The "Carlos Swett affair" [Archive] - Page 4

PinkRabbit

30th October 2002, 09:32 PM

What I said, Carlos, is that the object much harder to see in the stills, not that it's not there. I said the object is easier to see when it's moving because you can track its position from frame to frame. It does not disappear in the stills, but it is more difficult to see, particularly if you do not readjust some settings.

The same thing can be seen on the Mpeg, but it is far more subtle.

No, I am not seeing the arc where it is not, you are not seeing it where it is.

In short: you are wrong, the object DOES NOT disappear into one side of the building and come out the other. The object is a considerable distance from and in front of BOTH buildings.

The object arcs all the way across in front of both buildings and is simply difficult to see as it is quite blurred and against a similarly colored background.

Perhaps the tape you viewed was not as good, or the equipment used was not of the same quality as what we were using. Tape quality, transmission quality, and monitor quality all effect the image greatly. I would suggest you try and view it somewhere else and with technicians who are not simply trying to prove your belief to create a story for their next broadcast.

I am neither defending nor criticizing Andrew Harter's technique for studying the image. I am simply offering my opinion of what I saw. As I am not an employee of the JREF, nor an official consultant in any form, my opinion is purely that of an experienced layperson ... just like everyone else on this forum with whom you have been so vociferously arguing.

No, I will not put out personal or professional information in this venue, especially concerning a topic this silly, to a person I consider likely to be somewhat unbalanced.

And now, I'm going to make a suggestion you undoubtedly won't listen to:

Go away.

Seriously. You are achieving nothing here. You have offered no proof, simply an opinion, which you are unwilling to admit is nothing more than an opinion. You are wasting your time, bandwidth that could be better used, and fast becoming a troll. You will change nothing by continually posting exactly the same argument over and over.

Repetition will not convince anyone of anything, and you have offered nothing beyond your opinion of what something is. Others disagree. That alone means you lose.

The JREF challenge is set up to be conclusive.

There is nothing conclusive about a single videotape of an event, taken under uncontrolled circumstances.

You have proven nothing. And can prove nothing.

Even if your analysis of visual aspects of the tape were 100% correct, it would prove nothing, except, at most, that something entered and exited the building on a specific trajectory.

Even that is not necessarily paranormal.

You have proven nothing even if everything you claim is true.

Deal with it.

Whether Harter's technique was good or bad doesn't change that.

Believe in your paranormal hat if you must, but it's time to accept that you can't prove it, and move on with your life.

Barb

30th October 2002, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I don't have access to the tape you sent to JREF.

I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me.

Of course any plan to suppress your tape would have to depend on you being too stupid to post it yourself.

I'll include your application when I answer your questions concerning it.

:

Blue monk,:
When you use bad words is because you don¿t have an answer,

I already told you that the tape I send to JREF correspond to "your second video", you also said that is the one you "think" Harter studied it "frane by frame",

Why are you still afraid to analize it?
Why you are afraid and dishonest to put my translated notarized application in your web page?

Post the picture of "your bird" at the right side of the hole at the wall of the tower,

Keep on going,

S&S

30th October 2002, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
What I said, Carlos, is that the object much harder to see in the stills, not that it's not there. I said the object is easier to see when it's moving because you can track its position from frame to frame. It does not disappear in the stills, but it is more difficult to see, particularly if you do not readjust some settings.

Barb

Nick Pink Rabbit;

You are still refusing to tell details of where , name of tv station, etc, You made your 3/4 tape study.

Should I beleive you?

I did tell where I did the analisis , the name of the broadcast channel, etc,JREF have that tape too, Is a fact,Is in my notarixed application,

Andrew Harter studied just an internet video "frame by frame" and he did not have that problem, he did not even mention nothing about an optical illusion, he can see "the BIRD" in front of the wall of the tower at the right side of the hole . And YOU are saying you can not see "the bird" when you use slow motion , stills or frame by frame, give me a break.

What is the "new stuff" in your " 3/4 tape study"?

I already said the same , the only difference is that I said also:

"THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode."

About optical illusions I already wrote in my application:
"It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it."

Of course only in NORMAL SPEED"you can see"as you said : The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times. "

But when you still "it dissapears" (??????)

It "never dissapears at normal speed of the tape" just because the speed of the object is so FAST that create in your eye the OPTICAL ILLUSION that never dissapears.

That¿s the main reason why you have to study it "frame by frame", like I did and ANDREW HARTER did,
Or Harter also lied in that point?

Of course , you will find someones who will "beleive " in you.

Confused about optical illusions?
Well I just work in art.

Thanks,

S&S

Blue Monk

30th October 2002, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by S&S
I already told you that the tape I send to JREF correspond to "your second video", you also said that is the one you "think" Harter studied it "frane by frame"

That's a lie. I never said I thought that was the one Harter used. I stated quite clearly I have no idea what clip Harter used.

I did say, "This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."

Originally posted by S&S
Why are you still afraid to analize it?
Why you are afraid and dishonest to put my translated notarized application in your web page?

I intend to. I'm just not much concerned with your demands little man. I'm preparing a page that shows all of the frames from all perspectives. I am not even close to being done.

When I start answering your questions about your application you will no doubt try to steer the topic in another direction.

You are going to get answers to all of your question on my time schedule and mine alone. If you don't like it, tough.

If you don't like it then feel free to get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt and post any evidence you feel appropriate.

Now that I've proven your theory is crap the rest of this is just a bunch of petty stuff to appease a very childish man.

You'll just have to wait until Sunday. I have things I need to do right now. It might be hard for a four year old to wait that long. It will probably be impossible for you.

If your video proves your claims then why don't you simply post it? Too lazy or too afraid? Maybe too dishonest.

See you Sunday!

Charlie in Dayton

30th October 2002, 11:36 PM

I have been given the video in question in all of this. It's a four-second clip, running at normal speed, and as a video file it is 112kb in size. It runs in Windows Media Player, is capable of being run in stop-action frame by frame, and the image is expandable to fill the screen if you like (those experienced in the use of Windows Media Player know how to do these things easily).
I have been reassured by the individual who gave me the clip that it is: the video in question (apparently from a New York TV station's live feed of the situation at the WTC); 'referential', meaning it's meant to show me what time period to refer to on a video tape of the event; running at normal speed.

I have viewed this clip this evening numerous times, in both real-time and stop-action. It is EXTREMELY interesting.

I have given my word that I WILL NOT give my opinions of what is on the tape until I see a video tape of the event. This clip is meant for reference only, and it seems to be a bone of contention that a formal opinion of it was given by Andrew Harter based only on a very short Internet slow-motion digitized loop. Therefore, I make no statement at this time as to what is or is not on the clip, other than to say that it will be a very interesting view. Because of its format (real time, and a longer period of time than the little Internet loop), there is more information in the clip than possibly has seen before on this thread.

I am looking for someone who will host this clip for viewing and/or download for awhile (30 to 60 days, maybe? I realize that Internet space costs) on a volunteer basis. More than one volunteer? Mirror sites are always nice.

I will include the comments on how I viewed the video (some action on the screen not connected with the object in question is distracting, and can be blocked out by holding a piece of paper up to the screen), and some questions about what the viewer sees. While I am constrained by my own promises not to reveal my opinions (to prevent coloring others' opinions before viewing it), I am very interested in the opinions of others as to what they see here. Again, the video in this format has more information than possibly has been seen before here, and is guaranteed to be very interesting in terms of what has been posted here.

So -- any volunteers for this? My PM box has been cleared of electro-effluvia, and I'm ready. Serious responses only, please.

Purple Tentacle

31st October 2002, 12:14 AM

the 112kb file is alrady being hosted here - http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wct_sh2.mpg

which is linked from Blue Monk's GIF Compare site here - http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html

i have the file, and the object is a bird

this case is closed people

CurtC

31st October 2002, 06:12 AM

Charlie, I can host your video if it's reasonable size, like less than 20 MB. Surely a four-second clip would be smaller than this? PM me for details on where to upload.

31st October 2002, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

That's a lie. I never said I thought that was the one Harter used. I stated quite clearly I have no idea what clip Harter used.

I did say, "This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."

I intend to. I'm just not much concerned with your demands little man. I'm preparing a page that shows all of the frames from all perspectives. I am not even close to being done.

When I start answering your questions about your application you will no doubt try to steer the topic in another direction.

You are going to get answers to all of your question on my time schedule and mine alone. If you don't like it, tough.

If you don't like it then feel free to get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt and post any evidence you feel appropriate.

Now that I've proven your theory is crap the rest of this is just a bunch of petty stuff to appease a very childish man.

You'll just have to wait until Sunday. I have things I need to do right now. It might be hard for a four year old to wait that long. It will probably be impossible for you.

If your video proves your claims then why don't you simply post it? Too lazy or too afraid? Maybe too dishonest.

See you Sunday! :

Hi Blue Monk:

You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it." , is the same as "I "think" this clip was the one Harter saw or one similar to it". In both you made presumptions.But don't worry is the same shot.

You are still refusing to put my application in your "web page", WHY? Be honest ,show both faces of the coin.

What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?

You can see now Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that first in my application. Can be seen also in your link.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that first in my appication,.Can be seen also in your link if you study it "frame by frame" like Harter did.

I already told YOU and JREF that "my tape" is just referential, I already told that your second video is the same shot I send to the JREF.
Just study it like Harter did : "frame by frame" and don't forget to post a picture after "the paranoramal object enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. Don't forget to look at the right side of the hole in the wall of the north tower.
YES ,ONE MORE TIME; YOUR SECOND VIDEO IS THE SAME SHOT I SEND TO JREF AND THE SAME SHOT HARTER STUDIED IT "FRAME BY FRAME" ON A LINK OF INTERNET. NO excuses, Blue Monk.

What are you tryng to say by using this kind of terms?:"get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt ". Is that the way you show your frustration, like others few members?
Be smart enough, you can do it Blue Monk.

Thanks:

S&S

31st October 2002, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
I have been given the video in question in all of this. It's a four-second clip, running at normal speed, and as a video file it is 112kb in size. It runs in Windows Media Player, is capable of being run in stop-action frame by frame, and the image is expandable to fill the screen if you like (those experienced in the use of Windows Media Player know how to do these things easily).
I have been reassured by the individual who gave me the clip that it is: the video in question (apparently from a New York TV station's live feed of the situation at the WTC); 'referential', meaning it's meant to show me what time period to refer to on a video tape of the event; running at normal speed.

I have viewed this clip this evening numerous times, in both real-time and stop-action. It is EXTREMELY interesting.

I have given my word that I WILL NOT give my opinions of what is on the tape until I see a video tape of the event. This clip is meant for reference only, and it seems to be a bone of contention that a formal opinion of it was given by Andrew Harter based only on a very short Internet slow-motion digitized loop. Therefore, I make no statement at this time as to what is or is not on the clip, other than to say that it will be a very interesting view. Because of its format (real time, and a longer period of time than the little Internet loop), there is more information in the clip than possibly has seen before on this thread.

I am looking for someone who will host this clip for viewing and/or download for awhile (30 to 60 days, maybe? I realize that Internet space costs) on a volunteer basis. More than one volunteer? Mirror sites are always nice.

I will include the comments on how I viewed the video (some action on the screen not connected with the object in question is distracting, and can be blocked out by holding a piece of paper up to the screen), and some questions about what the viewer sees. While I am constrained by my own promises not to reveal my opinions (to prevent coloring others' opinions before viewing it), I am very interested in the opinions of others as to what they see here. Again, the video in this format has more information than possibly has been seen before here, and is guaranteed to be very interesting in terms of what has been posted here.

So -- any volunteers for this? My PM box has been cleared of electro-effluvia, and I'm ready. Serious responses only, please.

Hi Charlie of Dayton:

All I can say is this: YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.

Thanks,
S&S

Blue Monk

31st October 2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by S&S
You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it." , is the same as "I "think" this clip was the one Harter saw or one similar to it". In both you made presumptions.But don't worry is the same shot.

That is not what I said. It is not the same thing and you know it.

I have said quite plainly that I do not know what clip Harter used.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself and I offer your attempts to deliberately misrepresent what I have said as clear proof of your dishonestly.

Despite the lies of Carlos I have never said I thought that was the clip Harter used.

Read what he says and then read what I actually said and there should be not doubt as to Carlos’s honesty. If you say something he doesn’t like he will simply misrepresent it to suit his own needs.

But make no mistake about this FACT.

I do not know what clip Harter viewed and any attempts by Carlos to suggest that I have said otherwise is an out and out lie!

Originally posted by S&S
You are still refusing to put my application in your "web page", WHY? Be honest ,show both faces of the coin.

Because that web page is only part of my total work. That is the section that deals with your tape. I will post your application in the appropriate section that deals with your application.

If you don’t like the free service I am providing you by finding your material for you, taking the time to make it available and providing free server space then you are more than welcome to let someone else do it for you for free.

Or if you prefer you can PM me with where I should send the bill for my services.

Originally posted by S&S
What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?

I did not try to prove anything with your video. If you are not happy with me posting just say the word and I’ll take it down.

The video I did offer as proof was the one found by Purple Tentacle that proves to everyone that there is no large dark object passing through or anywhere near the buildings.

I don’t care if it is never proven what is on your video. It looks like a bird to me, that’s all. We could look at your video till hell freezes over and that is never going to change the fact that the other tapes clearly prove there is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

Originally posted by S&S
You can see now Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

No, it is new to us that haven’t seen it before.

Originally posted by S&S
That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that first in my application. Can be seen also in your link.

No one has ever said that you didn’t say that.

Originally posted by S&S
That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that first in my appication,.Can be seen also in your link if you study it "frame by frame" like Harter did.

I have studied it frame by frame and you will see the results Sunday.

Originally posted by S&S
I already told YOU and JREF that "my tape" is just referential, I already told that your second video is the same shot I send to the JREF.

Yes a referential tape that you claim shows a large object passing through the first tower. An examination of any other video clearly proves you were wrong.

Originally posted by S&S
Just study it like Harter did : "frame by frame" and don't forget to post a picture after "the paranoramal object enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. Don't forget to look at the right side of the hole in the wall of the north tower.
YES ,ONE MORE TIME; YOUR SECOND VIDEO IS THE SAME SHOT I SEND TO JREF AND THE SAME SHOT HARTER STUDIED IT "FRAME BY FRAME" ON A LINK OF INTERNET. NO excuses, Blue Monk.

You have confirmed that it is the same video that you sent in. Good.

You do not know if it is the same clip Harter viewed. You have said many times and I will cut and paste them here if necessary that you do not know what clip he viewed. You’ve ranted about it for weeks. That is one question you wanted me to answer so I’ll do it here.

Does anyone know what clip Harter viewed?
Answer: No.

So quit lying. We are only going to deal with facts here and when you say that is the same shot Harter studied ‘frame by frame’ you are lying. You have already told us many times that you do not know what clip he used.

Originally posted by S&S
What are you tryng to say by using this kind of terms?:"get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt ". Is that the way you show your frustration, like others few members?
Be smart enough, you can do it Blue Monk.

I’m trying to say that I don’t work for you. You do not pay me for my services and I do not do what you demand. Period.

It’s obvious to all that everything provided here as the way of evidence has been brought here by the skeptics who are ‘afraid’ to answer you.

Why don’t you take your tape and have the relevant parts digitized to a high quality standard. If you do that I will provide the server space FREE OF CHARGE.

Now leave me alone so I can finish answering your dumb questions by Sunday.

Are you afraid of what I’ll post Sunday?

31st October 2002, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

That is not what I said. It is not the same thing and you know it.

I have said quite plainly that I do not know what clip Harter used.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself and I offer your attempts to deliberately misrepresent what I have said as clear proof of your dishonestly.

Despite the lies of Carlos I have never said I thought that was the clip Harter used.

Read what he says and then read what I actually said and there should be not doubt as to Carlos’s honesty. If you say something he doesn’t like he will simply misrepresent it to suit his own needs.

Hi Blue Monk:

Originally posted by Blue Monk :

I did say, "This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by S&S
You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it." , is the same as "I "think" this clip was the one Harter saw or one similar to it". In both you made presumptions.But don't worry is the same shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blue Monk :

"I have said quite plainly that I do not know what clip Harter used."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I n this "Blue Monk link" http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html

is the following sentence:
"This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now , who is the deshonest Blue Monk?, you are the one who made assumptions.

Don't worry, I already told you many times , yes, that second video is similar at the "referential tape " I send to JREF.and the same shot Harter studied on the Internet "frame by frame".

Are you trying to make business with this "affair"?

Any costs? any price?

Thanks,

S&S

Blue Monk

31st October 2002, 05:05 PM

Yes, I said it 'could be' the clip Harter used.

That means I accept the possibility that it could have been this clip or one similar (you left that part out, how convinient)

I have said only one answer concerning this question.

I do not know what clip Harter used. That has been the absolute truth from the very begining.

This is a wonderful preview to my section concerning your application. I will show just as clearly as you have just done how you refuse to accept answers you don't like and then you lie about what was said.

I say, "This could be Harter's clip but I don't know."

You don't like that answer so you just make up your own.

You lied repeatedly throughout this thread saying Harter told you it was a bird.

Not true. He said is was 'probably a bird.' but again you don't like that answer so you make up your own.

And how anyone could be so stupid as to argue with the world's leading authority on what I believe, namely me, is beyond comprehension.

So I'll state this clearly.....

I do not know what clip Harter used. It could be the one I have shown but I don't know. I have no reason from any source to believe it is.

So no matter what you say that's the truth.

But be sure to show everyone exactly how you would rather misrepresent others than look at any evidence.

Instead of this petty crap why don't you explain to all of us why an object can't be seen passing through or even near either tower in any of the other videos?

Your sunk around here until you can answer that.

31st October 2002, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Yes, I said it 'could be' the clip Harter used.

That means I accept the possibility that it could have been this clip or one similar (you left that part out, how convinient)

I have said only one answer concerning this question.

You lied repeatedly throughout this thread saying Harter told you it was a bird.

Not true. He said is was 'probably a bird.' but again you don't like that answer so you make up your own.

And how anyone could be so stupid as to argue with the world's leading authority on what I believe, namely me, is beyond comprehension.

So I'll state this clearly.....

I do not know what clip Harter used. It could be the one I have shown but I don't know. I have no reason from any source to believe it is.

:

Blue Monk;
Just relax, you are confused:

Originally posted by Blue Monk [/i]
[B]Yes, I said it 'could be' the clip Harter used.That means I accept the possibility that it could have been this clip or one similar (you left that part out, how convinient)

------------------------------
Again Blue Monk, you read too fast, I never" left that part out":

Originally posted by S&S
You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."
I n this "Blue Monk link" http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html
is the following sentence:
"This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't need to lie, Blue Monk, just try to read carefully.
------------------------------------------------------

YOU BLUE MONK also said about me:"You lied repeatedly throughout this thread saying Harter told you it was a bird.
Not true. He said is was 'probably a bird.' but again you don't like that answer so you make up your own."

Again you are lying , I never said that , check it or read this:
Originally posted by S&S

"What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?"

See Blue Monk?I said :HARTER PINK RABBIT AND YOU are not sure that is a bird.

I will post here AGAIN Harter's answer to my application and my notarized application to JREF just to help members and YOU make a correct analisis of your "second video", the same shot I send to JREF ande the same shot Harter studied it "frame by frame" to give me his answer as a jref researcher..

Blue Monk, you remind me Harter's answer , full of lies OR MISTAKES.
Don't worry , I will asume that are mistakes you made because of your fast reading.

Just relax and make a good analisis of your second video.

Thanks,
S&S

Blue Monk

31st October 2002, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by S&S 09-03-2002 04:25 PM
I am sorry too that this was not cordialy explained to me during my initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF. But that is not my fault, I made a notharized application to the challenge and was answered in others terms, they analized the copy of the video that's available on the internet, frame by frame (?), and gave a reason of what it is : a bird.

Originally posted by S&S 09-15-2002 01:41 PM
No., it was a bird ;said Harter(JREF) in his answer.

Originally posted by S&S 10-18-2002 06:31 PM
He lied when he said I made two assumptions in my application( the first is a lie and the second never mentioned).

He said that was a bird.

---------------------------------

Originally posted by S&S
"What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?"

My new video was to show your side. I don't care if I ever prove anything with it. I couldn't care less if you go to the grave thinking you have a paranormal event.

What I did prove was that there was no large dark object passing through or anywhere near the towers and that your theory of what was on the tape was wrong.

Originally posted by S&S
See Blue Monk?I said :HARTER PINK RABBIT AND YOU are not sure that is a bird.

Sure, I can't speak for PinkRabbit whom you refused to believe unless it's handy, but I have no way of proving that is a bird. That is, however, what I honestly believe it to be.

It could be debris but that doesn't seem likely and I can't think of any better explanation. If you think I'm going to waste my time trying to prove to you that it is a bird then you're going to have a long wait. I don't give a damn what you believe.

But one thing is crystal clear and proven beyond doubt. It is not a large dark object passing through one of the towers.

You do realize that we are now alone here don't you? You have no claim and no one cares that you got your little feelings hurt.

I'm only going to answer your questions because I told you I would. I sure as hell don't care about them.

I'm not going to post here again until Sunday. Please take this opportunity to rant and rave at will and be sure make it clear how afraid I am to answer your petty little questions.

That will only last until Sunday.

Don't be surprised if you spend your time here alone until then.

31st October 2002, 07:34 PM

Just to remember :
Andrew Harters's answer to my application,- April 15 2002

Andrew enters
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.

You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower. This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.

You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.

Andrew Harter
Researcher
James Randi Educational Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
S&S

31st October 2002, 07:41 PM

Just to remember what I wrote in my notarized application, received on the JREF by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002.

This is the translated version done by Patricio Elicer.

