PhotoBlocker Spray

click link for above:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax?URL=http://www.photoblockercanada.com

I think it's called spamming.

Something is fishy.

"I had the stuff tested myself by the local cops, and they laughed at it. It does not work at all, under ANY situation. PhotoBlocker is getting hammered now on the internet and by customers who bought this stuff and got a ticket. "

If this was the case why are they making a decision on to making PhotoBlocker illegal here in Illinois. Now I think if the other product photofog was as effective as the Photoblocker spray it would have been illegal since it has been out for a while. And actually I personally think that the testimonial looks more credible on

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/160991.html

than the website mentioned by

Dorf or I should say matt?

i can see it working,
and the news artical say you need a flash.....that is what photoblocker and fog say to.
all cameras here use a flash.
just like 3M stuff out there to reflect light.

I bought this for my husband and he loved it.
We just were able to get this product in the UK and it works.
I bought 20 can from a dealer here because my husband runs a mobil maid service and would get photo ticketa atleast 3-4 times a month, then he would have to find out who was driving... when and try to prove it was the employee to dock their pay.

He applied to all 113 cars WITHOUT telling teh Maids... he has not recived a ticket in over 3 months. He does not want teh people to drive reckless but it has saved him alot of time and money.

Tiana said:

"I bought this for my husband and he loved it.
We just were able to get this product in the UK and it works.

"I bought 20 can from a dealer here because my husband runs a mobil maid service and would get photo ticketa atleast 3-4 times a month, then he would have to find out who was driving... when and try to prove it was the employee to dock their pay.

"He applied to all 113 cars WITHOUT telling teh Maids... he has not recived a ticket in over 3 months. He does not want teh people to drive reckless but it has saved him alot of time and money."

First off, Tiana, it is possible that the decrease in tickets is attributable to something other than the use of the spray. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, my local Fox TV affiliate actually had the stuff tested and it did nothing at all. Not only that, but the guy who sells it here in Oregon ADMITTED on camera that he knew it was worthless.

Secondly, it's interesting that your husband didn't choose to talk to his employees and explain to them how speeding was illegal and unacceptable to him, but instead chose to ateempt to prevent their being caught in the act. Will you and your husband be able to sleep if and when one of your employees hurts or kills someone while speeding, knowing that you chose not to stop them from doing it? Just a question.

Cranky Media said
"Secondly, it's interesting that your husband didn't choose to talk to his employees and explain to them how speeding was illegal and unacceptable to him, but instead chose to ateempt to prevent their being caught in the act. Will you and your husband be able to sleep if and when one of your employees hurts or kills someone while speeding, knowing that you chose not to stop them from doing it? Just a question."

Do you think that they would be able to stop them without the PhotoBlocker Spray? Tiana said that they were swamped by tickets anyways. So either ways these people are going to speed and they have no control because even if they fire them they will speed with their own car. And can you imagine getting a ticket for being 5mph over the speed or any kind of faulty tickets. You can squabble but it is a big hassle and the likelihood of you winning is very little. I think it is worth trying it at any rate.

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

The reason he did not tell anyone was because he dooes not want the staff to think they are above the law. I have it on my cars and know it works.....I don't speed....on home streets. but out on teh stright way i go wiht the flow ...about 5-9 over. I have been flashed meany times, with no ticket ( I paid for one ticke by a real cop.... Still not good.
Befor i spent over 760.00 on something i do my homework, many friends have bought this stuff so that is how i heard about it.
I see no information about class action law suits, and little to no bad press, many FOX stations in the US tried it and it works....Yes you do need a flash to get the result, if your areas has no flash then get covers. Am i above the law...NO but going with teh flow is not a crime to me.

Mary Ann said:

"Guys, I am telling you this stuff works. I should know, I have been using it for two years. Two years ago I was getting photo-radar tickets every three months. Then I saw a FOX News report that showed how well this PHOTOBLOCKER spray worked. It showed Denver police Department testing it and cops actually called it surprisingly effective.

That's amazing, Mary Ann, because, as I've mentioned previously, MY local Fox affiliate did a story on it that said the exact opposite. They even had the guy who sells it on camera and he admitted that the crap doesn't work. By the way, my local Fox station is KPTV and their website is KPTV.com if you want to check. Oh, but you probably don't because your posting is worded exactly like I'd expect a shill for the company to write, complete with the fake folksy "Guys" salutation I've come to know and love from all the spam I receive.

"I have donated enough money to the local police department. They are not going to get me again for driving 5 miles over the speed limit."

What other laws do you consider yourself to be above, "Mary Ann?" Cheat on your taxes, too? Do you vote for "law and order" candidates? Do you realize that that makes you a flaming hypocrite? Is it only people with darker skin than you who should live by the law? Just curious.

I still believe that the photoblocker spray works. Forget about the Fox news or any thing, I thought I was going to get a ticket the other day for driving 41mph on a 35mph and I got flashed and I was in the midst of changing lanes but I did not get a ticket. I am not encouraging people to run the red light or speed up, but I just don

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.

