PhotoBlocker Spray

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.

Where do I purchase photo block in Australia? Prefer not to give my credit card over the net.

Thanks

i am a visitor to this site who came here after doing a search for "Photoblocker" and it's quite silly that some people here are so intent to prove that this thing does not work whilst there are so many who have actually used it and have shared from personal experience that it does indeed work. The person(s) that is arguing that it is a hoax probably never even tried out the product and (for some strange reason) is asserting that it does not work. i have not tried the product so i won't comment on whether it works or it doesn't. it is annoying when a person mouths off without having personally tested or tried something. it shows the person to be a fool and an insecure one at that, no matter how eloquent his/her arguments.
these are the opinionated ones that you meet on occasion who enjoy a verbal sparring, and who think that their well-constructed reasoning is based on justifiable reasons and pure motives, while they fail to recognize that their need to do all this stems from a deep need to compensate for some inner insecurity.
they are driven (and even revell in the "challenge" of every conflicting opinion, no matter how objective nor experiential), and they will argue to the very end.

whoever is arguing against this product could very well be working with legislative bodies who are out to discredit or discourage use of this product... like the ones who infiltrate file-sharing sites and upload bogus files to disrupt and discourage new users from fully discovering the benefits of a broadband-integrated pirate life.

In any case, i was just looking for more info about this product and (because it is unavailable in my country) i was thinking of importing it.

i just had to say something after seeing this back and forth of assertions, and noting the ridiculous posturing from certain person(s) who are so doggedly commenting on something that they have not even had firsthand experience with!

i am gonna go look through the rest of the "results" of my search.

goodbye.

Lee Wong Heng, Kelvin
Singapore
Dec 7, 2005

Kelvin said:

"i am a visitor to this site who came here after doing a search for "Photoblocker" and it's quite silly that some people here are so intent to prove that this thing does not work whilst there are so many who have actually used it and have shared from personal experience that it does indeed work."

Well, Kelvin, I'm one of the people here who hasn't used the product but has said that it doesn't work. If you read the early postings, you'd see that I referenced a wholesaler of the stuff here in Oregon who said on the local Fox TV affiliate's news show (KPTV, Portland) that the stuff doesn't work. I have no idea why a person who was selling it would admit such a thing but I saw him say it with my own eyes.

Should I disregard a statement of a man who actually SELLS the stuff to the effect that the product is worthless?

You (understandably) want to believe that the product works because you want to make money by selling it. I have no dog in this fight, as it were; I'm just telling you what a distributor of the stuff admitted to on television.

well the stuff does work so well it is now banned in NY. here is the link to The New York Post .
read it and email the editor if you like It is a PDF

http://photoblockercanada.com/Graphics/nypost_collage.gif

There's a big problem with stealthing a car--much of the stealthing comes merely from the shape. Make your car up to look like a F-117 and you won't even need radar absorbing paint. I think you'll have a big problem with the various lights the law requires a car to have, though.

I'd heard a lot about photoblocker spray in the U.K. and even read some good stuff about the product on The Mail. Those who live or have lived in the U.K. will tell you that London is basically a 'camera city'. But guess what? I didn't get a single ticket until I moved to America. What pissed me off was that I know the light was yellow not red! I am thankful for the manufacturer of photoblocker spray >>2nd year and no ticket. My crazy bro tried it out and got flashed (he'd agreed to pay if sent a ticket..even after reading all good stuff, I was sceptical)and I am glad to say it works! After that, I got flashed once (again, it was yellow)but this time the last laugh was mine..No Ticket!

Hey, nidia, I hope you realize that your personal experience in no way constitutes evidence that the stuff actually works.

Consider: you drove for some time and didn't get a ticket. Then you got one, so you put some spray on your license plate. Then you didn't get any more tickets. You credit the spray with not getting any tickets from that point on. Um, you didn't get any for years BEFORE you put the spray on, also. See my point?

Anyway, here's my question for all you folks who think that the spray works. How can anything make a license plate invisible to a camera even though it remains perfectly VISIBLE to the naked eye?

If you think it has something to do with angle, go get a license plate, put some spray on it, then view it and photograph it from different angles, like from the top of a ladder, to simulate where a camera might be placed. This really isn't a hard experiment to perform--or do you not want to really know if the spray works or not?

Alex,
Read it again...I say it works not just because I didn't get a ticket after I used photoblocker spray but BECAUSE I got flashed by the camera twice (once when I drove through a yellow light, and once when my brother decided to test the product and we did see the flash but no ticket!) Actually, my bro's test is an evidence that these cameras are there for revenue purpose and not safety. All he did was make a legal right turn on red. I believe the money spent on installing cameras can be better spent on recruiting more cops. I'm sure no cop would've given me a ticket for driving through a yellow light!

Are you saying it doesn't work just because it is visible to the naked eye? hahha..technology, baby! Also, I saw many tests done by different news media such as Fox news on the manufacturers' website...not to mention The Mail, my fav. and reliable newspaper in London. They all said it works. check it out..I bought it from photoblocker.com All I know is that I had two flashes and no ticket! B.T.W. Say I got a ticket now, I only paid $30.00 for the spray....don't you think it has already paid for itslef by saving me that one ticket I got flashed for??

nidia said:

"Alex,
Read it again...I say it works not just because I didn't get a ticket after I used photoblocker spray but BECAUSE I got flashed by the camera twice (once when I drove through a yellow light, and once when my brother decided to test the product and we did see the flash but no ticket!)"

For starters, I'm not Alex. No harm, though. Anyway, the fact that you happened not to get a ticket after you used the spray does NOT prove that the stuff works.

I'll ask you again: how is it possible for the spray to block a CAMERA from seeing your license plate but not block your EYE from seeing it? I'll mention again what I personally witnessed some time back: a guy who sells the stuff who admitted on KPTV, channel 12 in Portland, OR that it doesn't work.

"Actually, my bro's test is an evidence that these cameras are there for revenue purpose and not safety. All he did was make a legal right turn on red. I believe the money spent on installing cameras can be better spent on recruiting more cops. I'm sure no cop would've given me a ticket for driving through a yellow light!"

Well, you and I are in agreement that the traffic cameras are there to raise revenue as opposed to safety.

"Are you saying it doesn't work just because it is visible to the naked eye? hahha..technology, baby!"

What technology are you referring to? If light reflected off a surface can be seen by the human eye, it can be seen by a camera. I'm not aware of any "technology" that can change that simple fact. Are you?

"All I know is that I had two flashes and no ticket!"

Boy, I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someuse that logic to justify the unjustifiable.

"B.T.W. Say I got a ticket now, I only paid $30.00 for the spray....don't you think it has already paid for itslef by saving me that one ticket I got flashed for??"

Yes, it would be worth it if it worked, but I'm far from convinced that it does.

Alex,

This is what I got from the website. If it doesn't work for you, all I can say is you or your car plate must be special:)

The latest independent test

Video Minneapolis , Minnesota

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