Notarized Application

DENUNCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY OBSERVED BY THE SIGNER IN THE 9/11/2001 CRIMINAL ATTACK AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK CITY, USA.

In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.

We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it.

If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth..

CONCLUSION: THERE EXISTS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY THAT PASSED AT A SUPERSONIC SPEED THROUGH THE HOLE LEFT BY THE FIRST PLANE ON THE OVEN-LIKE FIRST TOWER, AND EASILIY GOT OUT THE OTHER SIDE IN A RAPID DESCENDING TRAJECTORY, WITHOUT ENOUGH ROOM TO MAKE A TURN TO AVOID A COLLISION WITH THE GROUND.

Signed: Carlos Swett Salas
--------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
S&S

PinkRabbit

31st October 2002, 07:46 PM

Do you have to believe me?

No.

Do I have any reason to lie?

Also no.

You don't believe me. That's fine. Honestly, Carlos, I could not possibly care less. I've been bored because I've had a sinus infection and wasn't taking any work for a week while getting better. You are, in short, mindless entertainment, that's all. By the way, my guess is that you'd be holding me up as a font of wisdom and honor if I'd just agreed with you. *snort*

*shrug* I wanted a look at the tape because I was curious, not to prove or disprove anything to anyone. I took a look and reported what I saw. This wasn't a news story, so it would be unethical of me to involve a professional station. Had they decided to cover it in some way, that would be a different matter, but they didn't. As for my personal information ... believe it or not, as a single woman, living alone, I'm not in the habit of giving out personal information to strange men who see paranormal flying objects. Just one of my little quirks.

Now let's ask the same questions of you:

Do I have to believe you?

Also no.

Do you have any reason to lie?

Given that you're trying to get someone to hand you a check for one million dollars, I'd say you've got about one million reasons.

And now, Carlos, I bid you adieu. Blue Monk may continue to play, but since the Amoxycillin is doing its job and I'm feeling much better, I've got muuuuuccccchhhhhhh better things to do than try to decipher your truly bizarre world view. :D

"Say goodnight, Gracie."
"Goodnight Gracie."
Barb

31st October 2002, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Do you have to believe me?

No.

Do I have any reason to lie?

Also no.

You don't believe me. That's fine. Honestly, Carlos, I could not possibly care less. I've been bored because I've had a sinus infection and wasn't taking any work for a week while getting better.
And now, Carlos, I bid you adieu. Blue Monk may continue to play, but since the Amoxycillin is doing its job and I'm feeling much better, I've got muuuuuccccchhhhhhh better things to do than try to decipher your truly bizarre world view. :D

"Say goodnight, Gracie."
"Goodnight Gracie."
Barb

Pink Rabbit:

I hope and wish you will get better and better of your infection.
Remember I have 4 teenagers children, and is hard those illness.
Sincerely PR I hope medicine or whatever make you feel better soon.

I never said I don't beleive you, I said "should I beleive you?" , only because I don¡t know nothing of the details I asked you, about location, tv station, etc.

Is nice that people have now interest in see the controversial image.

Get better.

Thanks,
S&S

Wyrd1

1st November 2002, 03:53 PM

While I can offer no explanation of why the image cannot be seen against the tower, I can point out the object flaps it's wings at the end of the sequence. Hat shaped paranormal objects rarely flap their wings.

I did decode the .gif file into it's constituent images using Paintshop pro Animation Studio but the images were distorted and didn't resolve much.

I think higher resolution images would reveal that the bird it'self is blending with the smoke in the background as they are the same apparent color.

1st November 2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Wyrd1
While I can offer no explanation of why the image cannot be seen against the tower, I can point out the object flaps it's wings at the end of the sequence. Hat shaped paranormal objects rarely flap their wings.

I did decode the .gif file into it's constituent images using Paintshop pro Animation Studio but the images were distorted and didn't resolve much.

I think higher resolution images would reveal that the bird it'self is blending with the smoke in the background as they are the same apparent color.

Originally posted by Wyrd1
While I can offer no explanation of why the image cannot be seen against the tower, I can point out the object flaps it's wings at the end of the sequence. Hat shaped paranormal objects rarely flap their wings. (???????????????)
---------------------------------
--------------------------------

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
???????????????????????????????????????????

Thanks,

S&S

1st November 2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit

Go away.

Even if your analysis of visual aspects of the tape were 100% correct, it would prove nothing, except, at most, that something entered and exited the building on a specific trajectory.

Even that is not necessarily paranormal.

Whether Harter's technique was good or bad doesn't change that.

Barb

EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION??????????

1st November 2002, 05:57 PM

Blue Monk:
Does anyone know what clip Harter viewed?
Answer: No.

*************************************************
Don`t worry about Harter`s clip.
When i was member of skeptics forum, i send a lot of invitations using the email of the community to share with us the link of the internet video that he used. He never answered.
I wrote them every thursday to radio@randi.org.

But, you can ask him or his boss Randi about it.

compjan

1st November 2002, 06:49 PM

Carlos, since you didn't reply to my earlier points I'm giving you a second chance to face hard reality. Don't worry, it gets easier with practice.

From my previous posting:

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not convince anyone here.

2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".

Sorry, but that's reality as I see it. And I'm certain that all but a handful of this thread's readers will agree with me. These are harsh blows to your worldview and your aspirations, but you need to face them in order to improve. Kepler did it with his belief in divine circular planetary orbits, you can too.

If you wish to continue posting on this thread, be my guest. Just understand that you are going nowhere.

Take care, and best wishes in your next adventure.

CompJan

1st November 2002, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by compjan
The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

CompJan
[/i]

I like your joke.......jajajjajjajajjajjajajja

1st November 2002, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by compjan
Carlos, since you didn't reply to my earlier points I'm giving you a second chance to face hard reality. Don't worry, it gets easier with practice.

From my previous posting:

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not convince anyone here.

2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".

Sorry, but that's reality as I see it. And I'm certain that all but a handful of this thread's readers will agree with me. These are harsh blows to your worldview and your aspirations, but you need to face them in order to improve. Kepler did it with his belief in divine circular planetary orbits, you can too.

If you wish to continue posting on this thread, be my guest. Just understand that you are going nowhere.

Take care, and best wishes in your next adventure.

CompJan

Hi Compjan:

You can post that to Charlie in Dayton thread .

Don't worry about the money, be worry to make a good analisis, not like Harter did it.

Thanks,
S&S

compjan

1st November 2002, 08:02 PM

Me:

The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

Originally posted by latinijral

I like your joke.......jajajjajjajajjajjajajja

It wasn't a joke. Do you really think the JREF is paying attention to your claim? Once Harter rejected the claim I'm sure that whas the last time they considered it.

What do you think the JREF is doing about your claim lately? Are they worrying daily about Carlos's efforts to get the truth out? Are they conspiring to cover up the video? What do you think they are doing?

CompJan

compjan

1st November 2002, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Compjan:

You can post that to Charlie in Dayton thread .

Don't worry about the money, be worry to make a good analisis, not like Harter did it.

Thanks,
S&S

I'd rather hear your response. I never mentioned the money or the analysis, just your inability to deal with the hard reality of your situation. Why do you dodge the questions? You accuse others on this forum of being afraid to answer questions. Are your afraid?

CompJan

1st November 2002, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by compjan

I'd rather hear your response. I never mentioned the money or the analysis, just your inability to deal with the hard reality of your situation. Why do you dodge the questions? You accuse others on this forum of being afraid to answer questions. Are your afraid?

CompJan

Are you afraid to analize the tape?

You remind me Randi.

Thanks,
S&S

compjan

1st November 2002, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Are you afraid to analize the tape?

You remind me Randi.

Thanks,
S&S

I don't care about the tape. It's been analyzed by others in great detail. No one but you has seen anything interesting.

Since you appear to obsessed with this issue, I'll leave you to it. You don't want to respond to my points about your refusal to face reality. I predict you will spend the rest of your life posting on internet groups about your "paranormal hat" and only a few fanatics will listen to you. In my crystal ball I see you ranting and raving about Randi's supposed "silence" well into the 21st century. I hope you enjoy yourself, other wise your efforts will be wasted.

Now, to show you what a nice guy I am I'll give you a little help with your English. When you wrote "Are you afraid to analize the tape? You remind me Randi.", you should write "Are you afraid to analyze the tape? You remind me of Randi."

CompJan

Fixed typo

1st November 2002, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by compjan

I don't care about the tape. It's been analyzed by others in great detail. No one but you has seen anything interesting.

Since you appear to obsessed with this issue, I'll leave you to it. You don't want to respond to my points about your refusal to face reality. I predict you will spend the rest of your life posting on internet groups about your "paranormal hat" and only a few fanatics will listen to you. In my crystal ball I see you ranting and raving about Randi's supposed "silence" well into the 21st century. I hope you enjoy yourself, other wise your efforts will be wasted.

Now, to show you what a nice guy I am I'll give you a little help with your English. When you wrote "Are you afraid to analize the tape? You remind me Randi.", you should write "Are you afraid to analyze the tape? You remind me of Randi."

CompJan

Fixed typo

Hi Compjan:

Thanks for the corrections, but remember english is not my first language, and I don't use a virtual translator.
Maybe Harter did it with my application (was in spanish) so that's the reason of his lies or better I say "his mistakes".

So compjan:Are you afraid to anayze the tape?
You remind me of Randi.

Thanks again.

Thanks,
S&S

Ceinwyn

2nd November 2002, 12:22 AM

Are you afraid to anayze the tape?
You remind me of Randi.

Thanks for the corrections, but remember english is not my first language.

You accuse others on this forum of being afraid to answer questions. Are your afraid?

I'd rather hear your response. I never mentioned the money or the analysis, just your inability to deal with the hard reality of your situation. Why do you dodge the questions?

How we can trust you?,
Where is your location?,

Remember I said in my notarized application to JREF this:
"THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed.

A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL

A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL

A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL

But when you still "it dissapears" (??????)

I did not send to JREF.
But yes, I also saw it, and I saw birds flying : they are free to fly.

Now that I see there are many fans or "believers" of the "bird" assumption, let me remember what you said in that page:
" I agree with Harter that the object is probably a bird. "

This is a wonderful preview to my section concerning your application. I will show just as clearly as you have just done how you refuse to accept answers you don't like and then you lie about what was said.

A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL

A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL

A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL.

I hope and wish you will get better and better of your infection.
Remember I have 4 teenagers children, and is hard those illness.
Sincerely PR I hope medicine or whatever make you feel better soon.

Since you appear to obsessed with this issue, I'll leave you to it.

Purple Tentacle

2nd November 2002, 12:59 AM

this case is closed

with out a doubt this object is an out of focus bird, no question about it.

just a side thought - if an object tried to fly through the WTC when carlos claims it did, it would have a VERY tough time getting through ! imagine all the elevators and rubble , not to mention a whole plane in there aswell, i know for a fact that NOTHING could find its way through there!

Patricio Elicer

2nd November 2002, 07:35 AM

I performed a simple experiment. I asked my brother to watch the clip posted by Blue Monk, and then to describe what he saw.

It was a totally unbiased experiment, he had no idea of the whole matter of this thread (he never reads the forums) and the only thing I told him in advance is that it was a sequence of the WTC attacks.

His answer: Well, nothing especial, except for a bird passing in front of the camera

We discussed the issue afterwards, and he pointed out that the bird could also be seen against the smoke in the upper left part of the little screen, a fact that I hadn't realized myself.

2nd November 2002, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I performed a simple experiment. I asked my brother to watch the clip posted by Blue Monk, and then to describe what he saw.

It was a totally unbiased experiment, he had no idea of the whole matter of this thread (he never reads the forums) and the only thing I told him in advance is that it was a sequence of the WTC attacks.

His answer: Well, nothing especial, except for a bird passing in front of the camera

We discussed the issue afterwards, and he pointed out that the bird could also be seen against the smoke in the upper left part of the little screen, a fact that I hadn't realized myself.

Hola Patricio:

Tu hermano ha descubierto el "agua tibia", y tu no sabes entender lo que escribes y lees.Tienes un tremendo problema.

When you said:"he pointed out that the bird could also be seen against the smoke in the upper left part of the little screen, a fact that I hadn't realized myself." , is because you are not focus in what I said in my application, I will remember you that part again and again:

Part of Carlos Swett notarized application(translated by Patricio Elicer):
"..It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode."

So, Patricio, nothing new in "YOUR" "main discovery", I already told that in my application.
Is your own fault that you did not understand your own translation, another mistake.

Remember also what YOU also said after you looked "Blue Monks' video" : "If you look carefully to the animation, you'll see that the bird is not continuously seen along its trajectory. I guess it has something to do with the frame rate or the shutter speed of the camera, but the fact is that there are gaps in the movie where the bird is not visible".

Yes Patricio,specially after "your paranormal bird "In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”.(is also in your translated version of my notarized application to JREF)

Say hello to your brother, and remember him also that Harter, Pink Rabbit and Blue Monk are not sure that is a "bird".

Now try to see the video again. And remember to read carefully, perhaps that why Andrew Harter also made "mistakes" in his answer to my application.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Espero que entiendas el español, renegado de nuestro idioma, perro del inglës.
Y recuerda también que yo use una cinta de 3/4 de los propios canales de televisión y sus propios equipos profesionales.Con esa tipo de cinta y equipos no se producen esos saltos.
Chao perdedor, ahora entiendo por qué no pusiste mi aplicación desde el comienzo, perro.

2nd November 2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by CurtC at the Swett Video Survey

Anyway, I had put the following picture together from four consecutive frames, showing why we don't ever see the bird in front of the bright wall, but Carlos chose to ignore it.

Carlos - when the bird was in front of the bright part of the tower, the video camera was between frames. Can you understand this? Also, the bird did not go through the smoke like you keep saying, it went between the smoke and the camera, but much much closer to the camera. :

Hi CurtC

Yes I understand that you can not ever see "your bird" in FRONT OF THE WALLS, only entering in the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, you posred that picture at http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=220447#post220447

Well is just Internet (like Harter did) but also in 3/4 tapes (best resolution)and with proffessional equipments you will never see it, so don't worry.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. I guess you are the "technical" in video?

rwald

2nd November 2002, 11:26 AM

Here's a zoomed in image I made of when the bird clearly passes in front of the second tower. The first and third frames show the tower without the bird in it; the second frame shows the bird in front of the tower. The blob of smoke in the second frame is clearly darker than in the first or third frames; that darkenss is the bird. If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. Of course, that's going to be the case.

rwald

2nd November 2002, 11:37 AM

A reference image, to show where the previous GIF came from. Note that this image corresponds to the second frame in the previous GIF, so that's why you can't see the bird. It's the dark spot in the middle of the black rectangle.

2nd November 2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Here's a zoomed in image I made of when the bird clearly passes in front of the second tower. The first and third frames show the tower without the bird in it; the second frame shows the bird in front of the tower. The blob of smoke in the second frame is clearly darker than in the first or third frames; that darkenss is the bird. If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. Of course, that's going to be the case.

Hi Rwald:

Your image is "so clear"(is that the correct word?).

But let me remind you something: I already said in my notarized application that "the paranoramal activity" or "bird"(in your case)entered in the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it.

So Rwald, I already knew all the trajectory of "the object" , yes it entered in the hole, yes "your bird" is there, but that is not new in this case, but good effort anyway.

I also said:
Part of Carlos Swett notarized application(translated by Patricio Elicer):
"..It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode."

Rwald, try to post an image of "your bird" just a frame after the one you did, so it can be seen against the wall, at the right side of the hole.

I will help you with one picture posted by curtc, he also can not see "the object " IN FRONT OF THE bright wall of theTOWER"(not the hole, rwald, not the hole)
Thanks,
S&S

Picture posted by Curt C in another thread(swett video survey)

rwald

2nd November 2002, 02:58 PM

Carlos, if the object were behind the smoke cloud (as you claim), you couldn't see it at all. It would be completely obscured. However, if it is in front of the smoke cloud (as the rest of us claim), you would be able to see it. I have shown that the object can be seen in front of the smoke cloud. Therefore, the object never passed through the building, and was in front of the building.

rwald

2nd November 2002, 03:18 PM

Here is the shot where it is just the the right of the towers, with the shot immmidiatly following it. One of your main claims is that the object isn't seen against the wall of the tower in the first of these shots. This GIF shows the reason: the object isn't long enough to be seen in front of the tower. The part that is to the right of the tower is all there is of the object. The second shot shows exactly how long the object is, and it's clear that you shouldn't see the object in front of the tower in the first shot, because in that shot the object had already completely passed the tower.

hal bidlack

2nd November 2002, 03:34 PM

well, given that Carlos is unable to understand the concept "in advance" (perhaps a kind and better educated person than me could translate those two words into Spanish?), we are unlikely to make any progress with the pictures.

Even if he was 100%, completely, spot on, correct about a flying paranormal hat, the simple fact that he did not set up a contact with the JREF before the event means it just doesn't matter.

Why do I think Carlos will respond by claiming I didn't answer his questions, and therefore nothing else matters? :rolleyes:

I did just get back from a couple days at the JREF, and you will be pleased to know that Mr R enjoyed being told that I had been declared "Randi's pope" by Carlos. He promptly told a pope joke. I demanded my million bucks, but settled for being driven around in Sophia instead.

Blue Monk

2nd November 2002, 03:36 PM

I know I wasn't going to respond until Sunday but I couldn't help asking this quick question.

Am I understanding you correctly Carlos? Are you agreeing that the image is in each frame and in full view the entire time?

If so, what on earth makes you think it passed through the tower?

I hope you will answer this as I think it might clear up some confustion.

Blue Monk

2nd November 2002, 03:46 PM

rwald,

One point that has always been confused is that Carlos has said all along that the image could be seen in front of the tower on that shot.

It seems the critical shot in question is the one preceding it when it is in the smoke.

To me that it can be seen is proof that it is in front of the tower.

Carlos

I don't want to put words in your mouth Carlos so I'm only asking to try and make things clearer.

Are you saying that you see the object in the previous shot in the smoke and this is when you believe the object passing through the building?

And if so why?

2nd November 2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I know I wasn't going to respond until Sunday but I couldn't help asking this quick question.

Am I understanding you correctly Carlos? Are you agreeing that the image is in each frame and in full view the entire time?

If so, what on earth makes you think it passed through the tower?

I hope you will answer this as I think it might clear up some confustion.

Hi Blue Monk:

yes, Blue Monk, yes, Remember you are using the same poor method that Harter used to answer my application.

I used another method, just read again my application.
If you analyze the image with a 3/4 tape and with proffessional equipments, like I did, you will find a better resolution and more frames per second , the image will be constant and continue in the "frame by frame" ,with no jumps.

But don't worry Blue Monk, even if you do that analysis you will find that you will never see "the object" at the right side of the hole in the wall of the north tower. That confirms that the "object " entered the hole . Then you can do an analysis of the form and you will find that is the same that Latinijral posted here.

Take your time Blue Monk, don't worry about Sunday as you said before.
I am glad you did not used "bad" words in your last replies.

2nd November 2002, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by bidlack
well, given that Carlos is unable to understand the concept "in advance" (perhaps a kind and better educated person than me could translate those two words into Spanish?), we are unlikely to make any progress with the pictures.

Even if he was 100%, completely, spot on, correct about a flying paranormal hat, the simple fact that he did not set up a contact with the JREF before the event means it just doesn't matter.

Why do I think Carlos will respond by claiming I didn't answer his questions, and therefore nothing else matters? :rolleyes:

I did just get back from a couple days at the JREF, and you will be pleased to know that Mr R enjoyed being told that I had been declared "Randi's pope" by Carlos. He promptly told a pope joke. I demanded my million bucks, but settled for being driven around in Sophia instead.

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack (conferencist at the "amazing meeting") :

Are you still worried about the rules?

You posted this :"Even if he was 100%, completely, spot on, correct about a flying paranormal hat, the simple fact that he did not set up a contact with the JREF before the event means it just doesn't matter" Hal Bidlack

Remember Bidlack, I have Harter's answer to my notarized application, and was made with the aprooval of Randi.

So now you are "thinking" that what I claimed is true.?

What kind of Skeptic are you?

So you talked to Randi about your denomination as "randi's pope".
I am glad he laughed, I hope you did too.

But Bidlack , what did he told you about what he saw in the video they studied on internet?

Thanks,
S&S

Baker

2nd November 2002, 05:52 PM

Acutely it does show up on the right tower you can track it from the left of the screen.
Starting in the smoke until it go’s off the screen just viewing the video over and over again it becomes clear it’s that it’s much closer to the screen.

All have to go with the bird theory.
If you look at the video closely you can see it on the right tower it will slightly darken in the area marked.

http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet2.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet3.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet4.gif

Purple Tentacle

2nd November 2002, 06:45 PM

you avoid the real proof carlos.

it IS a bird carlos, nice effort though, ha ha

ALL the NEWBIES download this 2mb MPG, (rightclick and choose "save-as")

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

if you cannot get the video to play, goto http://www.divx.com/ and download the latest Divx player, this WILL solve the problem.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Download it, See the birds fly and watch as Carloss has NO explanation for this video. !

THIS CASE IS CLOSED !!!

3rd November 2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack (conferencist at the "amazing meeting") :

Are you still worried about the rules?

You posted this :"Even if he was 100%, completely, spot on, correct about a flying paranormal hat, the simple fact that he did not set up a contact with the JREF before the event means it just doesn't matter" Hal Bidlack

Remember Bidlack, I have Harter's answer to my notarized application, and was made with the aprooval of Randi.

So now you are "thinking" that what I claimed is true.?

What kind of Skeptic are you?

So you talked to Randi about your denomination as "randi's pope".
I am glad he laughed, I hope you did too.

But Bidlack , what did he told you about what he saw in the video they studied on internet?