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.

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

photoblocker has worked for me why would I sue them. phantomplate would have been a different issue if it did not work.

How does it feel to be a tool, John?

Dont get you six pack,
but still waiting for a negative link????

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?

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%2Bof%2Btraffic-light%2Bcameras%2Bquestioned/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/%7EPhantomplate.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

Here is a good link from NBC:

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

Im going to have to say Mat wins

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?

Joesixpack are you the audio guy?

chkris, I don't think I'm the "audio guy" because I don't understand the question. Could you be more specific?

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.

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/

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.

😊

Who uses 3 questions marks?

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.

Have to support MnJ here, three question marks looks one hell of a lot better than CAPS AFTER CAPS.

the reason the postes are the same is because it is from a BLOG, that is it, its being bloging postes.

some people just don't know how to type, like me.
teh

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

Wow. And you know where your two cents will get you...
:roll:

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.

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.

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!

Yeah, no prob, come in, call everyone assholes, and not stick around for the results.

Idiot.

. 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 😊 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.

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

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.

along with Mark,
what is this sites Ranking for SE's
A ad could be placed.

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.

From what I

http://www.laserjammer.citymax.com/page/page/1124915.htm

down at the bottom, the Photo STOPPER, same as photoblocker, except pricer, these guys to all the tests take a look.
The new digital cameras MIGHT be able to beat the spray but would it be worth it for the police to messe around wiht a picture to catch u? If you did something REALLY stupid then they should bust your ass. but 11k over on an open 4 lane STRIGHT divided highway that the speed limt is 90KM, driving the most boring drive east going to Manitoba from Calgary getting busted.....use something radar spray cover anything, just don't see the reason for 90.

To all those people who seem intent on breaking the law - have any of you been in accidents (or seen the aftermath) which was caused by someone else speeding or running a red light? The law's there for a reason, people. Mainly to keep us safe! Drive carefully people. :coolsmile:

The photo spray 'works' only in camera's that have flash bulbs that are around 350 watts.

Photoblocker doesn't work with infra red camera's.

And yes, viewing the photo's negative will allow you to see the number. However, it is not legally correct to use this method of image reversal(negative photo), because both the plate and the car/driver must be cleanly/clearly seen in the one photo.

Police cannot use negative's in court; unless the precedant has been approved/tried in a higher court elsewhere beforehand... then set into law/legislation.

I'm happy. I've been driving for 25 years in Australia and I've never been booked by any type of police camera. There doesn't seem to be any excuse for speeding or running red lights!
BTW: in Australia the photo doesn't have to include you in the picture as the owner is always responsible for whoever drives the car anyway. I won't buy the stuff and therefore I'm saving money!

The state of Illinois is thinking of banning the sale and use of Photoblocker,photo-stopper and fhotofog type sprays because some are so effective agaist red light cameras and toll roads.I bought a can through a Canadian outlet at http://www.photoblockercanada.com just for the added insurance I do get flashed, if it works I saved money,if it doesn't I will try to let you know.

"Police cannot use negative's in court; unless the precedant has been approved/tried in a higher court elsewhere beforehand... then set into law/legislation."


Since the photos never have to go to court, that doesn't really make a difference, now, does it? Here, it's just a company that sends you a bill. You don't have to pay it, but if you don't, they'll file with credit reporting agencies, claiming that you owe them money...

this stuff works, there is a loop hole in the law that states number plates need to be legible to read, and of a correct standard, it does not specify they need to be photogenic. Its very good stuff,

Hey everyone, maybe we should focus our energy on the culprit here, the actual speed and red light cameras.

What do these things do?

Make money for the county and make police lazier

That is unacceptable

What if I run a red light and I get my cars pic taken etc. but meanwhile I run the next red light and kill someone?

If there was an actual human being to pull me over and issue a ticket, it would have a much greater effect than me having a ticket sent to me or whoever owned the car i was driving two weeks after the fact.

An awful system that needs to be abolished, as it has in some places.

Dont mean to sound like a sci fi nerd, but dont let modern technology pwn you!!! Rise up, we are humans, not fucking cattle being herded thru life.

Im sick of paying taxes to police that fund these projects. I shouldnt have to pay to get raped by the government.

I read through all of these comments and let me tell you--IT DOESNT WORK.
Luckily all four of the tickets I received in Washington, DC, at different locations happened during DC's "warning" period.
My solution has been to reroute my travel path and I dont have to worry about their stupid cameras, although I do agree with the last poster. Unless an officer pulls me over and I sign for a ticket, it should not count. Police need to get off of their lazy behinds and do some real work. If these cameras were allowing officers to focus on higher priority work, I might be able to see this automatic speed patroling, however, it doesnt. These lazy idiots in DC still have a ridiculous crime rate, you still see them sitting in their cars talking on cell phones and not doing a darn thing!
I.D.W.