

I am partly joking, but as a multi media content creation artist, I do have to say, audio quality for any video is (I dare say) more important than the video itself. Anyone can ignore bad video and focus on the audio - other way around does not work ... If I was self sustained, I would already have likely reached out to Bill and other reputable / quality people in the "alternate truth genre" to work with them to create more high quality interviews, and videos, and hopefully be able to take quality information to a higher value level ... Unfortunately my full time job is needed to keep the bills paid. If any millionaires out there are reading this - I can live a cheap life doing this job - I just need my expenses covered, and bills paid, with a tiny bit left for beer, lol.

Anyway, we're a little off topic ... then again, the OP question has already been answered

**Innocent Warrior** · 21st December 2016 00:19

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Innocent Warrior (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Wolfman43 (here)
Bill, as I watched the new project Camelot video (uploaded 5 days ago,) this video has a very dated feel to it. Is this the intention or is this an old interview just now being posted? Either way it is always thrilling to listen to what "Billy" has to say.

Well, it's a new video, as best I know: Kerry wouldn't sit on any interview she'd filmed. And even if it'd been recorded a little earlier, Bill Tompkins has only been on the interview circuit for a year.

Confirming that's definitely a fresh interview, William refers to Obama as the president they just got rid of.

I hate to say it but Kerry's interviews are really poor from a production perspective (haven't seen this one) ... after cringing the whole while through watching some of her interviews I wanted to reach out to her and ask if I could please be technician and director.

I especially recall the interview with Eva - Kerry had the microphone in front of herself, and not another one for Eva, so obviously there's almost no audio (except for Kerry's questions - which are clear), and together with Eva's accent, the interview is almost unintelligible even after supposed "restoration". Maybe some people should get together and raise some money for a new camera and and some proper microphones / lights / recording equipment for her (or Bill if he gets back into the interview / video work).

I am partly joking, but as a multi media content creation artist, I do have to say, audio quality for any video is (I dare say) more important than the video itself. Anyone can ignore bad video and focus on the audio - other way around does not work ... If I was self sustained, I would already have likely reached out to Bill and other reputable / quality people in the "alternate truth genre" to work with them to create more high quality interviews, and videos, and hopefully be able to take quality information to a higher value level ... Unfortunately my full time job is needed to keep the bills paid. If any millionaires out there are reading this - I can live a cheap life doing this job - I just need my expenses covered, and bills paid, with a tiny bit left for beer, lol.

Anyway, we're a little off topic ... then again, the OP question has already been answered

Haha, well I admit, I find myself wishing Bill and Kerry never split each time I watch a Camelot interview. Kerry is just too earnest with seeking the truth not to admire her work though and she produces some great content. This interview is much better than the one you mentioned, audio is good, you should watch it, great interview.

**DeDukshyn** · 21st December 2016 00:24