Thanks,
S&S

TO BID LACK AND MR. R:

Did you talk about this "bird":

3rd November 2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Baker
Acutely it does show up on the right tower you can track it from the left of the screen.
Starting in the smoke until it go’s off the screen just viewing the video over and over again it becomes clear it’s that it’s much closer to the screen.

All have to go with the bird theory.
If you look at the video closely you can see it on the right tower it will slightly darken in the area marked.

http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet2.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet3.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet4.gif

Hi Baker:

Nice to meet you .
Maybe you did not read my notarized application to the challenge of JREF. The translated version by Patricio Elicer is originally posted by him in the page 2 of this thread.
I already said the position of "the object" all across of its trajectory.Yes it cme from the left of the screen, but you better read my application. I am posting just a part of it now:

"..It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode."

I wrote this part also:

"In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower"

----------------------------------------------

So Baker I already told the position of "the object", maybe if you post a picture ,after you study "frame by frame" the shot, of "the bird or whatever" at the right side of the hole in the wall of the tower, but remember at the RIGHT SIDE of the hole, your theory will have some basis. But please try not to do a photomontage like some members did before.I am sure you are honest enough.

In my application I also explained the method I did to be sure of my claim.
Andrew Harter analized an still unknown video of internet .

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

3rd November 2002, 03:04 PM

Carlos, I've explained this before, but I'll vainly try again. In the picture where the object is just to the right of the tower, the part of the object we can see (the part to the right of the tower) is 11 pixels long. If, as you say, the rest of the object is hidden inside the building, then the whole object should be more than 11 pixels long, right? However, when you measure the object in the next frame (where it's sitting in the middle of blue sky, not blocked by anything), it's still 11 pixels long. So, the part to the right of the tower in the first shot is not "just the right-most half of the object;" it is the whole object. The entire object is visible in that shot. If you would like, I'll repost the GIF image I compiled demonstrating this fact.

3rd November 2002, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, I've explained this before, but I'll vainly try again. In the picture where the object is just to the right of the tower, the part of the object we can see (the part to the right of the tower) is 11 pixels long. If, as you say, the rest of the object is hidden inside the building, then the whole object should be more than 11 pixels long, right? However, when you measure the object in the next frame (where it's sitting in the middle of blue sky, not blocked by anything), it's still 11 pixels long. So, the part to the right of the tower in the first shot is not "just the right-most half of the object;" it is the whole object. The entire object is visible in that shot. If you would like, I'll repost the image GIF I compiled demonstrating this fact.

Rwald:

I appreciate your efforts. But remember Rwald you are just looking an internet video like Harter did it to answer my application.

The videos at 3/4 tapes have more frames per second and with the appropiate equipments you can control the ·frame by frame" analysis.You will see no "pixels" that long, or gaps or jumps..Yes I did those "studies", ask Randi, he knows I did it.

Anyway you are honest enough, you did your best effort but have not prove nothing, in your pictures "the object" entered the hole and gets out from the other side of the hole of the tower as I said in my application. Thanks for that.

Thanks,

S&S

Peter S.

3rd November 2002, 08:00 PM

I had avoided posting to this thread; really what's the point? There isn't anything I could say that hasn't been said before by those far more eloquent than I.

A while ago I posted this on a Bethke thread:

BTW Paul, as long as Carlos Swett is posting we already quota of fruitcakes so I'm afraid you'll have to leave.

Apparently little Carlos likes to put his name into the search engine sometimes just to make sure he isn't missing anything. I got the following PM:

YES; I AM SWETT...(Snip)
Hi peter:

I am Carlos Swett, and I found this Quote that belongs to you, where you mentioned my name. I Don't like people that are not frontal, any insult you want to make to me, please do it at the thread with my name on it.

Since I was talking to Bethke there wouldn't have been any point to that, would there, pinhead?

I am trying to defend my honeour there, so please next time try not to be so coward or at least put some reasonable arguments on it.

"Defending your honor" appears to be indistinguishable from "Ranting like a deranged lunatic".

I know you were having an "special fight " with that "paul" but , I am Carlos Swett and I wish only some respect from you as I must have the same to you.

If you want some respect from me you might try listening to what people are saying to you...You might also try stopping the deranged ranting, nutball?!

JREF was already blinded by my notarized application, I did the challenge, and they are still on silence.
See now the difference?

No, I don't see the difference because I am not a mentally unbalanced moron like you.

I don't want anybody to "beleive me" , that is not my case, I just wanted a fair and proffessional analysis.

Sorry for my english, we can still be friends.

Thanks,

Carlos Swett (S&S)

Well, I can give you my amateur analysis: You are a very sad little man who is quite insane and very stupid.

No, I don't think we can be friends. I like my friends to have all their marbles, you empty headed jackass.

subgenius

3rd November 2002, 08:03 PM

CurtC

3rd November 2002, 08:10 PM

I actually believe that we're starting to make some progress here, after 20 pages. It gets down to this:

We see pictures of something on the left side of the bright part of the wall, then on the right side. Most of us assume that it's because the video camera was between frames. Carlos says that our Internet video does not have as many frames as the 3/4 inch tape, and infers that the frame between these two also will not show a bird in front of the wall.

I don't believe this - I think we're seeing all the frames already. Carlos, all you have to do to make your point is to get that tape, and digitize it in a way that it preserves all the frames, and present it here. I'm sorry, I'm not in the Inner Circle, and I don't have access to that tape already. Carlie in Dayton - do you have it?

By the way, Carlos, this is just answering the question about what the object is. Even if you were to prove us wrong, and show the object continuously moving except for when it should be in front of that wall, you still don't have a valid claim to the million dollars. You understand this, right?

Patricio Elicer

3rd November 2002, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
We see pictures of something on the left side of the bright part of the wall, then on the right side. Most of us assume that it's because the video camera was between frames. Carlos says that our Internet video does not have as many frames as the 3/4 inch tape, and infers that the frame between these two also will not show a bird in front of the wall.All this technical stuff does not matter in my opinion, since the "paranormal activity" is clearly seen flapping its wings in the last part of the clip

Wyrd1

3rd November 2002, 08:21 PM

I think Carlos' whole case comes down to why the object isn't visible in the one frame. There are serious problems with this thing passing through the holes not the least of which has been brought up already, why didn't it strike any of the rubble inside. Other questions arise such as hy can't the object ever be seen half in and half out of the holes? Why doesn't the smoke react in any way with the object? What kind of object can ignore the laws of physics?

The trajectory is all wrong in any event. For the object to have actually entered one hole and exited the other it would have had to make two very sharp turns at high speed in the dark and smoke filled tower. It's trajectory should have been different afterwards but it didn't change at all.

Since most of us don't have access to high grade professional equipment perhaps Carlos, who seems to be in a mood to answer questions these days, might explain for us?

Of course, a bird flying by out of focus only raises the one question. It answers all the others. But I'm just a stupids juvenile liar of the JR Clown academy so what do I know?

Tesserat

3rd November 2002, 09:37 PM

Carlos, do you know what kind of camera the original footage was shot on? You've mentioned a few times that you saw the tape on 3/4, which is used for editing, but most news footage is shot on Betacam, which is a very good 1/2 inch video broadcast quality format.

Who were the people who shot the footage working for?

The frame rate of most video cameras is 29.97 fps. (actually it's 29.97 half frames per second, which is interwoven to the final frame rate) Most Web formats are capable of duplicating this frame speed.

What is the frame speed of the video that you saw? (how many frames per second)

If you took notes when you were analysing the tape, it should be easy to figure out. Just count how many frames went by when the object pased through the building.

I haven't found the answers to any of these questions, and I thought you might be able to help.

thanks

Purple Tentacle

4th November 2002, 12:41 AM

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Download it, See the birds fly and watch as Carloss has NO explanation for this video. !

THIS CASE IS CLOSED !!!

subgenius

4th November 2002, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Download it, See the birds fly and watch as Carloss has NO explanation for this video. !

THIS CASE IS CLOSED !!!
Wanna bet it makes no difference to him?
I'll bet a nickel.

subgenius

4th November 2002, 01:04 AM

You're trying to reason with the insane (true believer).

Blue Monk

4th November 2002, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
You're trying to reason with the insane (true believer).

Oh I hold no hope of convincing Carlos of anything. I don't think anyone expects that.

Blue Monk

4th November 2002, 02:13 AM

<CENTER><H1>Carlos' Theory is False</H1></CENTER>
<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/abc7/image0088.jpg

Clip from Carlos' video capturing what is probably a bird flying in front of the camera.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/cnn/image0079.jpg

Clip from CNN showing the exact area in question and proving without a doubt that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either building.

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html). From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

The CNN clip proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</CENTER>

<hr>

Now that I'm sure no one will mistake any of this as some sort of debate over the validity of Carlos' tape, I've agreed to answer Carlos' questions.

This is the first question I'm going to answer.

question: Is a fact that he (Harter) used the most stupid method to analize the tape? - Carlos

answer: He did exactly what he should have.

Before devoting any time or resources to investigating a paranormal claim it makes common sense to perform any simple tests one might have available to consider whether or not it is worth pursuing. While I may not know exactly what method Harter used I do know for a fact from my own experiments that it is very easy to disprove your theory.

The clip I have seen is all that I would need to throw your tape in the trash.

One thing I know for a fact.

No matter how Harter came to his conclusion it is clear from the CNN tape that he was correct, there is no dark large object passing through or near the towers.

More answers concerning the method Harter used are here. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html) Proof Carlos' claim is false is here. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

More answers are on their way.

4th November 2002, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
<CENTER><H1>Carlos' Theory is False</H1></CENTER>
<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/abc7/image0088.jpg

Clip from Carlos' video capturing what is probably a bird flying in front of the camera.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/cnn/image0079.jpg

Clip from CNN showing the exact area in question and proving without a doubt that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either building.

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html). From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

The CNN clip proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</CENTER>

<hr>

Now that I'm sure no one will mistake any of this as some sort of debate over the validity of Carlos' tape, I've agreed to answer Carlos' questions.

This is the first question I'm going to answer.

question: Is a fact that he (Harter) used the most stupid method to analize the tape? - Carlos

answer: He did exactly what he should have.

Before devoting any time or resources to investigating a paranormal claim it makes common sense to perform any simple tests one might have available to consider whether or not it is worth pursuing. While I may not know exactly what method Harter used I do know for a fact from my own experiments that it is very easy to disprove your theory.

The clip I have seen is all that I would need to throw your tape in the trash.

One thing I know for a fact.

No matter how Harter came to his conclusion it is clear from the CNN tape that he was correct, there is no dark large object passing through or near the towers.

More answers concerning the method Harter used are here. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html) Proof Carlos' claim is false is here. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

More answers are on their way.

Hi Blue Monk:

I know that you were forced by yourself to give an answer on Sunday 3 , November. about the shot I send to JREF with my notarized application.
What did you prove: nothing, you even did not analyzed the video that is in my claim. Remember Harter studied "frame by frame " the video on Internet of the same shot I explained in my application. He did it and also answered me some lies or "mistakes".

But you don't want to analyze that shot.Want to know why? Just because you know that is true what I am claiming. You are just another loser. You are tryng to confuse the members with another shot of a "similar angle". I ask you then : Where is the "same probably bird in the same trajectory? It dissapear that specific "bird "and why?

You have nothing, but I thank you anyway, you helped me, with your investigation to find on internet the complete sequence of the same shot I send to the JREF, to prove ALL YOU MEMBERS that YOU or anybody can not be able to post a picture of "the bird" after it entered in the hole ,at the right side of the north tower in front of the wall.
You can not even post a picture of "the bird " in front of the other tower.
So how can you prove that "the bird" is in FRONT OF THE TOWERS (plural) like Harter said?
You just can not do it, loser.
In the pictures YOU posted before (also Rwald , BAKER and others) the only thing you proved is that "the paranormal activity" gets into the hole of the north tower and then is getting out from the other side of the hole giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower".YES you helped me with your own analysis.

You are just full of assumptions in your answers Blue Monk:

You (Blue Monk)said here:"While I may not know exactly what method Harter used I do know for a fact from my own experiments that it is very easy to disprove your theory."

You already knew what method used Harter, is even in the first quote of this thread by Patricio Elicer, is even in my signature what others members "think" about that method.

But I will refresh your "poor memory " again.
ANDREW HARTER said in his answer to my application about the shot you are refused to analyze:"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. " The capitals are from Harter.

When HARTER said "this video " is because I send him a referential tape.
Read again HARTER's first paragraph:"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others." HUH????( maybe Bidlack knows)

You are just lying too, sorry maybe I should say "making mistakes".

Your case is closed Blue Monk.
Is not a theory , is my conclution based in my notarized appplication to the JREF and the answer full of "lies or mistakes" they gave , based in the poor method they used .

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Did you "studied" the form of "your probably bird"? Ask Latinijral for help. Or look at Pyrro logo.

Nothing yet with my application in "your link"? Huh?

4th November 2002, 02:29 PM

What kind of object can ignore the laws of physics?

This "smart" question is the reason of some "traumas " here at this thread.

There are also some members that refuse to write here but "always" read this thread.

There are some others members that are COWARDS and prefer to just insult me in another thread,not here, just because they don't have the arguments to beat what I claimed in my notarized application to th JREF. This kind of COWARDS I frontally replied them by private or in the same thread they named and insulted me.

I prefer the frontals , here at the thread I have received insults , insulting pictures , polls, etc. But they are frontal, that's better.

There are also a FEW members that are sure that "my case" is enigmatic, or that Randi or Harter answer and acctitude is not the correct. Yes, I receive also that kind of private messages or e-mails.

I am complete sure that the majority of the members are "Randi's beleivers" or fans, so is difficult to them to say something against their "amazing idol".

I want to refer now about this question:"What kind of object can ignore the laws of physics?

Should we ask that question to Randi and the JREF?
What is the "paranormal challenge" reason to exist?
It is suppose that paranoramal objects ignore the laws of the physics?
What is "paranormal" suppose to be?
Is this challenge only a bluff?

Thanks,

S&S

rwald

4th November 2002, 02:33 PM

So, your answer to the question "what kind of object can ignore the laws of physics?" is "a paranormal object"? Why don't you tell us what kind of object it is? It isn't enough to just say, "It's paranormal," and nothing more. You yell at us when we say "It's probably a bird," complaining, "You're in doubt? You're not sure it's a bird? But Harter said it was a bird!" etc. But at least we're guessing that it's a bird. You won't even say, "It's probably an alien spaceship," or "It's probably a ghostly presence." You must tell us what you think it is, if you want to tell us what laws of physics it can ignore.

4th November 2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by rwald
So, your answer to the question "what kind of object can ignore the laws of physics?" is "a paranormal object"? Why don't you tell us what kind of object it is? It isn't enough to just say, "It's paranormal," and nothing more. You yell at us when we say "It's probably a bird," complaining, "You're in doubt? You're not sure it's a bird? But Harter said it was a bird!" etc. But at least we're guessing that it's a bird. You won't even say, "It's probably an alien spaceship," or "It's probably a ghostly presence." You must tell us what you think it is, if you want to tell us what laws of physics it can ignore.

Hi Rwald:

You seem to be "opening your mind" about this particular case.

You are curious , that is good.

What kind of paranormal? Well ,paranormal enough to enter a hole in a building that is on flame and gets out from the other side, paranormal enough to have a particular speed and trajectory.Yes Rwald, that kind of paranormal.
More paranormal explanations are at my notarized application.

Harter preffered to use the word "SUPERNATURAL" in his answer ,full of lies or "mistakes" (as you said), he gave me to my application.
What is supernatural?

Can the "form" also be paranormal?

Thanks,

S&S

Purple Tentacle

4th November 2002, 06:28 PM

Peter S.

4th November 2002, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by S&S
...There are some others members that are COWARDS and prefer to just insult me in another thread,not here, ...

That would be me! Wow, my little joke on the Bethke thread really pissed you off didn't it? Kind of like killing two birds with one stone.

Ok little man, I promise I will only insult you here. Is that better booby?

...just because they don't have the arguments to beat what I claimed in my notarized application to th JREF. This kind of COWARDS I frontally replied them by private or in the same thread they named and insulted me.

Oh, I have the arguments to beat you stupid ridiculous claim, but what would be the point? Arguing with you is about as useless as arguing with Bethke, so I choose to insult you instead. It's so easy and it's fun!

...I prefer the frontals...

Gee, I thought you prefered it in the rear. I think I smell another sig line!

You had better watch out, I'll invite my friend Geri over here and she'll really give you what for...!

Sheesh :rolleyes:

4th November 2002, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Peter S.

That would be me! Wow, my little joke on the Bethke thread really pissed you off didn't it? Kind of like killing two birds with one stone.

Ok little man, I promise I will only insult you here. Is that better booby?

Oh, I have the arguments to beat you stupid ridiculous claim, but what would be the point? Arguing with you is about as useless as arguing with Bethke, so I choose to insult you instead. It's so easy and it's fun!

Gee, I thought you prefered it in the rear. I think I smell another sig line!

You had better watch out, I'll invite my friend Geri over here and she'll really give you what for...!

Sheesh :rolleyes:

Peter S:

Yes , maybe you are right, it shows the way you are.

Thanks,

S&S

Blue Monk

4th November 2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by S&S
I know that you were forced by yourself to give an answer on Sunday 3 , November. about the shot I send to JREF with my notarized application.

Actually I'm answering your questions to settle our bet. I told you I would answer your questions if you'd answer one of mine.

How come you no longer accuse me of being 'afraid' to answer your questions?

Originally posted by S&S
What did you prove: nothing, you even did not analyzed the video that is in my claim.

Wrong. Your conclusion as stated in your application is that there is a large object passing through one of the towers. I have clearly proven this to be untrue. It's that simple.

And I haven't analyzed your tape as I do not have your tape.

I am looking for it and I will find it and I will post a quality representation of it.

But there is nothing on your tape that could possibly make your object magically appear on the CNN footage. There is no object passing through or even near either tower. That is a fact.

Originally posted by S&S
Remember Harter studied "frame by frame " the video on Internet of the same shot I explained in my application. He did it and also answered me some lies or "mistakes".

Yes and he quickly discovered your theory is false and threw your tape in the trash.

You have offered no proof of anyone lying to you.

I see no evidence that any mistakes were made in handling your claim.

Originally posted by S&S
But you don't want to analyze that shot.

I would love to analyze your shot. I don't have the tape.

But there is nothing on that tape that will make your object magically appear on the CNN tape or any other. That is because you assumed your object is passing through the tower because you only want to look at one view. A simple viewing of the event from any other angle quickly proves beyond a doubt that this is not true.

Originally posted by S&S
Want to know why? Just because you know that is true what I am claiming.

No, it's because I don't have the tape and you refuse to provide us with a quality representation for us to view.

I know for a fact what your claiming is false. There is clearly no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Originally posted by S&S
You are just another loser. You are tryng to confuse the members with another shot of a "similar angle".

No I am providing ALL of the available evidence.

The clip of a 'similar angle' shouldn't confuse anyone. It is simply indisputable evidence that your theory of a large dark object passing though one of the towers is incorrect.

Originally posted by S&S
I ask you then : Where is the "same probably bird in the same trajectory? It dissapear that specific "bird "and why?

It is simply not in the viewing angle. It can't be seen for the same reasons details of the buildings in the foreground of your tape can't be seen in the CNN clip. You're not going to suggest that this proves these buildings are 'paranormal' are you?

The reason your object is seen only on your tape is because it is only close to that camera. Had your object had been where you assumed it was it would be visible in all views.

Originally posted by S&S
You have nothing, but I thank you anyway, you helped me, with your investigation to find on internet the complete sequence of the same shot I send to the JREF

Yes I did and if anyone wants to view it, it can be done from here. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html>here.</a>)

Now it is only of relevance in respect to your petty little beef with Harter.

Originally posted by S&S
So how can you prove that "the bird" is in FRONT OF THE TOWERS (plural) like Harter said?

I can't. I do not know what clip Harter viewed.

Without viewing the actual clip he viewed it is impossible for anyone to determine whether or not he saw what he said he saw.

You have said many times that you don't know what clip he viewed.

Until we know and can view that clip there is no one, including yourself, that can answer this question.

Yet you will no doubt keep asking it.

I have no problem at all believing Harter saw exactly what he said he did and threw your tape in the trash.

And, as I've pointed out before, let's not overlook the fact that regardless of what method Harter used he did come to the correct conclusion. There is no dark large object passing through or even near either tower and the proof is click here for more answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method Harter used. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html>here.</a>

<A)

Originally posted by S&S
You just can not do it, loser.

I just did.

Originally posted by S&S
In the pictures YOU posted before (also Rwald , BAKER and others) the only thing you proved is that "the paranormal activity" gets into the hole of the north tower and then is getting out from the other side of the hole giving the false impression that it "passes behind the tower".YES you helped me with your own analysis.

No I didn't. I proved that there is nothing going into either tower. The proof is facts. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html>here.</a>

[i]Originally)

Why are they facts. Because no matter what one believes, your dark object that is supposedly passing through one of the towers is simply not on the CNN tape.

The facts speak for themselves.

When you look at that tape and the stills you can see for yourself that this dark object you believe is passing through a tower is simply not there. Nothing.

Want to ignore the facts? Be my guest. But you can bet no one else will. Especially when it is so easy to present the truth by simply saying look proof. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html>here.</a>

[QUOTE][i]Originally)

But I've agreed to answer all of your questions. You know, you haven't accused me of being afraid to answer your questions in a long time.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S&S
Is not a theory , is my conclution based in my notarized appplication to the JREF and the answer full of "lies or mistakes" they gave , based in the poor method they used .

Well it's not even a theory now as it has been clearly <A HREF=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html>proven</a> false. All that's left are your petty little gripes.

I don't see how spelling your name correctly on your application is proof of anything.

Originally posted by S&S
Did you "studied" the form of "your probably bird"? Ask Latinijral for help. Or look at Pyrro logo.

<IMG SRC=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif>

Why does Latinijral only post that one image. Let's see them all.

Originally posted by S&S
Nothing yet with my application in "your link"? Huh?

I'll make it available.

Carlos' Notarized Application (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=158377#post158377)

Do you want me to answer your questions concerning your application next?

Current links:

Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo is right here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)
My answers concerning Harter's method is right here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html)

I guess I'll have to answer all of Carlos' questions concerning his application even though I am clearly 'afraid' to, hehe.

Peter S.

5th November 2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Peter S:

Yes , maybe you are right, it shows the way you are.

Thanks,

S&S

Yes, that would be "not insane". You, on the other hand, show yourself to be a nutcase with every post you make.

5th November 2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

And I haven't analyzed your tape as I do not have your tape.

You have offered no proof of anyone lying to you.

I see no evidence that any mistakes were made in handling your claim.

I would love to analyze your shot. I don't have the tape.

. There is clearly no large dark object passing through or even near either tower

When I view the clip at close to normal speed I can see the object, probably a bird, in the smoke in this picture.

And the clip I have does not show your object in front of the other tower or behind it either.

I have no problem at all believing Harter saw exactly what he said he did and threw your tape in the trash.

Absolutely 100% correct. I am literally full of assumptions.

Can your assumption be proven wrong? Yes, of course. It's only an assumption.

If I could show us the clip he viewed that clearly did match what he said he saw then your assumption would clearly be wrong and mine correct.

Why are they facts. Because no matter what one believes, your dark object that is supposedly passing through one of the towers is simply not on the CNN tape.

I know what method he used. He used a 'copy of this video that's available on the Internet'.

I do not know the exact method as in exactly what clip he saw, as I've made quite clear.

But of course I think his method was proper.

And yes I understand that I believe that the video he refers to is the one that you sent in as a referential tape.

If I've misunderstood you please feel free to ask it again. I think I may have misunderstood what your point was.

Why does Latinijral only post that one image. Let's see them all.

.

Hi BlueMonk:
I really appreciate your efforts to defend JREF answer about my notarized application. Yes you deserve a prize from them , maybe a T-shirt or at least a discount for the "amazing Meeting".

But Blue Monk , you are full of mistakes in your investigation. You are not acting as an skeptic , you are just acting as a Randi's beleiver.

I will remind you again Andrew's Harter's answe to my application and prove you again that is full of lies or mistakes:

ANDREW HARTER'S answer to my notarized application:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.

You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower. This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.

You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.

Andrew Harter
Researcher
James Randi Educational Foundation
------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Harter's MISTAKES OR LIES, LIES OR MISTAKES:

1)"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others."

Somebody knows to who or where were the commentaries of this researcher?

Yes they received a VHS referential tape and my notarized application to the challenge.

2)"You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect."

Can somebody please tell me where are my TWO assumptions in Harter's answer?

3)"Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower. This is not the case."

I wrote in my notarized application this:
. "In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”."

4)"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "

Andrew Harter studied the same shot of my tape but used the internet .

Why he did not put the link of the internet video where he studied it "frame by frame"? Somebody knows the link or ask him about it? Can Bidlack give us a clue about it ?
Why he used that poor method if he already knew the studies I made myself with proffessional TV tapes and equipments?

5)"You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame."

Can sobebody please post me a picture of "the object" IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS? (caps are from Harter answer).
Notice that TOWERS is in plural, means 2 towers, and you know Blue Monk , you already said : "I can't".
Don't worry nobody can do that, and nobody did it already.

6)"The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there."

Is this "the great discovery of Harter or Blue Monk?
I already said that first in my notarized application., check this again:" It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode."
Nothing new Blue monk, nothing new Harter.

7)"A bird could certainly be the culprit."

Harter is not even sure that is a bird , you Blue monk are not sure also.
Only the fools with no arguments of this thread are claiming : "IS A BIRD ; IS A BIRD" .Maybe they are watching another video from another shot or angle.

8) "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

SUPERNATURAL????? I thought I was claiming about something PARANORMAL and giving the reasons why:"It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it."
Yes Blue Monk and others , you can not post a picture after " the object" entered in the hole of the north tower (at the RIGHT SIDE of the hole in the wall of that tower) We have examples at this thread, please see Rwald and Baker's pictures.

Of course Harter said that I have no claim and made his assumption that nothing supernatural happened, : that poor method he used and the lies or mistakes by reading and answering my application.

See blue Monk? I have only facts, I did not even miss a single word from Harter's answer.

And you blue Monk? what you have ? Just a good intention to defend Harter and Randi.?
But you are still refusing to analize THE SHOT I send in a referential tape and THE SHOT Harter studied it on internet.
I already told you many times , yes is the SECOND video you originally posted.NO EXCUSES http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html

You just have to put these pictures : the object in front of the TOWERS (SSSSS) and the object at the right side of the hole , in the wall of that tower.

About time, take your time, ask JREF, ask Bidlack, be patient enough, look at me I am patient enough to answer and debate to a lot of members, with different arguments and a lot with no arguments, but I am still here, nothing new only my facts about my notarized application and the answer JREF gave me.

Yes Blue Monk ; time is on my side. GOD'S PATIENT.

Congratulations again for your effort, Nice try. But...."You have no claim;There is nothing new in your investigation."

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.
No I don't have a web page about this, now you have one.
Please ask Harter or Randi about Paranormal or Supernatural, maybe that will help you understand why your investigation failed.

rwald

5th November 2002, 07:27 PM

Let me try to go through your response to Blue Monk's post. It won't convince you of anything, but it will make me feel better.

Originally posted by S&S
Hi BlueMonk:
I really appreciate your efforts to defend JREF answer about my notarized application. Yes you deserve a prize from them , maybe a T-shirt or at least a discount for the "amazing Meeting".

But Blue Monk , you are full of mistakes in your investigation. You are not acting as an skeptic , you are just acting as a Randi's beleiver.

I will remind you again Andrew's Harter's answe to my application and prove you again that is full of lies or mistakes:

Andrew Harter's MISTAKES OR LIES, LIES OR MISTAKES:

1)"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others."

Somebody knows to who or where were the commentaries of this researcher?

Yes they received a VHS referential tape and my notarized application to the challenge.
Where's the lie in this one? Just because Andrew never said who the "others" were he pointed this out to, doesn't mean that it's a lie. If you're going to believe that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence," then we could use the same philosophy for your interpretation of the rules, rather than the "if there's even the smallest shred of evidence, it must be true" philosophy you believe. Anyway.

2)"You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect."

Can somebody please tell me where are my TWO assumptions in Harter's answer?
While I think Blue Monk's answer to this is kinda sneaky, he's still right: Just because Andrew never mentions your second assumption doesn't mean you didn't make a second one. Besides, is it possible that he just forgot to mention your second assumption by accident? Why would he purposely lie about this, when he could just have said, "You have made one huge incorrect assumption"?

3)"Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower. This is not the case."

I wrote in my notarized application this:
. "In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”."
This one was also answered by Blue Monk. When he says "the second tower," we think that Andrew was referring to the tower on the left/front. If the object passed through the right/rear tower, it would have to have passed behind the left/front tower. Again, even if Andrew was referring to the right/rear tower when he said "the second tower," remember that he could have mistranslated the application. Imagine if, for example, he didn't recognize the Spanish word for "false," and so translated that sentence to say "In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the (something) impression that it “passes behind the tower." He would have ignored the (something), and assumed you meant it did pass behind the right/rear tower. Anyway, this doesn't really matter, as you and Andrew still disagree about whether or not the object was in front of the right/rear tower.

4)"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "

Andrew Harter studied the same shot of my tape but used the internet .

Why he did not put the link of the internet video where he studied it "frame by frame"? Somebody knows the link or ask him about it? Can Bidlack give us a clue about it ?
Why he used that poor method if he already knew the studies I made myself with proffessional TV tapes and equipments?
He didn't feel the need to send Carlos a link, because Carlos obviously already had a copy of the tape. He probably didn't anticipate his email being quoted on this message board, so he had no reason to include a link to the exact copy he used. And I now agree with Blue Monk's analysis of Andrew's analysis: before expending the effort to find the original 3/4 inch tape and look at it in a TV studio, it made sense for him to check out the Internet version and see if there was anything worth investigating. And please don't reply quoting something I said disagreeing with that two months ago. The sign of a rational mind is that one's opinions can change in the face of better arguments or evidence. The fact that your opinions have not changed in the face of such arguments and evidence says something about you.

5)"You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame."

Can sobebody please post me a picture of "the object" IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS? (caps are from Harter answer).
Notice that TOWERS is in plural, means 2 towers, and you know Blue Monk , you already said : "I can't".
Don't worry nobody can do that, and nobody did it already.
What, you want the object in front of both towers at once? Well, anyway, I've already posted pictures of when the object was in front of the right/rear tower here: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=220869 so I don't know what you're complaining about. Oh, and the reason why I can't post an image of the object immediately to the right or left of where it is in this image is because when you video a moving object, there are gaps between the frames. You claim that in your higher-quality version, there are no gaps, and yet the object still isn't in front of the tower to the left and right of the smoke cloud. Could you digitize that for us to see? Yes, it would reduce the quality, but surely you could keep the frame rate, which is what matters for this test.

Oh, if you want more info on the gaps that form when moving object are videoed, you can check here: http://www.opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm. Oh, wait, I've already sent you that link three times, and you've yet to respond to it. Well, at least now you won't have to look at your logs.

BTW, could someone find the frame rate in the second of Blue Monk's three videos? If it is 60 frames per second, then the gaps we see are completely explained at that site above. If the frame rate is different than that, I'd be interested to know.

And Carlos, if you want me to get a picture of the object in front of the left/front tower, just ask for it, and I'll get it for you.

6)"The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there."

Is this "the great discovery of Harter or Blue Monk?
I already said that first in my notarized application., check this again:" It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode."
Nothing new Blue monk, nothing new Harter.
Again, to paraphrase Blue Monk, "If you agree that the object never disappears, and can be seen in all frames, why do you believe that it passes through the building, instead of in front of it?"

7)"A bird could certainly be the culprit."

Harter is not even sure that is a bird , you Blue monk are not sure also.
Only the fools with no arguments of this thread are claiming : "IS A BIRD ; IS A BIRD" .Maybe they are watching another video from another shot or angle.
You're confused over this particular aspect of the skeptical mind. The skeptical mind says, "All the evidence points to a bird, but because the evidence is incomplete, I cannot rule out the possibility of, say, an insect, or a piece of flying debris." The credulous (believer) mind says, "I think it might be a paranormal object, and some inconclusive evidence can be interpreted to support me, so I'm going to deny the possibility that I could in any way be wrong." You see? Just because we're not absoluty certain about everything does not mean we think you might be right; it just means we're making a fairer analysis of the evidence. So stop trying to use this against us.

8) "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

SUPERNATURAL????? I thought I was claiming about something PARANORMAL and giving the reasons why:"It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it."
Yes Blue Monk and others , you can not post a picture after " the object" entered in the hole of the north tower (at the RIGHT SIDE of the hole in the wall of that tower) We have examples at this thread, please see Rwald and Baker's pictures.

Of course Harter said that I have no claim and made his assumption that nothing supernatural happened, : that poor method he used and the lies or mistakes by reading and answering my application.
Supernatural = Paranormal. And I've already discussed image gaps; see that site I mentioned before.

And you blue Monk? what you have ? Just a good intention to defend Harter and Randi.?
But you are still refusing to analize THE SHOT I send in a referential tape and THE SHOT Harter studied it on internet.
I already told you many times , yes is the SECOND video you originally posted.NO EXCUSES http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html
What are you complaining about here? Do you want Blue Monk to somehow analyze the tape that you sent to Andrew, even though Blue Monk doesn't have a copy of this tape? And Blue Monk, I, and others have analyzed the second shot at the Triple GIF Compare site. So, could you clarify your complaint here?

You just have to put these pictures : the object in front of the TOWERS (SSSSS) and the object at the right side of the hole , in the wall of that tower.
I've already explained that image gap makes this impossible. See above.

About time, take your time, ask JREF, ask Bidlack, be patient enough, look at me I am patient enough to answer and debate to a lot of members, with different arguments and a lot with no arguments, but I am still here, nothing new only my facts about my notarized application and the answer JREF gave me.

Yes Blue Monk ; time is on my side. GOD'S PATIENT.
Well, recently you have made more of an effort to explain the tape, but you've still never answered any of our questions about the application and the rules. Would you please once and for all either admit that your application failed to follow the rules and was therefore invalid, or explain how your application did follow the rules, on a rule-by-rule basis? I hate to keep going back to the rules, but that's one field where I can argue with full authority without going to a TV station.

And I think we're pretty patient, too, arguing this with you for two or three months now.

Congratulations again for your effort, Nice try. But...."You have no claim;There is nothing new in your investigation."

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.
No I don't have a web page about this, now you have one.
Please ask Harter or Randi about Paranormal or Supernatural, maybe that will help you understand why your investigation failed.
The investigation didn't fail. We've answered all your claims, even if you deny understanding why we're right. The only thing we've "failed" to do is explain to you why you're wrong. I'm sad to say I do not think we will ever succeed at that. Oh well.

Patricio Elicer

5th November 2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Only the fools with no arguments of this thread are claiming : "IS A BIRD ; IS A BIRD" I can discern its flapping wings in the last part of the movie. That's an argument, isn't it?

subgenius

5th November 2002, 10:56 PM

the snoop dogg version:
'Sup CID :
Huh, anotha thread wid ma name on it?

To be fair enough, let me point some things:
Is not MY VIDEO, dat image 'n capped wuz broadcasted "live"the same dizzay of dat tragic event, 'n reproduced da same dizzay 'n fo' abouth a month from almost all da tv networks of da world.

I just made an observation of a "paranormal activity" in da north towa at da same time da second plane wuz crashin' da south tower..

I send a notarized application to da challenge of da JREF wid a referntial tape, not fo' winnin' da papa pa se, but in orda dat Randi or members of JREF can give me an answa because Ah expected they gots to use high tecnollogy to analize a 3/4 or betacam tape (not mine) from a tv network on da USA.
Unfortunally Ah got by e-mizzle an answa wid mistakes or lies from Andrew Harta wid da aprooval of Randi, 'n wid da agravant dat they studied "frame by frame" an unknown video available on Internizzle. My referential tape had da same capped broadcasted by : tvn Chile, DW germain, abc , telemundo (Florida), 'n some locals channels. Dat shiznit also had an interview dat Telesistema made me da same week of dat tragic succes where dat shiznit shows Ah made da analisis wid they equipments 'n own 3/4 tapes.

Yo' "link fo' da video"Cid ,corresponts to da capped Ah send JREF, so in orda to be fair 'nuff Ah gots to post hizzle ma shizzolated notarized application, got at da JREF by F. Alvarez on april 4 Two Thousand 'n '02 'n dat also answa da questions yo' ass be postin' here.
Well, sorry fo' ma english, 'n "see" yo' ass rally mutha****a.

Notarized Application

DENUNCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY OBSERVED BY THA SIGNER IN THA 9/11/2001 CRIMINAL ATTACK AGAINST THA WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK CITY, USA.

In one of da several T-Vizzle shots of da second towa impact, taped 'n broadcast by most of T-Vizzle channels of da world, THA PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY be observed. In its trajectory through da smoke, dat shiznit enters da hole left by da first plane (north tower) 'n gets out da otha siiiiide of it, givin' da false impression dat that shiznit “passes behind da tower”. Dat shiznit be possible, though wid difficulty, to “see da image of da paranormal activity” movin' insiiiiide da light up cloud in da opposite direction of da shiftin' smoke. We recommend dat da capped be watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.

We made da first denunciations of da event (along wid ma brotha Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mizzle to da main T-Vizzle chains 'n wizzorld organizations, 'n personally to da local T-Vizzle channels, within da first week afta da Septemba 11, 2001 tragedy. Da only informative **** media dat “dared” to broadcast da note, unda its own prism, wuz “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its informative **** space “LA NOTICIA” on Septemba 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. Ah be sendin' to yo' ass mo' information 'n da images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so dat yo' ass can compare 'em wid those broadcast in da USA by da different T-Vizzle chains. Dat shiznit be not a bird or an insect crossin' da space betwizzeen da cameraman 'n da towers, because da image of da paranormal event be not seen against da wall of da first towa while passin' by it.

If yo' ass be able to prove (and yo' ass has da technology to do it) dat that shiznit be a normal 'n natural occurrence, we gots to be fond 'n grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal be to pursue da truth..

CONCLUSION: THARE EXISTS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY THAT PASSED AT A SUPERSONIC SPEED THROUGH THA HOLE LEFT BY THA FIRST PLANE ON THA OVEN-LIKE FIRST TOWER, AND EASILIY GOT OUT THA OTHAR SIIIIIDE IN A RAPID DESCENDING TRAJECTORY, WITHOUT ENOUGH ROOM TO MAKE A TURN TO AVOID A COLLISION WITH THA GROUND.

Signed: Carlos Swett Salas

Translation courtesy of http://asksnoop.com/

Go to the site, type in any web address for a shizzolatin translation....Post your best results on the thread "Funny: Snoop Dogg translations".....have fun

Sauron

5th November 2002, 11:08 PM

One more little addendum comment: These things become even easier to see if you reverse the colour. Put frames 81 to 91 through Photoshop and make it a negative image. The bird is easier to see that way and is clearly and indisputably in front of the building.

Charlie in Dayton

5th November 2002, 11:08 PM

subgenius, you should be penalized 100 avatar points for wasting bandwidth with that one...the statements are already incomprehensible...please don't make things worse...:D

Skeptoid

5th November 2002, 11:19 PM

subgenius

6th November 2002, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
subgenius, you should be penalized 100 avatar points for wasting bandwidth with that one...the statements are already incomprehensible...please don't make things worse...:D
Heh, heh...you said penal....:p

Patricio Elicer

6th November 2002, 07:12 AM

Sorry, this is absolutely off topic (just a break in the debate :D ), but I couldn't resist. How could Subgenius possibly have an avatar with just 168 posts? Are there some privileged posters other than the Admins? Just curious :D

Edited 10 minutes later to add: Oops!.... I didn't know the avatar policy had changed to 50 posts :o

subgenius

6th November 2002, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Sorry, this is absolutely off topic (just a break in the debate :D ), but I couldn't resist. How could Subgenius possibly have an avatar with just 168 posts? Are there some privileged posters other than the Admins? Just curious :D

Edited 10 minutes later to add: Oops!.... I didn't know the avatar policy had changed to 50 posts :o

I feel so unworthy.
If it makes you feel better, my smilies aren't working. (Insert frown)

6th November 2002, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Sauron
One more little addendum comment: These things become even easier to see if you reverse the colour. Put frames 81 to 91 through Photoshop and make it a negative image. The bird is easier to see that way and is clearly and indisputably in front of the building.

Hi Sauron:

Yes, try Photoshop to study the form of the "object."
Yes ; latinijral, already posted that "study".
Yes, is in front of the tower (1) when the object gets in trough the hole of that tower.I already said that.

NO it is not in front of THE TOWERS(2) like Harter said in his poor answer full of lies or mistakes.

Try again. or join the jockers.

Thanks,
S&S

Wyrd1

6th November 2002, 02:44 PM

I have pointed out that imho the second assumption Harter was talking about is that S&S ass umed the object was paranormal.

"Can somebody please tell me where are my TWO assumptions in Harter's answer?"

Since Carlos is ignoring me (How did I get so lucky? Better question, how can the rest rest of JREF get so lucky?) would someone else please mention this?

Oh! sure! Carlos will still go about proclaiming his "truth" and ignoring the birds flapping wings which can be seen in the first few frames against the smoke in Blue Monk's latest effort.

And Andrew must have watched the infamous "referential" video or else he wouldn't have known he'd seen it before. Obviously the tape didn't display anything that was different from what he'd seen on the net.

Now that Carlos can have his own Avatar I wonder what it'll be? If it was supposed to be representative of the poster then it would be a sphincter but they'd have to edit that...

Skeptoid

6th November 2002, 02:46 PM

Yes, is in front of the tower (1) when the object gets in trough the hole of that tower.I already said that. Not that it really matters Carlos, 'cause you and your "paranormal hat" are all washed up, but do you mean to say that your "supernatural chapeau" goes both in front of and through the tower? Is that what you're saying? I must've missed that while wading through all your drivel. You're a far bigger woo-woo than I ever gave you credit for.

Case closed.

6th November 2002, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Baker

If you look at the video closely you can see it on the right tower it will slightly darken in the area marked.

http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet2.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet3.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet4.gif

I really appreciate your efforts and I am glad you confirmed my claim by analyzing the shot (only Blue Monk is still refused) that was in my referentilal tape I send to JREF .
Yes , maybe Harter did not lie with intention (?) , bust just maybe, can we call it mistakes?

Now let's see the pictures posted here by Baker, the quotes are from my notarized application to JREf.

PICTURE !) quote :""..It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke"

PICTURE 2 ) the "object" is at the LEFT side of the hole just before it entered inside it.I s the North tower

PICTURE 3) quote :"In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) "

PICTURE 4) quote :"..and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower"

As you can see, I am only using "your methods", your own pictures, and all you can see is a reafirmation of my claim.

Just "imagine" if you have access to 3/4 tapes of your own country tv networks and to proffesional equipments as I did before I send my application to the JREF

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

I know that the insults some members gave me is part of the ignorance of them to debate.
It doesn't offend me.
I just want Harter and Randi to be honest enough.

rwald

6th November 2002, 06:39 PM

So, the hole is in the front of the building, right? (I'm not sure entirely which angle the first plane entered from; it's been over a year.) If the hole were in the front of the building, then the object would need to move backwards in order to enter this hole. So the object must have been moving backwards throughout its entire trajectory (unless you're going to say that the object changed its trajectory specifically to go through the hole). So, if the object is moving away from the camera throughout the entire shot, than it should be getting smaller throughout the shot. It's not. So your argument makes no sense. Which comes as no surprise to everyone but you.

By the way, why didn't you respond to my point-by-point refutation of your claims about Andrew's "lies"? Are you afraid?

CurtC

6th November 2002, 07:30 PM

OK, Carlos, we've determined that the Internet video is not evidence enough to prove that the event was paranormal. You've admitted this. (Why does latinjral keep posting stills from it then?)

What you need to do is to get those extra frames that are in-between the frames we can see on the Internet, which you claim are on the 3/4 tape, and post them here for us to see. Until you do that, what it looks like to us is a sequence of bird images that has gaps in it, and one of these gaps happens to be where the corner of the building is. If you can show us pictures without gaps except for where your "enigmatic sombrero" passes through the building, that would be something. Until then, you have NOTHING.

Of course, then you would have to answer why it's visible on this tape but not the CNN one or any of the dozens of others, then you'd have to prove that it actually was paranormal, then you'd have to explain how your application meets the requirements of the JREF challenge. But let's do the first step first, OK? Can you find for us those other frames?

rwald

6th November 2002, 07:52 PM

I claim that the reason the inter-frame shots don't exist is because this was a video of a moving object, and gaps are expected to exist. In order to prove otherwise, you must show a shot with more frames per second than Blue Monk's. Until you do that, don't act as though your argument has any weight.

6th November 2002, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Baker

If you look at the video closely you can see it on the right tower it will slightly darken in the area marked.

http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet2.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet3.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet4.gif Originally posted by S&S

I really appreciate your efforts and I am glad you confirmed my claim by analyzing the shot (only Blue Monk is still refused) that was in my referentilal tape I send to JREF .
Yes , maybe Harter did not lie with intention (?) , bust just maybe, can we call it mistakes?

Now let's see the pictures posted here by Baker, the quotes are from my notarized application to JREf.

PICTURE !) quote :""..It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke"

PICTURE 2 ) the "object" is at the LEFT side of the hole just before it entered inside it.I s the North tower

PICTURE 3) quote :"In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) "

PICTURE 4) quote :"..and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower"

As you can see, I am only using "your methods", your own pictures, and all you can see is a reafirmation of my claim.

Just "imagine" if you have access to 3/4 tapes of your own country tv networks and to proffesional equipments as I did before I send my application to the JREF

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

I know that the insults some members gave me is part of the ignorance of them to debate.
It doesn't offend me.
I just want Harter and Randi to be honest enough.

I wrote this again just in case you didn't understand my application to the JREF.
Your efforts are welcome.
Insults are welcome too, I already explained this.

Wyrd1

7th November 2002, 01:39 PM

If the object went in the one hole then out the other one shouldn't there be a large change in it's path? As it crosses in front of the one tower the other tower is at 500 feet away. The hole that it would have flown out of is another 50 ft (or so) away. That's a pretty substantial change of position and unless the object knew where the camera was exactly the angle of it's movement should be observed to change by several degrees. That should be enough for us to see it.

It's one thing to say the object's paranormal abilities allowed it to fly through the debris that would have been inside the tower and that those same abilities would allow it to make these drastic changes but WHY would it do all this plus readjust it's trajectory all for this one particular camera? To me it doesn't make sense.

Wyrd1

7th November 2002, 01:43 PM

Nice picture Latin. I may not have mentioned this before.

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandiALiar

For more entertaining pics

7th November 2002, 01:54 PM

The color of the object is dark.

The smoke is dark.

This would make it possible for the object to be unseen in the video when it passes in front of the smoke.

If the object was neon pink, we wouldn't have this problem.

There is another video which shows the same thing from a different angle. Many birds are seen flying after the hit.

Put 2 and 2 together SS. You might actually get 4.

7th November 2002, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
The color of the object is dark.

The smoke is dark.

This would make it possible for the object to be unseen in the video when it passes in front of the smoke.

If the object was neon pink, we wouldn't have this problem.

Put 2 and 2 together SS. You might actually get 4.

H
i Whodini :

You are wrong : if you put 2 and 2 together you will get this: 22.

About your "main discovery" about the color of "the object "and its difficulty to see at the smoke , I will say you again and again (I hope someday you will understand) what I already wrote in my notarizedapplication send to the JREF :

I already said thsi::""..It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke".

As you can see is already explained .

Yes Whoudini, try again.

Remember what shot Harter analized "frame by frame" on the Internet, is the same one he was based to gave me his answer full of lies and/or mistakes.
Yes is the same shot I send JREF in a referential video.
In this page there are 4 pictures originally posted by BAKER that correspond to that shot.

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

7th November 2002, 05:34 PM

I think I'm going to make that my new sig:

Put 2 and 2 together SS. You might actually get 4.
-- Whodini

You are wrong : if you put 2 and 2 together you will get this: 22.
-- S&S

7th November 2002, 05:39 PM

----
You are wrong : if you put 2 and 2 together you will get this: 22.
-- S&S
----

He is just too clever that S&S is! :)

I should have said "if you add 2 and 2 together ..." (no, I don't wanna hear about mod arithimetic!)

----
Remember what shot Harter analized ...
----

That Andrew, always sticking things where they shouldn't go! Maybe he could work that into his magic act?

That could be paranormal, right S&S?

7th November 2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Wyrd1
Nice picture Latin. I may not have mentioned this before

Yes, I know that.

7th November 2002, 06:42 PM

Blue Monk

7th November 2002, 07:14 PM

latinijral

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif
</A>

7th November 2002, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
latinijral

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif
</A>

Hi Blue Monk :

Is the building (or the tower) jumping from LEFT to RIGHT or jumping from RIGHT to LEFT? I guess is the white color one.

Supernatural tower.
Nice try, but.......
Tricks to the amazing Randi, please.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. Remember YOU know what shot it is.

Blue Monk

7th November 2002, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Supernatural tower.
Nice try, but.......
Tricks to the amazing Randi, please.

<center>
<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif
</A>
</center>
<hr>

<center>
<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/frame_11.JPG
</A>

Nice try.

Of course if anyone is still in doubt they can compare the gif to the stills <A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
here
</A>.

But while they're there they might as well note that the CNN clip provided by Purple Tentacle proves your theory false. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
</center>

7th November 2002, 08:40 PM

Blue Monk,

You must be wrong because your arguments are too well thought out, logical, and supported by the evidence.

S&S's arguments are wishful thinking with no evidence, only speculation.

Therefore, S&S is correct, and you are wrong apparently!

:D

7th November 2002, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

<center>
<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif
</A>
</center>
<hr>

<center>
<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/frame_11.JPG
</A>

Nice try.

Of course if anyone is still in doubt they can compare the gif to the stills <A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
here
</A>.

But while they're there they might as well note that the CNN clip provided by Purple Tentacle proves your theory false. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
</center>

YES I agree with this picture sequence, but please don't put me jumping towers.

Yes is the same picture(but enlarged) latinijral posted here.
Yes is the same shot.
Yes I already said that.
Yes Harter said is in FRONT OF THE TOWERS when he studied it "frame by frame" on the internet.

Yes , I am still waiting that picture, or the one at the right side of the hole after "the object" enterd it.

Keep on trying.

Thanks,
S&S

CurtC

7th November 2002, 09:44 PM

S&S wrote:
Yes , I am still waiting that picture, or the one at the right side of the hole after "the object" enterd it.No, Carlos, *we* are waiting on *you*. You claim to have a video showing the thing making its way across the screen without gaps, and you need to post it. Our claim is that the video has gaps, so we don't expect to see the bird just to the right of the hole. You see, the pictures posted so far, all of them, support our point of view. You claim to have more, but you won't post them. Why?

Blue Monk

8th November 2002, 01:06 AM

<CENTER><H3>Carlos' Theory is False</H3></CENTER>
<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/both_small.jpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

The CNN clip proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

It doesn't matter if you love Randi or hate him. It just isn't there.</CENTER>

<hr>
<center>

Is this the area in question?

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/key_frame.JPG</center>

No I can't produce that image.

It is between frames.

I know that has significance to you but as the CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) clip clearly shows this specific frame is not the only way to disprove your theory.

I have no problem believing Harter was smart enough to know how far to look into your matter. And let's not forget that regardless his method he was correct (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

So the only thing left is your beef with Harters response.

<UL>
<LI>I don't know if he understood your application.
I don't know what clip he is refering to.
<LI>I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.
<UL>

All I know is he got it right. Your theory is nonsense (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

One question...

<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/reference/path.jpg</center>

Does this represent the path you believe your object took. If it is not correct tell me and I'll change it.

Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html)

Tesserat

8th November 2002, 03:56 AM

originally posted by Rwald
Oh, if you want more info on the gaps that form when moving object are videoed, you can check here: http://www.opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm. Oh, wait, I've already sent you that link three times, and you've yet to respond to it. Well, at least now you won't have to look at your logs.

BTW, could someone find the frame rate in the second of Blue Monk's three videos? If it is 60 frames per second, then the gaps we see are completely explained at that site above. If the frame rate is different than that, I'd be interested to know.

Rwald, the site you posted talks about shutter speed, not frame rate. The frame rate of most consumer video cameras, digital included, is 29.97 fps. That's why I'd like to know what kind of camera was used. Film is shot at 60 fps, but I don't know of a video camera that records faster than 29.97 fps.

Hellbound

8th November 2002, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Tesserat

Rwald, the site you posted talks about shutter speed, not frame rate. The frame rate of most consumer video cameras, digital included, is 29.97 fps. That's why I'd like to know what kind of camera was used. Film is shot at 60 fps, but I don't know of a video camera that records faster than 29.97 fps.

We had this discussion last night in the chat room. The questions raised were numerous.

First off, I don't know about video shot at 60fps. The links I looked at stated theat NTSC format (used in VHS, 3/4, and Beta tapes as well as broadcast) is 60 Hz interlaced, which gives 30 full frames per second. Don't know if that makes a difference, but my understanding was that 30fps is the standard.

Second, the fps is not necessarily equatable to the shutter speed, at least that was my understanding. Our question is, does the video camera leave an "open" aperature, or does it open and close the aperature to make the frames? If opening and closing, then we know it opens 30 times (or 60 times) per second, but the key element is how long it is open each time. That can be used to determine how blurred an object would/should be due to motion how far an object at speed x would travel between frames.

In any case, I feel confident with Blue Monk's excellent evaluation. The image produced from the seperate frames merged into one clip clearly shows the flapping motion of the wings. I believe the question is settled.

Peter S.

8th November 2002, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Tesserat

Rwald, the site you posted talks about shutter speed, not frame rate. The frame rate of most consumer video cameras, digital included, is 29.97 fps. That's why I'd like to know what kind of camera was used. Film is shot at 60 fps, but I don't know of a video camera that records faster than 29.97 fps.

NTSC video is indeed shot at 29.97 fps. That includes home video as well as professional video, (yet another thing that little Carlos is wrong about).

Most film is shot at 24fps, although I believe Showscan is shot at 60fps.

Of course, even if the shot in question was shot at 60fps with a 70mm Imax camera, it still would not constitute "proper observing conditions", but little Carlos' is too dim witted to understand that. Yes Carlos, we know the video was broadcast around the world and millions of people saw it - We heard you the first time. That does not change the fact that looking at a video of the event is not "proper observing conditions".

You know Carlos, you really give homosexuals a bad name.:D

CurtC

8th November 2002, 11:29 AM

OK, I've got some video clips that will shake things up. What this site (http://www.opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm) shows are video clips of moving bugs. Notice that there are two sets of pictures from each clip, and if overlaid, the pictures would show a continuous line without gaps. But each picture has gaps like we see in the WTC video. This makes me hopeful that someone could locate the other set of images that are between the frames we have.

Anyone?

Tesserat

8th November 2002, 12:02 PM

originally posted by curtc
OK, I've got some video clips that will shake things up. What this site shows are video clips of moving bugs. Notice that there are two sets of pictures from each clip, and if overlaid, the pictures would show a continuous line without gaps. But each picture has gaps like we see in the WTC video. This makes me hopeful that someone could locate the other set of images that are between the frames we have.

I really doubt it. To see the same blur, the other camera would have to be virtually in the same spot as the first one, 180 degrees out of phase with the first one. Chances are low.

8th November 2002, 12:05 PM

and this trheat to us lazy ones
what in nuts we will learn about that

CurtC

8th November 2002, 12:19 PM

I think the images at that site were not of two different cameras, but were pulled out of the same camera, and for some reason the digitization process got only every other frame. So they did it again, with the other set, from the same camera. If another set of images exists from this same video camera that Carlos is talking about, it could help him make his point.

I've e-mailed the person who wrote that page, asking for more information. I'll keep you posted.

Blue Monk

8th November 2002, 02:13 PM

<CENTER><H3>Carlos' Theory is False</H3></CENTER>
<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/both_small.jpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

The CNN clip proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

It doesn't matter if you love Randi or hate him. It just isn't there.</CENTER>
<hr>

Well for me the whole point is that this only relates to Harter’s response and we do not have enough information to judge.

If Carlos would simply provide the evidence that he and he alone has we could decide.

If his tape shows that object cannot be seen at that key location then I would have absolutely no problem in assuming that Harter clearly did not understand Carlos’ application, something I find real easy to believe or he wouldn’t have phrased it the way he did.

But if I saw the clip Harter used and the object was present at that spot then his phrasing makes perfect sense.

Only Carlos has the power to provide proof and he won’t do it. If what he says is true then he should simply provide the proof and we can settle at least this one petty little beef once and for all.

I believe Carlos’ only interest in this angle is to keep people talking about his stupid tape to give the illusion that it could have merit as a paranormal event which the CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) proves beyond all doubt is simply not true.

But the fact remains that when Carlos sent in that tape no one at JREF was under any obligation to follow his and only his procedures or use his and only his standards for testing. Regardless of exactly how Harter came to his conclusions it is clear they were superior to Carlos’ method as he arrived at the truth (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) and Carlos didn’t.

If Carlos believes Harter was incorrect in his reply and if Carlos has the proof then Carlos should show it.

None of that will ever change the fact that Carlos’ theory is false (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html). Harter recognized this and threw his tape in the trash.

8th November 2002, 05:45 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blue Monk
[B

From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

WHERE IS THE IMAGE (FRAME)WHEN THE OBJECT IS IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE????????????????

No I can't produce that image.

I know that has significance to you.

I don't know if he understood your application.(HARTER)

I don't know what clip he is refering to.(HARTER)

I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.(HARTER)

**************************************************

Blue Monk:
Good effort, but not enough. You forget to find "your bird" in the right side of the tower.

8th November 2002, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
<

Is this the area in question?

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/key_frame.JPG</center>

No I can't produce that image.

It is between frames.

I have no problem believing Harter was smart enough to know how far to look into your matter. And let's not forget that regardless his method he was
A>.

So the only thing left is your beef with Harters response.

<UL>
<LI>I don't know if he understood your application.
I don't know what clip he is refering to.
<LI>I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.

Hi Blue Monk:

You can put millions of links to your "investigation" , but you still have nothing.

You also "forgot" this : To post the picture of the "probably bird " in font of THE TOWERS (plural) like Harter said in his poor answer.
Are you having troubles with frames?
I alredy told members the way to do a correct analysis, just use proffesional equipments.

You are not only fooling yourself , you are fooling others: Huntsman wrote this:"In any case, I feel confident with Blue Monk's excellent evaluation. The image produced from the seperate frames merged into one clip clearly shows the flapping motion of the wings. I believe the question is settled."

Yes that trick of the white part jumping from right to left or left to right can fool that kind of members , but not me, and you know that.

So you can not produce those 2 images : the "bird" in front of THE TOWERS and the image after "the bird" entered in the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower.
So you have nothing and You don't know nothing.

You are just full of links with assumptions and mistakes like Harter and Randi.

But your efforts will be always welcome.

Thanks,

S&S

Tesserat

8th November 2002, 10:45 PM

Carlos, you wrote

I alredy told members the way to do a correct analysis, just use proffesional equipments.

It doesn't matter if you watch a very fancy TV in a recording studio with a 3/4 inch Betacam playback, or on a small black and white TV with a VHS recorder, the frame rate is exactly the same, 29.97 frames per second. It's a built in standard in north america, called NTSC. So you will not see more frames in a studio than you will on a VHS tape taped off of the TV signal. If you convert it to a form that you can post on the internet, it's very easy to keep the same frame rate. All the videos that Blue Monk posted are at the correct frame rate. I checked. So there is nothing missing on them.

At full digital quality, a three second clip would take 10 MB, not too unreasonable for the web.

Blue Monk

9th November 2002, 03:12 AM

<center>
Proof Carlos' Theory is False

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/both_small.jpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).
</center>

<hr>

Originally posted by S&S
You can put millions of links to your "investigation" , but you still have nothing.

Not so. I have a video clip that proves your theory false. It does not confuse anyone. Anyone who views the CNN tape can clearly see that there is no large dark object passing through or anywhere near either tower. You're not going to tell me you see the object on the CNN tape are you?

Proof does not rely on the opinion or belief of the observer. It either is or it isn't. In your case it isn't. Anyone can see that your object is not on the CNN tape. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Your theory is nonsense (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

And so onto your petty little beef.

Originally posted by S&S
You also "forgot" this : To post the picture of the "probably bird " in font of THE TOWERS (plural) like Harter said in his poor answer.

I didn't forget. I don't have it.

The part your talking about is between frames.

Originally posted by S&S
Are you having troubles with frames?

I'm not.

You apparantly are having a hard time producing the frames that supposedly support your petty little grip against JREF. I have no way of knowing if those frames even exist.

You say they do and that they support your argument so I guess were just waiting for you to show us.

I won't hold my breath.

Originally posted by S&S
I alredy told members the way to do a correct analysis, just use proffesional equipments.

But your analysis was obviously not the correct way to do it. You came up with the wrong answer. Harter got it right (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

Originally posted by S&S
You are not only fooling yourself , you are fooling others: Huntsman wrote this:"In any case, I feel confident with Blue Monk's excellent evaluation. The image produced from the seperate frames merged into one clip clearly shows the flapping motion of the wings. I believe the question is settled."

Yes that trick of the white part jumping from right to left or left to right can fool that kind of members , but not me, and you know that.

<center>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif</center>

Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird.

But if anyone is still unsure they can simply repeat my process themselves. What? You don't know where the stills are. No problem, they're right here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html). While your there be sure to check out the CNN stills also that prove there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Originally posted by S&S
So you can not produce those 2 images : the "bird" in front of THE TOWERS and the image after "the bird" entered in the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower.

No, they are between frames. You know, Carlos, that really isn't that hard to understand. If your copy shows this then by all means post it. We'd love to see it.

Originally posted by S&S
So you have nothing and You don't know nothing.

If you're talking about your beef with JREF then no I don't have anything.

I don't know what clip he used.

I don't know if he understood your application.

I don't know if what he saw matched his description.

If you would post your tape that would shed light on this.

If you're talking about proving your theory false then sure I do. I have a video clip that shows the exact area in question at the exact moment and anyone who views that clip, no matter what they believe, sees exactly the same thing. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Your theory is nonsense (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

Originally posted by S&S
You are just full of links with assumptions and mistakes like Harter and Randi.

If I've made any mistakes please point them out.

But my links are the answers you insisted I answer. "Why won't you answer my question?", "What are you afraid of?"

We have a bet, remember?

Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html)

I'm still working on all of your questions concerning your Application, I've answered some but there are still some I haven't answered.

Wyrd1

9th November 2002, 09:52 AM

I'll ask again, what the heck.

Why doesn't the trajectory change? If the object passed through the tower's hole it would have had to shift at least 500 ft to it's left before leaving the 2nd hole. A change of 500ft given the angle of the video camera would have resulted in a very noticeable change in the flight path of the object. Why can't we see this happen?

You say you answer questions but you don't. Why should Harter or Randi answer your questions when you won't answer ours?

9th November 2002, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
<

<hr>

Not so. I have a video clip that proves your theory false. It does not confuse anyone. Anyone who views the CNN tape can clearly see that there is no large dark object passing through or anywhere near either tower. You're not going to tell me you see the object on the CNN tape are you?

Proof does not rely on the opinion or belief of the observer. It either is or it isn't. In your case it isn't. Anyone can see that your object is not on the CNN tape. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

I didn't forget. I don't have it.

The part your talking about is between frames.

You apparantly are having a hard time producing the frames that supposedly support your petty little grip against JREF. I have no way of knowing if those frames even exist.

You say they do and that they support your argument so I guess were just waiting for you to show us.

But your analysis was obviously not the correct way to do it. You came up with the wrong answer. Harter got it

Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird.

No, they are between frames. You know, Carlos, that really isn't that hard to understand. If your copy shows this then by all means post it. We'd love to see it.

If you're talking about your beef with JREF then no I don't have anything.

I don't know what clip he used.

I don't know if he understood your application.

I don't know if what he saw matched his description.

If I've made any mistakes please point them out.

I'm still working on all of your questions concerning your Application, I've answered some but there are still some I haven't answered.

Hii Blue Monk:

Again nothing new, you have nothing , you don't know nothing.

All your arguments are based in a wrong shot. No Blue monk that shot is not the one I send in my application and is not the shot Harter "studied it frame by frame" to gave me his poor answer full of lies and mistakes.
Yes I saw that CNN tape , I also have that video recorded at home. But also your "probably bird" is not there.Yes there are some others birds there ,but with differents trajectories, not one corresponds to the one of the other shot.
Yes in that CNN video the birds are flapping wings.There are also anothers birds in almost all the views from different angles, even in the single shot that registered the first impact . But birds are free to fly.That doesn't prove nothing.

You made a little trick and you explained that this way: "Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird. "

Yes to fool people that is novice with images, but you know blue Monk that the efect is produced because of the LOOPED image, Why the white sideof the building side and the white side of the last frame are jumping right to left? Just because is a trick so in the union of the looped image you can see a line that reminds you a wing flapping.
I challenge you to put the same 5 frames at normal speed but NOT looped, and everyone can see the same that is on your first or second video , I mean in the shot I send to JREF and that Harter studied.Besides that trick is your only analysis of the shot in question. ?????

Your trick is just for the fools or your beleivers.

Yes , I know you don't have access to do a correct analysis of the shot, but remeber I did it, and it is supposed that JREF with Randi in his head have access to the tv media, to the 3/4 tapes and to the correct equipments.
But not, they(Randi and Harter) prefered the internet to fool you all, but not me.

Keep on with your working in all the questions, I am patient enough, time is on my side.

Now that I know you are really fans of internet , here is a link where your same bird is transformed in a missile, yes is the same shot I send to Randi (by Gamma press)

http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html

I found more links related but that will be a start.
I am not saying that I agree with that interpretation.
All I been claiming is that must be do the correct analysis of the shot.
I did it and Randi is still refuse to write about my application and their poor answer based in a poor test.
The charlatans are making speculations with that shot, and Randi's job is to say something about the charlatans.Or not?

Thanks,
S&S

9th November 2002, 12:54 PM

If you want to do an analysis of the image of the "bird or similar" follow the steps that are in this link:http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

There is the analysis of the image of "the bird or simillar " about its form, just using adobe photoshop 5.0.

You can do the same. Just if you want.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.
another analysis of the shot , and about the movement of"the object " is here:

http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html

davidhorman

9th November 2002, 04:41 PM

It doesn't matter if you watch a very fancy TV in a recording studio with a 3/4 inch Betacam playback, or on a small black and white TV with a VHS recorder, the frame rate is exactly the same, 29.97 frames per second. It's a built in standard in north america, called NTSC. So you will not see more frames in a studio than you will on a VHS tape taped off of the TV signal. If you convert it to a form that you can post on the internet, it's very easy to keep the same frame rate. All the videos that Blue Monk posted are at the correct frame rate. I checked. So there is nothing missing on them.

NTSC isn't just made up of 29.97 frames per second, it's made up of twice that number of fields. The odd fields contain the odd lines of the picture, the even fields contain the even lines. When you watch something on a TV your picking up on 60 pictures per second, but your brain is fooled into thinking they are all full resolution.

Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.

Assuming the original was recorded on some professional format, you might get more information by viewing it on that original format. However, in this case, since there really is nothing to see, there's not much of an advantage.

I haven't read this thread lately - has anyone told Carlos that monkeying around with an image in Photoshop does not constitute analysis? Doing things like that just introduces more and more artefacts and interpolated (ie made up) information - someone's been watching too much Knight Rider.

David

Blue Monk

9th November 2002, 04:52 PM

Blue Monk

9th November 2002, 05:12 PM

davidhorman and all,

Thanks for this information. You and a lot of others have posted some very needed technical information. I haven't had time to respond to everybody but I want you to know that I have been paying attention and you have supplied a lot of stuff I needed to know.

I think I have found a possible source for Carlos' tape. I've been in touch with a company that archives this material (they tape all of the network feeds) and provide that for non-commercial use. I also should be able to find it's history, who took the shot and when and for what news outlet.

Anyway, I have had a lot of questions about how to make a quality digitization so we all could see it and thankfully I believe you have all answered my questions for me, hehe.

Of course I won't know if they have that actual shot until I go and scan what they do have but they felt certain that they do. Of course, unlike our more credulous friends I'll be sure and get copies from all angles.

Wyrd1

9th November 2002, 05:25 PM

The problem with this picture is that it shows a trajectory for something that's going to crash into the building not the hole. It doesn't answer the question I put to Carlos earlier. The trajectory should be noticeably different but it is not. Why? Why does this object correct to a course that only plays for the camera in one spot? If Swett won't answer our questions why should Randi answer his?

9th November 2002, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

NTSC isn't just made up of 29.97 frames per second, it's made up of twice that number of fields. The odd fields contain the odd lines of the picture, the even fields contain the even lines. When you watch something on a TV your picking up on 60 pictures per second, but your brain is fooled into thinking they are all full resolution.

Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.

Assuming the original was recorded on some professional format, you might get more information by viewing it on that original format. However, in this case, since there really is nothing to see, there's not much of an advantage.

I haven't read this thread lately - has anyone told Carlos that monkeying around with an image in Photoshop does not constitute analysis? Doing things like that just introduces more and more artefacts and interpolated (ie made up) information - someone's been watching too much Knight Rider.

David

Hi Davidhorman:

Your post is clear enough, I agree with you in almost all.
Why almost? I am not monkeying around with an image in Photoshop:, it is not MY link, I never posted those images, but I can tell you that is the same image YOU all can see if you do the correct analysis of the video.
At least it correspond the form of "the object", if you still the frames of a 3/4 tape

Yes I always told that the video must be seen in the original format, I already told that to the JREF and to all the members here.I analyzed it at a

But Andrew Harter with Randi's aprooval decided to study the shot"frame by frame" in a video of the internet, yes like Blue Monk and others.That's the reason they are having trobles with missing fields.

I didn't have that kind of troubles, I had acces to the own 3/4 tapes of the tv stations and with their own equipments and personal were made the analysis watching all of them in a big wide screen tv set. I expected that JREF did the same , but they didn't, they just study an unknown link of internet.Besides JREF have the tape of an interview at the tv station where is the process of the analysis. No it was not an UFO program, was for the NEWS the same week of that tragic day of New York.

I also agree with you in the point that must be another way to analyze that shot, some members are trying to get access to recorded tapes at tv stations, yes in another format with more frames per second and with the correct equipments to run the tape, (back and forward, really slow motion, etc.).

I am not pretending that you beleive in me, I am just pointing you how the studies were made .I hope you have time to read and the desires to read this long thread, in page 2 is my application to the challenge and in the first post of this thread (by Patricio Elicer) is the e.mails I received from the JREF, it is there also Harter's poor answer to my application.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
In my notarized application send to JREF I explained the reasons why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers.
I am sure also that members like Blue Monk are having trouble to get access to tv stations tapes, but RANDI is a media man.
So no excuses.

Patricio Elicer

9th November 2002, 07:16 PM

Carlos, why don't you send a copy of your video to Blue Monk?, for all I see he's truly willing to analize it. He also said he would digitize the video and post it here, so everyone could see it and give their opinions on the very same video you've long been talking about.

You could save him a lot of trouble, and it would help to settle the matter once and for all.

Blue Monk, I appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm.

9th November 2002, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Carlos, why don't you send a copy of your video to Blue Monk?, for all I see he's truly willing to analize it. He also said he would digitize the video and post it here, so everyone could see it and give their opinions on the very same video you've long been talking about.

You could save him a lot of trouble, and it would help to settle the matter once and for all.

Blue Monk, I appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm.

Patricio:

So now you are not sure that "is a bird"?

Who is Blue MONK? He doesn't know nothing about videos.He is only trully illing to justify Randi and Harters's mistakes

Why don't you go to your own country tv stations?

Remember I already send my referntial tape to the JREF . They gave me that poor answer with lies and /or mistakes based on that poor method of analyzing a tape on internet.

Remember what you wrote on that private message you send me before? Yes I agree with you.

And now you are asking me to help BLUE MONK. I thought you all were happy beleivers of him."The flapping bird"

I already wrote that I really appreciate his effort and enthusiasm, but that's all: " enthusiasm".

If somebody wants to do a correct analysis, must just read the thread, my quotes, or just private me for details.
I don't work with anonimous guys or nicks.

Or just ask for Randi's help, and don't forget to read the post by davidhorman about videos on internet.It is on page 22.

Thanks,
S&S

PinkRabbit

9th November 2002, 08:59 PM

Sheez, go away on business, come back to find this ridiculousness is still going on.

Carlos,

The average person (or even the above average one) cannot simply walk into a news division and demand to see bits and pieces of footage at will. I doubt Randi or Andrew Harter could do so. These are extremely busy businesses, and they don't have time to go running around because someone somewhere claims something perfectly normal is paranormal. Finding file footage takes time. Time is money, and they aren't interested. I only managed to get a look at the tape because a friend got interested (I suspect he was hoping for a personal interest story -- though your claims were so plainly ridiculous he wasn't interested), so just repeating over and over that these people have to do as you demand is silly. They couldn't even if they wanted to.

Now a question. A very simple one really. And if you can't answer it, you really ought to go away. And by answer it, I don't just mean reposting your poorly written, barely comprehensible application (I sincerely hope it makes more sense in Spanish, because in English, it's next to hopeless). I mean actually answering the question asked and not screaming about Andrew Harter.

If your paranormal hat was so huge and so fast moving, and went through the second tower ...

WHY DIDN'T ANY OTHER CAMERA PICK IT UP?

There's nothing even remotely similar on any other view, so why not?

C'mon, Carlos, avail us of your wisdom.

And if you can't, maybe just maybe you ought to start considering the notion that your senses fooled you and it's exactly what folks have said ... an out of focus bird.

Barb

rwald

9th November 2002, 09:07 PM

Who is Blue MONK? He doesn't know nothing about videos.He is only trully illing to justify Randi and Harters's mistakes
Carlos, you aren't one to talk about understanding videos. In the chat the other night, you said that paranormal objects could appear to be the same size even if they were moving away from the viewer, as well as that such objects could appear to be not moving even if they were traveling very fast and the camera's exposure time was 1/60 of a second. I would much sooned trust Blue Monk's video knowledge than yours.

9th November 2002, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Sheez, go away on business, come back to find this ridiculousness is still going on.

Carlos,

The average person (or even the above average one) cannot simply walk into a news division and demand to see bits and pieces of footage at will. I doubt Randi or Andrew Harter could do so.
Now a question. A very simple one really. And if you can't answer it, you really ought to go away. And by answer it, I don't just mean reposting your poorly written, barely comprehensible application (I sincerely hope it makes more sense in Spanish, because in English, it's next to hopeless). I mean actually answering the question asked and not screaming about Andrew Harter.

If your paranormal hat was so huge and so fast moving, and went through the second tower ...

WHY DIDN'T ANY OTHER CAMERA PICK IT UP?

There's nothing even remotely similar on any other view, so why not?

C'mon, Carlos, avail us of your wisdom.

And if you can't, maybe just maybe you ought to start considering the notion that your senses fooled you and it's exactly what folks have said ... an out of focus bird.

Barb

Hi PInkie:

Just for the same reason "that specific bird" also doesn't appear in the other shot.

I thought you had access to the 3/4 tape and also did the analysis as you posted before. Well I am just confuse at that point now. Did you realy do it?How and where? , please.

Patricio Elicer

9th November 2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by S&S
So now you are not sure that "is a bird"?I'm sure that the clip posted by Blue Monk shows it's a bird. But you've been saying over and over that YOUR video shows something different and that the real truth is in YOUR video. So the only way that we can settle things down on this matter is that someone here actually see and analize YOUR video. Blue Monk is willing to do it, so why don't you send YOUR video to him?

He will also digitize it so EVERYONE will be able to see it and make their own judgement.

Unless we can actually see what is in YOUR video, this thread will be an endless and fruitless discussion.

Originally posted by S&S
Who is Blue MONK? He doesn't know nothing about videos.He is only trully illing to justify Randi and Harters's mistakesI think Blue Monk is a skeptic and reasonable person who, like everyone else here, only wants to uncover the truth. If the truth is in your video, why not send it to him? Why not do it?, What do you have to lose if you are so sure of YOUR truth?

Originally posted by S&S
Remember what you wrote on that private message you send me before? Yes I agree with you.You are good at taking quotes out of context. What I said to you in PM was something like:"I agree with you that there is something in that video, but we need to analize independant evidence to rule out other posibilities"That's very different, isn't it?

Originally posted by S&S
And now you are asking me to help BLUE MONK. I thought you all were happy beleivers of him."The flapping bird"No, it's just the opposite, I'm trying to help your cause. Again, if you are so sure of your claim, why not let others see the video? What are you afraid of?

rwald

9th November 2002, 09:29 PM

Carlos, a bird would be small, and very near the camera which saw it. It's perfectly reasonable that one camera saw a bird, and another did now. Look up the word "parallax" for more information on the phenomenon.

However, a large paranormal object should have been seen by all the cameras. Why wasn't it?

9th November 2002, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I'm sure that the clip posted by Blue Monk shows it's a bird. But you've been saying over and over that YOUR video shows something different and that the real truth is in YOUR video. So the only way that we can settle things down on this matter is that someone here actually see and analize YOUR video. Blue Monk is willing to do it, so why don't you send YOUR video to him?

You are good at taking quotes out of context. What I said to you in PM was something like:"I agree with you that there is something in that video, but we need to analize independant evidence to rule out other posibilities"That's very different, isn't it?

No, it's just the opposite, I'm trying to help your cause. Again, if you are so sure of your claim, why not let others see the video? What are you afraid of?

Patricio:

Is not MY VIDEO, is a video broadcasted live to all the world, is the same shot about the pictures posted here.It just a referential video. All the copies are at any tv station of the world.

I never posted any qoute from that private message you send me. You are the first one who did it.

You didn't help me that much, you started this thread without posting my notarized application, that's why it is on page 2, after I forced you to do it.Remember also that I was not at the forum when you started this. I asked Linda if I can defend my point, and I am glad and thankful she posted that I was accepted and gave me the opportunity, and I am still here after so many replies and views, you didn't beat me, no reasonable arguments .

Yes I am sure of what I am claiming, or you forgot that I send the tape to the JREF and I received just a poor answer based on a poor method? I was frontal and they are still on silence.

Thanks,
S&S

Patricio Elicer

9th November 2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Is not MY VIDEO, is a video broadcasted live to all the world, is the same shot about the pictures posted here.It just a referential video. All the copies are at any tv station of the world. Don't you realize that it's much easier that YOU provide the video in question?. You have it in your hands!.... After all it's you who want to convince us of that "paranormal activity". Many people here have explained that it's not that easy in the US to just step into a TV station and ask for a videotape. I don't think that in my country it's easy either.

Again, if you are so sure of what is in that video, why don't you send it to Blue Monk who really wants to analize it?, Why don't you help to make things easier?

Carlos, it's extremely hard for me to follow your reasonings.

Tesserat

10th November 2002, 03:44 AM

NTSC isn't just made up of 29.97 frames per second, it's made up of twice that number of fields. The odd fields contain the odd lines of the picture, the even fields contain the even lines. When you watch something on a TV your picking up on 60 pictures per second, but your brain is fooled into thinking they are all full resolution.

Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.

davidhorman, I agree with you, almost. All the video editors I've worked with have to be told to interlace the odd/even fields, they don't do it automatically. I could film something on a digital camera, and then post a digital video avi that would have all of the information of the original. It'd be huge, but...

The other huge discussion we could get into on this is which codec the video is compressed in. Some of them are more "lossy" than others.

And then it depends on what program you use to look at them.
There's one video an Blue Monk's site that Adobe Premier says has lost frames, while VideoEditor says it doesn't.
Video is weird.

However, Bluemonk's posting of the TNN video destroy's Carlos's theory anyway. Unless Carlos posts a link to a video that represents what he's talking about, or sends somebody a copy of the video, his arguments are pointless.

davidhorman

10th November 2002, 04:36 AM

Carlos:

Why almost? I am not monkeying around with an image in Photoshop:, it is not MY link, I never posted those images, but I can tell you that is the same image YOU all can see if you do the correct analysis of the video.

Don't worry, I understood that it wasn't your link, but you were using it as evidence when I really don't think you should. Scaling a picture up like that and running those filters is just inventing information to fill the gaps between pixels, and shouldn't be trusted. When the FBI enhance pictures, I'm pretty sure they don't use Photoshop.

Tesserat:

I could film something on a digital camera, and then post a digital video avi that would have all of the information of the original.

It's a confusing thing, interlacing... would you be posting a 60 frame per second AVI, or a 30 frame per second AVI with interlaced fields? You'd only be able to view the latter properly with some deinterlacing thing. I do have a proper video capture card, but the stupid thing keeps dropping frames.

You know, it's just occured to me that we might have a copy of the footage at the TV station I work at. I'll look into it.

The other huge discussion we could get into on this is which codec the video is compressed in. Some of them are more "lossy" than others.

Yeah, that's why I don't put much stock into Blue Monk's flapping bird GIF, not offence BM. Hopefully the same effect will be visible in a non-compressed version.

David

Blue Monk

10th November 2002, 09:23 AM

<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/bird_compare.gif (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).
</center>

Originally posted by davidhorman
Yeah, that's why I don't put much stock into Blue Monk's flapping bird GIF, not offence BM. Hopefully the same effect will be visible in a non-compressed version.

No offense taken. I offer that GIF at face value. Whether or not it is actually a bird is of concern only to Carlos.

Carlos would like to believe that if we can't prove it is a bird then we can't prove his theory is wrong which of course is nonsense. The CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) tape and all other clips, and I mean ALL, would have captured the image of a large dark object passing through the tower. Carlos' theory is easily proven false (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

If you confront Carlos with this information he simply changes the subject to Harter's response. Soon everyone is discussing his bird and he can enjoy the illusion that not being able to prove that this image is a bird somehow means his theory can't be proven false.

So I offer the GIF as an argument, not against Carlos' theory, but against Carlos' argument that Harter's response that it is 'probably a bird' is unreasonable. For the record, I agree with Harter. It is probably a bird.

Above is a new GIF that includes better images from another source and as you can see there is considerably less flapping effect from a less compressed image.

I leave it to the viewer to decide whether or not this adds any food for thought in the burning issue of whether Harter is a evil and lying man to dare to suggest that this is 'probably a bird.'

So the way I see it, they are two separate issues.

1) The Validity of Carlos' Theory

I contend that the CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) clip and all other clips of the same event at the same time clearly prove Carlos' theory false.

2) Is it probably a bird?
Carlos has repeatedly accused Harter of lying and insisting we all answer his questions.

If you don't answer his questions your 'afraid.'
If you do answer his questions your 'lying.'

He will jump up and down if you answer this question now and scream that you need to analyze his clip to see his side yet he will not post it himself or cooperate in anyway to see that it gets shown.

If someone does view the clip and posts their response then Carlos simply refuses to believe them. How convenient.

So at this point I'd like to ask two questions from anyone who cares to answer.

1) Does the CNN tape prove Carlos' theory that there is a large dark object passing through one of the towers is false?

If you don't believe it proves Carlos' theory is false then please share your reasoning.

2) Is the object on the tape probably a bird?

10th November 2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/short_abc_bird.gif
</A>

From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

WHERE IS THE IMAGE (FRAME)WHEN THE OBJECT IS IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE????????????????

No I can't produce that image.(Blue Monk)

I know that has significance to you. (Blue Monk)

I don't know if he understood your application.(HARTER)

I don't know what clip he is refering to.(HARTER)

I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.(HARTER)

**************************************************
ANOTHER ANSWERS OF BLUE MONK AND ANOTHER JREF KIDS:
Can you analyzed the form of your "bird"???
NO

Can you used filters??
NO

Can you analyzed a professional image??
NEVER, because it is not important.

**************************************************

I really analyzed the image on a tv station of my country Chile.....the same as the JREF Kid.

I can confirm the real "form" of the object because i saw it with high resolution and with very slow carmera.

The real form of the object is this.....Where are the flappin winds????

PinkRabbit

10th November 2002, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi PInkie:

Just for the same reason "that specific bird" also doesn't appear in the other shot.

I thought you had access to the 3/4 tape and also did the analysis as you posted before. Well I am just confuse at that point now. Did you realy do it?How and where? , please.

Carlos, that explanation makes absolutely no sense.

If an object went through the towers ... where all those cameras were focused ... some of them should have picked it up. You're likening the position of the object to that of the planes. ALL of those cameras saw the plane go through ... though at different angles. Any other objects that went through that building should also have been seen.

A bird a long distance from the towers, and not the focus of the other cameras, would not be likely to be noticed by the other cameras (though, as I recall, one did pick up a lot of birds moving roughly where that one would have had to be). It would unimportant and only seen if it wandered between the camera and the object of its focus.

In short, your answer more or less admits that whatever the object was, it would have to be in the position the rest of us have said -- A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA -- and not where you say it was, going through the building, or it would have been seen by the other cameras.

I did have access to the 3/4 inch tape when my friend had some spare time. Had he not been interested in taking a look, I couldn't have simply walked in and demanded to see it. I had access because I know someone at the station, and used to work there. I would hazard a guess that very few people have that sort of in. You did not accept my word or description, and I simply commented on the reasons why others very likely cannot do what you demand ... including Randi and Harter. They would have to cold call, get through the receptionists who answer the phone, find someone who both had time and cared. It would probably have taken several days of calls back and forth ... assuming they even could find someone willing to help out. Given that they've already dismissed your claim for the ridiculous ******** it is, I see no reason why they would go to the effort of trying to talk a total stranger into spending several hours of their time to find the proper clip and analyze it. Frankly, were my friend not going through a difficult divorce and looking for ways to keep himself busy, I doubt he would have found the time. It's simply not worth the effort to 99% of the people out there.

Barb

Blue Monk

10th November 2002, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by latinijral
WHERE IS THE IMAGE (FRAME)WHEN THE OBJECT IS IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE????????????????

No I can't produce that image.(Blue Monk)

Yes that is correct.

Originally posted by latinijral

I know that has significance to you. (Blue Monk)

Yes, I said that. It does have significance to you. Not to me.

I don't give a damn about yours and Carlos' beef with JREF. Carlos insisted I give him answers so I am.

Originally posted by latinijral
I don't know if he understood your application.(HARTER)

Yes, again. And the answer will be yes next time you ask.

Originally posted by latinijral
I don't know what clip he is referring to.(HARTER)

Yes that is exactly correct. Carlos continues to ask what clip Harter used and now for the 1134th time I don't know.

Why is that so hard for you and Carlos to understand. Anytime you or him have asked that of anyone the answer has always been no. No one knows what clip Harter used.

I can't wait to be asked that again so I can once again tell you what everyone here already knows the answer to be but for some reason it is beyond yours and Carlos' ability to grasp.

I do not know what clip Harter view.

Originally posted by latinijral
I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.(HARTER)

Again, for the umpteenth time that is correct. What part of this are you not understanding. Maybe I'm not understanding you but I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

Originally posted by latinijral
**************************************************
ANOTHER ANSWERS OF BLUE MONK AND ANOTHER JREF KIDS:
Can you analyzed the form of your "bird"???
NO

What do you mean by analyzed? No I haven't as all I've had was that clip. I would look at the tape if you or Carlos made it available.

I am trying to get a copy so I can look at it. Just for you.

Originally posted by latinijral

Can you used filters??
NO

No. I don't have the tape. Aren't you paying attention?

Originally posted by latinijral
Can you analyzed a professional image??
NEVER, because it is not important.

No, Einstein, I don't have the tape. I am not refusing to analyze it.

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to find the tape and it will probably end up costing me a little $$$ but I will find the tape.

But when I do find it, and I will, I will analyze it.

Am I qualified to analyze it? No. Not at all. But after months of screaming at me to analyze your stupid tape as soon as I do you will scream bloody murder as I'm not qualified to.

But am I right in assuming that you aren't qualified either. Or Carlos?

What I will do is provide you or Carlos with a copy and if it is so important for you to have it analyzed you can take it to someone you trust and who is qualified and have them analyze it.

But you have both insisted that I analyze it and I will.

Originally posted by latinijral
I really analyzed the image on a tv station of my country Chile.....the same as the JREF Kid.

I believe you.

It's just that you seem to be willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary and base your belief that this object is paranormal simply on the fact that it looks strange.

I can assure you that I can start with a perfectly ordinary image and run it through filters and make it look very strange. It proves nothing.

But if you insist, when I get a good digitization of the tape I will run it through filters. I will do my best to follow the procedure in the link Carlos gave but it wasn't very precise and I had to translate it.

But of course I will do it on all the frames and show all of the frames.

Originally posted by latinijral
I can confirm the real "form" of the object because i saw it with high resolution and with very slow carmera.

Again I believe you.

But the question everyone wants to know is, 'Is the form constant or does it change.'

I can't help but notice that this process has been performed on only one frame. I would like to see all the frames.

Originally posted by latinijral
The real form of the object is this.....Where are the flappin winds????

You can't tell from a single frame. Post them all.

And of course, as always, one aspect of this we can rule out. No matter what is on that tape it is clearly not an object passing through one of the towers. All other clips confirm that fact.

Proof Carlos' theory is false. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html)

10th November 2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
<center>

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/bird_compare.gif (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

The proof is here (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).
</center>

No offense taken. I offer that GIF at face value. Whether or not it is actually a bird is of concern only to Carlos.

2) Is the object on the tape probably a bird?

Hi Blue Monk:

Is That all you got? A looped tricky version of a jumping white side of the tower? Very supernatural, tricks to Randi or to your followers or to the fools, you still are in the same place: with nothing, only enthusiasm.

Yes Randi and Harter already did the same (studied that shot from internet as you did, with less frames per second), but THEY said:"the object is clearly seen in front of THE TOWERS(2).

And you Blue Monk are not able to produce and put the pictures of :"the object" after it entered in the hole, and the picture of the "object " in front of the towers.
You are not even care of the tape in another format.
You don't answer, you don't have nothing, you are just full of links.
You are just full of enthusiasm to defend Harter and Randi's lies and/or mistakes (based in a poor method) in their answer to my notarized application to the JREF CHALLENGE .

Yes they have the tape., ask them.
And remember the frames are not an excuse, just do a better method, like I did, Randi knows also that.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Some links for your collection of interpretations:

http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html

http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

Tesserat

10th November 2002, 04:37 PM

originally posted by s&s

Yes they have the tape., ask them.

Carlos, i think I can understand your frustration, but if Blue Monk gets the tape from Harter, there's no way for us to know if it's the same tape. You have accesss to some people with technical knowledge, why don't you post a clip of the tape that you sent to Harter?

We would not use that clip to analyse the tape, but simply as a reference to find the correct tape to analyse.

That way, we can do the analysis that you demand. At the moment, I have to agree with Blue Monk. The CNN tape destoys your theory, especially since you can't say why the object is not seen on the CNN tape.

You have not given us new information to use, you've just been posting the same things over and over. If you could give us some more information, it would help a lot.

10th November 2002, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Tesserat

Carlos, i think I can understand your frustration, but if Blue Monk gets the tape from Harter, there's no way for us to know if it's the same tape. You have accesss to some people with technical knowledge, why don't you post a clip of the tape that you sent to Harter?

We would not use that clip to analyse the tape, but simply as a reference to find the correct tape to analyse.

That way, we can do the analysis that you demand. At the moment, I have to agree with Blue Monk. The CNN tape destoys your theory, especially since you can't say why the object is not seen on the CNN tape.

You have not given us new information to use, you've just been posting the same things over and over. If you could give us some more information, it would help a lot.

Hi Tesserat:

I understand YOUR frustration, and I will remind you ALL again: I just send a reterential tape (with my notarized application)to the JREF with the complete sequence of the same shot taped and broadcasted from different networks of the world.The LOGOS of the tv channels are on the shots. In the SAME referential tape was an interview that was brodcasted in a local TV NEWS that shows how in the same tv station were made the analysis of that shot with their own 3/4 tape and with their own equipments.
So all tv stations of the world have that shot, just ask for it if you can. Remember Randi is a media man (with access to tv stations) but Harter and he prefered to study "frame by frame" the same shot in a link of internet. Then they gave me that poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes.

Yes I also congratulated Blue monk for his enthusiasm, but he has troubles with the missing frames of an internet image.It is not my fault.I already wrote about the CNN tape.Here are another 2 new links for Blue monk collection. Are newbies.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC_UFO.html

http://www.tvbn.org/indexwbv.html

I did not send a link to the JREF, I send a referential tape so they would be able to find the same shot but with better resolutions and at their own local networks, so there will be no cheating.

So again, it is not MY TAPE the one to be analyze , is THE SHOT but using the correct format and the correct equipments , just like I did.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. The links I posted here it are not mine, are just more interpretations of the same subject and of the same shot, and RANDI is still on silence about my application. ???
Yes Blue Monk have the same shot but he is not able to post the pictures that I told him, he only is tricking with the looped version.He has some troubles with the missing frames, but the shot is the correct one, so no excuses.

Charlie in Dayton

10th November 2002, 08:43 PM

This post replaces one that had errors in fact. That post has been deleted. The errors have been corrected here. All photos used in the first post have been reposted here.

Originally posted by Baker
Acutely it does show up on the right tower you can track it from the left of the screen.
Starting in the smoke until it go’s off the screen just viewing the video over and over again it becomes clear it’s that it’s much closer to the screen.

All have to go with the bird theory.
If you look at the video closely you can see it on the right tower it will slightly darken in the area marked.

http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet2.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet3.gif
http://members.cox.net/baker2003/wtswet4.gif

originally posted by S&S
"In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the

false impression that it “passes behind the tower”."

There is only one hole left by the first plane. It never went through the building and broke out the other side as the plane did on the second tower. Yes, windows were broken and fires started, and smoke was pouring out fo all four sides of the tower, but there is no big hole where the plane came out again.

Additionally, let's orient ourselves with the pictures above. The leftmost tower is the south tower (hit second, collapsed first), and the
rightmost is the north tower (hit first, collapsed second). We are facing west. The tower faces are roughly parallel -- we're looking at the east walls. Since we're not quite square to the towers, we can look across the north walls of both towers, and are looking at the east walls of both towers.

The first plane flew into the north wall of the north tower. Therefore, if the 'object' flew into the hole left by the first plane, and gets out the
other side as S&S says, the object's flight path would be from our right to our left -- and that is not the case. The flight path is from our
left to our right.

Another point...there were thousands upon thousands of people there in New York at the time, watching from the street, and through
their windows. There were dozens of cameras, both still and moving image, film and tape, pointed at those buildings within minutes of the
first impact, and long before the second impact (which is when we see the 'object'). There were uncounted millions of people worldwide
watching on TV live as this tragedy unfolded.

Why is it that no other camera caught this 'object'?
Why is it that no one there in New York saw this 'object'?
Why is it that no one else watching TV saw this 'object'?
Why aren't there hundreds if not thousands of people claiming to have seen the 'paranormal hat-shaped object', whether in person, in a picture or moving image, or on TV?

Tesserat

11th November 2002, 02:23 AM

HELLO!!! Carlos!! anybody home???

I understand YOUR frustration, and I will remind you ALL again: I just send a reterential tape (with my notarized application)to the JREF with the complete sequence of the same shot taped and broadcasted from different networks of the world.The LOGOS of the tv channels are on the shots. In the SAME referential tape was an interview that was brodcasted in a local TV NEWS that shows how in the same tv station were made the analysis of that shot with their own 3/4 tape and with their own equipments.

I think it's just peachy that you sent a tape to JREF, but my question was, what is the clip that you want me to look at. I'm not going to fly to florida to ask Harter to give me the tape you sent him. I could find it easily, but first, I to know what it is.

Charlie from Dayton just posted a series of photos taken from a video. Are these from the video that you're talking about? I understand that there may be frames missing, I just want to know if it's the right video. If not, is there anything that's been posted on this thread that will enable me to find the right clip without going to florida.

Oh, and I'd love to hear your answers to Charlie in Dayton's questions.

Thanz

11th November 2002, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hii Blue Monk:

Again nothing new, you have nothing , you don't know nothing.

All your arguments are based in a wrong shot. No Blue monk that shot is not the one I send in my application and is not the shot Harter "studied it frame by frame" to gave me his poor answer full of lies and mistakes.
Yes I saw that CNN tape , I also have that video recorded at home. But also your "probably bird" is not there.Yes there are some others birds there ,but with differents trajectories, not one corresponds to the one of the other shot.
Yes in that CNN video the birds are flapping wings.There are also anothers birds in almost all the views from different angles, even in the single shot that registered the first impact . But birds are free to fly.That doesn't prove nothing.

[snip]

Thanks,
S&S

This is quite possibly the worst explanation I have ever seen.

The fact that the 'probably bird' is not on the CNN tape is the entire point. If there was a paranormal, hat-shaped object that passed through the tower, as you claim, it would be on the CNN tape. The only reason it was not on the CNN tape is because it was a bird or other object, much closer to the other camera than the towers, which was blurred and seemed fast due to its closeness to the camera.

The CNN tape shows that nothing passes through the tower. It proves that the object that is on your tape does not pass through the tower.

Please stop quoting me in your signature. After having seen the investigation efforts in this thread, and the images linked to by Blue Monk, I do not believe that Andrew Harter's investigation was dodgy. On the other hand, I do think that your claims are dodgy, your answers ridiculous, and you are either stupid, wilfully blind to the truth, or you somehow think that it is fun to pull people's chains in this forum.

Thanz

hal bidlack

11th November 2002, 06:26 AM

Remember, this is the same guy I could not get to agree to the meaning of the words "in advance."

There is a chance your clear logic, your reasoned insights, your keen analysis may be wasted. :D ;) :D

Blue Monk

11th November 2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by S&S
Is That all you got? A looped tricky version of a jumping white side of the tower? Very supernatural, tricks to Randi or to your followers or to the fools, you still are in the same place: with nothing, only enthusiasm.

What are you talking about? Are you talking about your petty beef with JREF or your stupid theory?

If your talking about your petty beef with JREF then yes, right now that’s about it. I’ve told you repeatedly that.

I don’t know what clip Harter viewed.
I don’t know if he understood your application.
I don’t know if what he saw matches what he said.

Is there something about this that you are having difficulty in understanding?

I have told you this from the beginning.

It behaves like a bird and when I focus on the object such as I have with the animated GIF it appears to change shape and those specific changes, whatever they may be, are completely consistent with a bird flapping it’s wings.

I suspect this has a great deal to do with why those of you that think you have seen something paranormal only post that single frame. It would be nice to see them all but the fact that only one is ever shown makes me suspect that the others aren’t quite as impressive in regard to your personal little delusion.

But that’s your beef with JREF.

If you talking about your stupid theory then that has been shot out of the water a long time ago thanks to the CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) tape provided by Purple Tentacle. Of course if you don’t like that tape disproving your theory then you can watch the BBC tape instead.

<CENTER>
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/animated/cnn_event.gif (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)
Proof Carlos’ Theory Is False (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)
</CENTER>

Originally posted by S&S
Yes Randi and Harter already did the same (studied that shot from internet as you did, with less frames per second), but THEY said:"the object is clearly seen in front of THE TOWERS(2).

Now Carlos, let’s be honest now. You don’t know what clip they used.

You don’t know what clip they used so you can’t possibly know how many frames per second it was.

Originally posted by S&S
And you Blue Monk are not able to produce and put the pictures of :"the object" after it entered in the hole, and the picture of the "object " in front of the towers.

Again, YES! Geez, how many times does one have to answer the same question over and over before it sinks in?

The shots you are talking about are between the frames. We’ve been over this already. Why are such simple things so hard for you to understand?

All the evidence we have suggests a bird. Those frames, according to you, support your claim and yet you seem very happy that they aren’t available.

So you are correct. We have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. I am glad you enjoy that so much. If those frames exist, and if they support your claim, and if you can produce them, then do so.

You’re the only person I’ve ever met who seems to think that the fact that they can’t produce the evidence to support their claim is somehow proof that their claim is valid.

But keep asking it.

Originally posted by S&S
You are not even care of the tape in another format.

No, I don’t have the tape. How many times to I have to tell you that before you understand? 200? 300?

You have the tape but you refuse to show us your evidence. Whose fault is that?

Concerning the matter of your stupid theory then no, I don’t care what format I view your tape in as the CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves you theory false.

But concerning your petty little beef with JREF it is you who claim there are more frames. It is you who claim it contains more evidence than we can see with what we have. It is you who refuses to produce this evidence. What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by S&S
You don't answer, you don't have nothing, you are just full of links.

I don’t have answer? To what question?

Is it a bird? No I don’t have that answer and may never be able to prove it is a bird. That is only relevant to your petty little beef with JREF and concerning that I don’t have to prove it is a bird, only prove that Harter was reasonable in proclaiming that it was ‘probably a bird.’ I agree. It was probably a bird.

Originally posted by S&S
You are just full of enthusiasm to defend Harter and Randi's lies and/or mistakes (based in a poor method) in their answer to my notarized application to the JREF CHALLENGE .

I don’t give a damn what you suspect my motivation to be.

If I don’t answer your question I’m ‘afraid.’
If I do answer your questions then I’m protecting some sort of imagined self-interest.

But therein lies the beauty of facts. They either are or they aren’t. They don’t depend on the opinion of anyone. Whether you love Randi or hate him or just don’t give a damn either way the CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Originally posted by S&S
Yes they have the tape., ask them.

I believe you. Of course they may not still have the tape. I don’t know if they save stuff like that or just throw it in the trash.

Originally posted by S&S
And remember the frames are not an excuse, just do a better method, like I did, Randi knows also that.

And just how do you expect me to do that? You have the tape and you won’t share it.

So let me try a new experiment. I want to see if you are capable of learning anything.

I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.

Do you understand?

I don’t give a damn about the frames. If you think they prove you have a legitimate gripe with JREF and these frames supports that then produce them. It’s that easy.

So let me make sure I’m clear on this.

You claim those frames contain important information that supports your claim. You are the only one that can produce those frames. But you won’t.

Hey Carlos, what’s wrong with this picture?

And of course, as always, while we may debate for years, nay decades, about what that is on your tape one theory can be tossed in the trash.

The CNN (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html) tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Carlos’ links:
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

Blue Monk links:
Proof Carlos' theory is false. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)
Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html)

11th November 2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

If your talking about your petty beef with JREF then yes, right now that’s about it. I’ve told you repeatedly that.

I don’t know what clip Harter viewed.
I don’t know if he understood your application.
I don’t know if what he saw matches what he said.

But that’s your beef with JREF.

You don’t know what clip they used so you can’t possibly know how many frames per second it was.

The shots you are talking about are between the frames. We’ve been over this already. Why are such simple things so hard for you to understand?

All the evidence we have suggests a bird. Those frames, according to you, support your claim and yet you seem very happy that they aren’t available.

So you are correct. We have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. I am glad you enjoy that so much. If those frames exist, and if they support your claim, and if you can produce them, then do so.

You’re the only person I’ve ever met who seems to think that the fact that they can’t produce the evidence to support their claim is somehow proof that their claim is valid.

But keep asking it.

No, I don’t have the tape. How many times to I have to tell you that before you understand? 200? 300?

You have the tape but you refuse to show us your evidence. Whose fault is that?

I don’t have answer? To what question?

Is it a bird? No I don’t have that answer and may never be able to prove it is a bird. That is only relevant to your petty little beef with JREF and concerning that I don’t have to prove it is a bird, only prove that Harter was reasonable in proclaiming that it was ‘probably a bird.’ I agree. It was probably a bird.

I don’t give a damn what you suspect my motivation to be.

If I don’t answer your question I’m ‘afraid.’
If I do answer your questions then I’m protecting some sort of imagined self-interest.

I believe you. Of course they may not still have the tape. I don’t know if they save stuff like that or just throw it in the trash.

And just how do you expect me to do that? You have the tape and you won’t share it.

So let me try a new experiment. I want to see if you are capable of learning anything.

I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.

Do you understand?

I don’t give a damn about the frames. If you think they prove you have a legitimate gripe with JREF and these frames supports that then produce them. It’s that easy.

So let me make sure I’m clear on this.

You claim those frames contain important information that supports your claim. You are the only one that can produce those frames. But you won’t.

Carlos’ links:
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

.[/URL]

Hi BlueMonk:
Don't worry ,I understand you can't do a correct analysis, the reason: YOU ARE USING THE SAME POOR METHOD HARTER USED.

Did you understand? On internet tapes or videos are missing frames, so you are not able to produce the pictures I asked too,
so if you can't you didn't prove nothing and Harter also didn't prove nothing. Is that simple.

The only thing you "thing" you have as a proof is ANOTHER SHOT, not the shot I send to the JREF.In that shot you have you have can not also see "the probably bird" in the same trajectory, so don't be so confuse.Remember I said in my application the reasons why "the object" is paranormal.

But we have my application, we have Harter's answer full of mistakes and /or lies, we have the referential shot on internet(only with missing frames but with the complete sequence).

Now is time for you to relax and with the same enthusiasm try to ask JREF about the tape or the link. or go with the referential shot you have to a tv station and analyse with them their 3/4 tape or just stay as you are right now : with nothing that can prove that I am wrong in my claim.
Maybe you can join Charlie of Dayton in his investigation and find "his tv friend" together or private Pink Rabbit and ask her about the 3/4 tape they analyzed(?) or just private me for instructions.

You are free to do whatever you want.
Until you decide what to do,please don't give up with your enthusiasm and try to be just an impartial observer in the "case" and focus in the correct method like I did before I send my notarized application to the challenge of the JREF.

You are good, so I am sure you will find the way .

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Did you understand that I only send a referntial tape to the JREF.
Was only for a help to them to find the correct method and the best tape on their tv channels of their city. I did the same in Ecuador, but JREF (Harter and Randi) prefered to study "that shot" on internet , just the same way you did.

11th November 2002, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by bidlack
Remember, this is the same guy I could not get to agree to the meaning of the words "in advance."

There is a chance your clear logic, your reasoned insights, your keen analysis may be wasted. :D ;) :D

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack:

Remember you are part of the JREF, you will be a conferencist at the "amazing meeting" and you are not able to help BLUE MONK with the link that Harter used to gave me his poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes to my notarized application.

The JREF also have the referential tape I send with my application.

James Randi is still on silence in his weeks commentaries about my notarized application and his aprooval to Harter's answer and poor method (anlyzing "frame by frame" that shot in a video on internet)

Just help the members , they are asking for the link or the tape.
I am sending this reply "in advance", so you will have not excuses. Or is something wrong with that?

Thanks,
S&S

Thanz

11th November 2002, 11:53 AM

I don't know why I wading into the fray here, but I'll beat my head against the wall with the rest of you

Originally posted by S&S

[snip]

The only thing you "thing" you have as a proof is ANOTHER SHOT, not the shot I send to the JREF.In that shot you have you have can not also see "the probably bird" in the same trajectory, so don't be so confuse.Remember I said in my application the reasons why "the object" is paranormal.

The reason that you said in your application that the object is paranormal is that the object enters one hole made by the plane and exits out another one. Of course, this means nothing in terms of 'paranormal', but let's just accept that.

If there was an object that went into and out of the tower, it could be seen on every shot taken of the towers at that moment. The second plane hit the second tower. All of the cameras pointing at the tower at that point show this.

Not all of the cameras show the 'paranormal object' that you claim went into and out of the first tower. In fact, only one camera recorded this object. As you have admitted, the CNN tape does not show the object. If the object did go into the first tower, why is it not on the CNN tape? Is the other camera a 'magic camera'?

Since the CNN tape does not show the object, the object did not go into or out of the first tower. If the object did not do this, it is not 'paranormal', as that is the reason you are claiming it is paranormal. If it is not paranormal, you have no claim.

Why are you ignoring me Carlos? I must insist that you stop quoting me in your signature, as I do not agree with your position.

Thanz

PinkRabbit

11th November 2002, 12:54 PM

Well, Carlos, I note you didn't answer my last note. Personally, I think it's because even your ability to misunderstand, obfuscate, equivocate, evade, prevaricate, and completely avoid the truth is starting to get a little strained.

Hey, we all have our little fantasies.

I was going to write a longer commentary, but I think Charlie in Dayton said best, so I'll just quote him.

Why is it that no other camera caught this 'object'?
Why is it that no one there in New York saw this 'object'?
Why is it that no one else watching TV saw this 'object'?
Why aren't there hundreds if not thousands of people claiming to have seen the 'paranormal hat-shaped object', whether in person, in a picture or moving image, or on TV?

Barb

CurtC

11th November 2002, 01:07 PM

Bidlack, are you really part of the JREF? I guess I didn't have the impression that you are.

Carlos, I don't think you understand Randi's commentaries and their purpose. They are meant to be interesting reading to people who like clear thinking. They're not a log of all the applications Randi gets for the prize. I think that he gets quite a few applications, most of which are kooky. They dispense with these fairly quickly and move on. That's what Mr. Harter did with yours. They are not worthy of more time, nor of being mentioned in the commentary.

A couple of times in the past, Randi has written about a particular applicant, usually just to show what kind of kooks are out there. If he chooses to mention yours, I'm sure that will be the purpose. You claim is just bizarre, like the rantings from an insane person. Were you aware that you sound insane in your posts here? People here have been talking pretty rationally with you, trying to corner your argument to a point where you have to see it's invalid, like any sane person would. So far it hasn't seemed to work.

Anyway, I have no idea whether the JREF still has your tape. If it were me, I would have trashed it. So you are the only here one that has a copy of it. TV stations might have it archived, but they're not going to give it to anyone. It's up to you to get it digitized properly if you would like us to see it.

hal bidlack

11th November 2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
Bidlack, are you really part of the JREF? I guess I didn't have the impression that you are.
...

I'm not an employee of the JREF, but I am proud to call them my good friends. I have worked with JREF on several issue, and my consulting with Mr. Randi while I was working at the State Department was in part responsible for saving the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars.

I am a speaker at the Amazing Meeting (a 'conferencist' in Mr Swett's terms). He feels this makes my judgement as to the words "in advance" questionable.

I will say this: while I think Carlos is truly a strange fellow for his obsession with the goofy tape, I looked at his web site. He's a heck of an artist, very talented. Too bad that doesn't carry over into reason and logic.

Blue Monk

11th November 2002, 05:15 PM

I have found Carlos' tape!

I've been working on finding it for some time and I've been pretty sure I had it located last Friday but I didn't want to say anything until I was sure.

Whoever said earlier that you can't just walk into a television station and get any of their videos was sure right. I started with all of the local affiliations The same story at all of them. The copyright belongs to the network and they won't make copies for the public.

I've written the networks and have gotten very little response but of course at this point I have no idea who actually owns the tape so I've only asked general questions concerning how one would get a copy but they haven't been very cooperative.

Finally I was able to talk to a guy at the local CBS affiliate and he told me about a local company called Teleclips. They pay a flat royalty fee to all of the networks for the right to archive the network feeds. Then they provide that information for a fee for non-commercial use, mostly research.

I knew then that I could get it if they had it but I couldn't be sure if they did so I spent 3 hours today scanning tons of video to find Carlos' clip which of course I did. It went over the network feeds on ABC that night of September 11, 01. Now that I know a specific time and network it aired I should be able to find out more information about it. I would like to make contact with the photographer and find out where he was standing, what he thinks, etc. I might also be able to get a copy of the whole video (as opposed to the brief clip aired).

In my search today for Carlos' tape I had hoped to get some more shots from other angles while I was at it. There were plenty to be had but these damn things aren't cheap. I did however kick in a few extra bucks to couple more relevant angles off of the ABC feed. It was cheaper that way, hehe, and one is the BBC shot only this is the quality video and so I can make a much better digitized version.

The engineer said they'd have it ready for me tomorrow at noon. I don't go to work until 2 so I can pick it up before.

Since I work in the Computer Lab in the Fine Arts Library at UT we have a video station. I can digitize it there and post it to my site so with any luck and the creeks don't rise I should have a quality digitization of Carlos' tape online by tomorrow evening.

I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice. I'll take it over to the Communications building at the University and use their equipment where I'll have the time to do it properly.

We will, at least, be able to settle (hehe) any questions concerning what frames there are and what is on them. I'll post them as soon as I can but my first concern will be to get a digitized copy on the net so we can all see what all the fuss is about. The clip I'm going to post will no doubt be pretty large even for such a short time frame but it will be necessary to preserve the quality and ensure it matches the resolution of the video. I'll post a more web friendly version for the band-width challenged but the quality clip will be there for anyone's inspection.

Patricio Elicer

11th November 2002, 05:34 PM

Thanks Blue Monk :) . I can't believe you had the patience to go into such a big trouble. I will eagerly await for your clip and would hope it will help to put an end to this pointless debate.

11th November 2002, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't know why I wading into the fray here, but I'll beat my head against the wall with the rest of you

Since the CNN tape does not show the object, the object did not go into or out of the first tower. If the object did not do this, it is not 'paranormal', as that is the reason you are claiming it is paranormal. If it is not paranormal, you have no claim.

Why are you ignoring me Carlos? I must insist that you stop quoting me in your signature, as I do not agree with your position.

Thanz

Hi Thanz:

Your "words" are on my signature because I didin't invented, that was just your sincerily reply. Yes I agree with YOUR words before you posted that.
I told Harter (after his poor answer) that the method he used was not the appropiate. You used a different expression that is on my signature but that means almost the same.

Yes the CNN shot also doesn't show "the bird " in the same trajectory, yes is very strange.But don't worry that is not the correct shot, besides now Blue monk has the tape.
So just be patient.

Thanks,
S&S

11th November 2002, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
Bidlack, are you really part of the JREF? I guess I didn't have the impression that you are.

OR PARTNER??????

11th November 2002, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I have found Carlos' tape!

Since I work in the Computer Lab in the Fine Arts Library at UT we have a video station. I can digitize it there and post it to my site so with any luck and the creeks don't rise I should have a quality digitization of Carlos' tape online by tomorrow evening.

I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice. I'll take it over to the Communications building at the University and use their equipment where I'll have the time to do it properly.

Hi Blue Monk:

C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S

I always trusted your enthusiasm. I hope that when you digitize the tape you will not have the same problems of frames.
Be sure that is the correct shot and don't forget to see the original tape (3/4 or betacam) in a broadcast equipment (lyke you did in Teleclip) to do the first analysis, then you are able to digitized it.

Try to see the video first on a wide screen tv.
Take your time and go on

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

When you said this:"I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice."

What do you mean?
Art still the same doubts?
Or the equipments were not good enough to see the bird?

11th November 2002, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Thanks Blue Monk :) . I can't believe you had the patience to go into such a big trouble. I will eagerly await for your clip and would hope it will help to put an end to this pointless debate.

Se nota que estàs sudando frìo...perro.

Blue Monk:
You are reading this thread now....join the chat now #jref

11th November 2002, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by bidlack

I'm not an employee of the JREF, but I am proud to call them my good friends. I have worked with JREF on several issue, and my consulting with Mr. Randi while I was working at the State Department was in part responsible for saving the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars.

I am a speaker at the Amazing Meeting (a 'conferencist' in Mr Swett's terms). He feels this makes my judgement as to the words "in advance" questionable.

I will say this: while I think Carlos is truly a strange fellow for his obsession with the goofy tape, I looked at his web site. He's a heck of an artist, very talented. Too bad that doesn't carry over into reason and logic.

Hi Mr Bidlack:

First I thank you for your opinion of my works in art. I really appreciate your words. Those words are better than money.Thanks.

No that is not my web site, is latinijral site.But he posted some pictures of my works on it.
I don't have a web page, sorry.Maybe in the future, I will ask Blue Monk for help.

About my "goofy" tape: Is not my obsession, you are witness that is an obsession of the members and the guess of this THREAD. They are the ones who want to know which link Harter used to "study frame by frame the shot".

I told you "in Advance" that members want to know the link, but you that are a real "good performer" and close friend to Randi don't help us with the link. WHY?

Reasons and logic?

Yes because I work with visual arts, is because my eyes are trained to be observer enough.

Yes , I know how is a form of a bird, the way they flies, etc.

Yes,I also observed "the object" at the smoke. This part is very difficult, but yes I did it before Harter and Randi.

Yes I also saw that it enterd in the hole and I put the reasons why on my application.Remember the frames that are missing?

Yes I also explained in my application why is not a bird or an insect bettween the cameraman and the towers, that proves you that I already knew about that optical effect.

So Mr. Bidlack, I just did an application to JREF willing(?)that Randi can use better equipments or tecnollogy that I did, but he just saw a video on Internet. Blue Monk is trying to do the work you must did before.

Who is the "goofy" now?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I also saw and read your web page, you are a fine artist, very smart and with a fine irony too.
Congratulations.

hal bidlack

11th November 2002, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Hi Mr Bidlack:

First I thank you for your opinion of my works in art. I really appreciate your words. Those words are better than money.Thanks.

you are welcome. I mean the compliment sincerely

...

I told you "in Advance" that members want to know the link, but you that are a real "good performer" and close friend to Randi don't help us with the link. WHY?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the above paragraph means

Reasons and logic?

Yes because I work with visual arts, is because my eyes are trained to be observer enough.

Yes , I know how is a form of a bird, the way they flies, etc.

Yes,I also observed "the object" at the smoke. This part is very difficult, but yes I did it before Harter and Randi.

...

:confused::confused: er.. ahh. what?

So Mr. Bidlack, I just did an application to JREF willing(?)that Randi can use better equipments or tecnollogy that I did, but he just saw a video on Internet. Blue Monk is trying to do the work you must did before.

since you seem to be briefly talking to me directly, I'll again ask the simple question. Do you agree/understand/have any awareness, that you have to apply for the test BEFORE an event takes place? (why do I doubt an answer is coming)[/i]

Who is the "goofy" now?

well, shucks, shall we let the viewers decide? But thanks for asking

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I also saw and read your web page, you are a fine artist, very smart and with a fine irony too.
thanks, I think, and again, what?

Congratulations.

Pablo

12th November 2002, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by latinijral

Se nota que estàs sudando frìo...perro.

Magnífica contribución al debate, caballero. Desde luego, con esos insultos va a conseguir que quienes leemos esta sucesión de mensajes cambiemos de opinión y aceptemos que se trata de algo paranormal. Yo ya empiezo a tener mis dudas.

Siga por ese camino, llegará lejos.

davidhorman

12th November 2002, 01:32 AM

Try to see the video first on a wide screen tv.

Hey S&S - why?

David

12th November 2002, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman

Hey S&S - why?

David
Hi Davidhorman:

Why? Just because is better to analyze an image in a big screen than in a tiny screen, or you "think" is not?

Remember that tip is only for BlueMonk, now that he has the tape (in another format) he will be able to do that, before he digitize the image for the members.

It's better, I did it that way before I send my application to the JREF, and if Blue Monk is able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on the appropiate equipments as he did at Teleclip , he will have arguments to enforce his reply.

I expected the JREF to did the same Blue Monk is doing(I really appreciate his efforts).
But they only saw an internet video, an unknown link, even Bidlack (close friend of Randi) doesn't know the link or is refused to tell us.

Thanks,
S&S

12th November 2002, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by bidlack
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the above paragraph means

Hi Mr Hal Bidlack:

I will put you again the paragraph:I told you "in Advance" that members want to know the link Harter used, but you that are a real "good performer" and close friend to Randi don't help us with the link. WHY?

It means that Harter said in his answer to my application that he studied the shot "frame by frame" in a video that is available on the Internet.
His answer is based in that method, but he "forgot" to put the link.
So, you that are "close" to the JREF and you are replying here at this thread in their name, maybe you can help the members just asking them what link they used to made the study and the assumptions they gave me in their answer to my application.

Please, just answer that point by yourself and don't try that the smiles speak instead of you.
Yes I know you have a fine irony, but just answer, if you can .

Thanks,
S&S

hal bidlack

12th November 2002, 08:38 AM

So you are asking which internet site Andrew used to see the bird? I don't know.

I do know that if you type "ufo at world trade center video" into Google, you get 8240 hits. Many of them have your video, as well as the more famous 'ufo by the helo' video. Do you think that one is real too? If so, do you believe you could send it to the JREF to claim the prize?

still, you are a fine artist. When you do the work at the bottom of pools, do you have to use a particular paint to avoid damage from chlorine? Or do you treat the tiles some how?

12th November 2002, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by bidlack
So you are asking which internet site Andrew used to see the bird? I don't know.

I do know that if you type "ufo at world trade center video" into Google, you get 8240 hits. Many of them have your video, as well as the more famous 'ufo by the helo' video. Do you think that one is real too? If so, do you believe you could send it to the JREF to claim the prize?

still, you are a fine artist. When you do the work at the bottom of pools, do you have to use a particular paint to avoid damage from chlorine? Or do you treat the tiles some how?

Hi Mr Hal Bidlack:
So You don't know and you didn't ask them. But you are admiting they used that poor method. Maybe you should ask them about the link they used, if you "think" is necessary.

Thanks for your words again about my art works .

In the bottoms of the pools I particullary do more art-decorating stuff than a pure art like in the murals. About your question about a "particular paint" to avoid dammage of chlorine, I am telling you that I don't use paints , I work with the technique of small tiles of mosaics (like in the ancient Rome). This particulars tiles are different from ceramic, and are made to resist that particular dammage because of its composition and thickness.Any particular job at your home is welcome(ha,ha,ha) and you and all the JREF will have an incredible discount.

Sorry to all the members for this little commercial, but Bidlack asked first.I didn't even never post latinijral link where are the pictures of my works. I don't have a particular page of my works.
I guess that link was posted by Beavis and Butthead ( WIERD and IGGY msn skeptics forum)

Thanks again Bidlack, your words are better (at least for me) than a million papers.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
No I do not think others videos are real, I don't "beleive in them, I just send a particular shot that was broadcasted "live" in a particular EVENT.
Remember I trusted and supported Randi's works?

CurtC

12th November 2002, 09:44 AM

Carlos, you're attaching much importance to exactly which Internet video was used. Bidlack hasn't asked anyone because 1) Andrew Harter would probably not remember which of the thousands of links he had seen, and 2) it doesn't matter. They're all basically the same. They all have what appears to be every other frame of the real video, leaving gaps along the object's flight path. One of those gaps is where the object would have been in front of the wall of the North Tower.

Had Mr. Harter instead looked at your video, what would he have seen? I am looking forward to Blue Monk's posting of the video he has purchased. You claim that the missing frame will show a wall with no bird; I think there will be a bird there. But even if Mr. Harter had used your video, and even if he saw no object in that frame, his answer still would have been "I don't know what effects caused the object not to be visible at that point, but it's clear in the other videos taken at the same moment that there was no large object passing through the North Tower at that instant, and anyway your application for the prize is not valid because it was not submitted in advance."

Now can we move on past the issue of which video clip he used? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

davidhorman

12th November 2002, 09:52 AM

Why? Just because is better to analyze an image in a big screen than in a tiny screen, or you "think" is not?

I do think it is not. What counts is not the size of the screen but other factors like the resolution of the screen and the signal being used (composite, s-video, SDI). A professional monitor (such as the ones littered around my desk as I type) would be far better than a widescreen television - even if the original footage was recorded in widescreen, which I suspect it wasn't.

And all of that becomes academic once it gets digitized because we can easily look at every pixel.

David

12th November 2002, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

I do think it is not. What counts is not the size of the screen but other factors like the resolution of the screen and the signal being used (composite, s-video, SDI). A professional monitor (such as the ones littered around my desk as I type) would be far better than a widescreen television - even if the original footage was recorded in widescreen, which I suspect it wasn't.

And all of that becomes academic once it gets digitized because we can easily look at every pixel.

David

Hi David Horman :

You are right and I agree with you that the other factors like the resolution of the screen and the signal being used (composite, s-video, SDI) are the principal ones.

I was just refering that I also saw that shot in a wide screen monitor that helped to analyze the form of "the object".But all the previous analysis were done in monitors that the tv channels have connected to their broadcast equipments.

Your replies had been very useful to the members to have a criterial of the difference between an internet video and another format tapes, specially in the chapter of "the frames" that have each other.

Well, now I have an excuse to one of my kids(I have 4) that wants me to change his 14 inchess tv to one of 29 inches wide.

Thanks,
S&S

12th November 2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by CurtC

Had Mr. Harter instead looked at your video, what would he have seen? I am looking forward to Blue Monk's posting of the video he has purchased. You claim that the missing frame will show a wall with no bird; I think there will be a bird there. But even if Mr. Harter had used your video, and even if he saw no object in that frame, his answer still would have been "I don't know what effects caused the object not to be visible at that point, but it's clear in the other videos taken at the same moment that there was no large object passing through the North Tower at that instant, and anyway your application for the prize is not valid because it was not submitted in advance."

Now can we move on past the issue of which video clip he used? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

Hi Curt C:

It doesn't matter to you.
Of course you are not the one who made the application to the challenge and of course you are not the one who received Harter's poor answer.
If he was based in that poor method to do the analysis of the shot, at least he must put what link he used, remember he was answering my application as a JREF researcher.

Yes Curtc, Harter's answer WOULD HAVE BEEN as you are "thinking", but was not.

Harter's answer was different, he said :
.
".....I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.

You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.

Andrew Harter
Researcher
James Randi Educational Foundation
--------------------------------

Curt C , sorry but Harter's answer is complete different as your assumption. The capitals letters are from him.

I just said that his method and answer is full of lies and /or mistakes.And was done with Randi's aprooval.

Thanks,
S&S

12th November 2002, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Pablo

Magnífica contribución al debate, caballero. Desde luego, con esos insultos va a conseguir que quienes leemos esta sucesión de mensajes cambiemos de opinión y aceptemos que se trata de algo paranormal. Yo ya empiezo a tener mis dudas.

Siga por ese camino, llegará lejos.

Se nota que ciertos perros llegan lejos....por ejemplo tù llegaste a Alemania.

Se nota que estàs sudando frìo...perros.

rwald

12th November 2002, 05:57 PM

Carlos, as I've said before, the reason Andrew didn't include a link to his video was that he was sending the letter to you, and since you clearly already had a copy of the video, you didn't need an internet link. Is that really hard to understand?

12th November 2002, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, as I've said before, the reason Andrew didn't include a link to his video was that he was sending the letter to you, and since you clearly already had a copy of the video, you didn't need an internet link. Is that really hard to understand?

Originally posted by rwald 09/16/02
"I agree that Harter's response was not the best it could have been."

12th November 2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, as I've said before, the reason Andrew didn't include a link to his video was that he was sending the letter to you, and since you clearly already had a copy of the video, you didn't need an internet link. Is that really hard to understand?

Hi Rwald:

No, is really easy to understand :""Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality"

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

12th November 2002, 06:38 PM

Opinions can change. Over the course of this discussion, I have come to learn that both of you are irrational and can never be convinced of anything. Just because, two months ago, I thought that this matter warrented further investigation, does not mean I still believe this. Clearly, my previous opinions were based on insufficient evidence, and upon seeing all the evidence, I can now state that those opinions were frequently wrong. If you can't understand the concept of changing one's opinions in the light of new evidence, the fault lies with you, not with me.

12th November 2002, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Opinions can change. Over the course of this discussion, I have come to learn that both of you are irrational and can never be convinced of anything. Just because, two months ago, I thought that this matter warrented further investigation, does not mean I still believe this. Clearly, my previous opinions were based on insufficient evidence, and upon seeing all the evidence, I can now state that those opinions were frequently wrong. If you can't understand the concept of changing one's opinions in the light of new evidence, the fault lies with you, not with me.

Hi Rwald:

Things are the same before , now and in the future for this kind of JREF researcher::""Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality"

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

12th November 2002, 07:07 PM

And if Andrew's investigation wasn't "good enough," then what? We've had people like PinkRabbit tell us that your object is clearly a bird on the 3/4 inch tape, and also Blue Monk's CNN video which shows that there's nothing paranormal in the area. And even if there were, it still wouldn't qualify for the challenge, because you disobeyed both the letter and the spirit of the rules for the JREF challenge. Why was Andrew compelled to conduct a "good enough" investigation, when there was no valid claim to begin with? Why does Andrew's investigation matter?

12th November 2002, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Clearly, my previous opinions were based on insufficient evidence, and upon seeing all the evidence, I can now state that those opinions were frequently wrong. If you can't understand the concept of changing one's opinions in the light of new evidence, the fault lies with you, not with me.

Like this kind of evidence my friend???

rwald

12th November 2002, 07:12 PM

Why don't you post the blown-up image for all the other frames? Or do they not all look the same as this, invalidating your theory?

Blue Monk

12th November 2002, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by rwald
And if Andrew's investigation wasn't "good enough," then what? We've had people like PinkRabbit tell us that your object is clearly a bird on the 3/4 inch tape, and also Blue Monk's CNN video which shows that there's nothing paranormal in the area. And even if there were, it still wouldn't qualify for the challenge, because you disobeyed both the letter and the spirit of the rules for the JREF challenge. Why was Andrew compelled to conduct a "good enough" investigation, when there was no valid claim to begin with? Why does Andrew's investigation matter?

Excellent point.

Of course there is no investigation Harter could have done that would have satisfied Carlos.
There is nothing we will ever be able to do to satisfy Carlos.
There is only one answer Carlos wants and no amount of analyzing anything is ever going to produce it.

Blue Monk

12th November 2002, 07:59 PM

Well, sorry, but the tape is a no-show for tonight.

I did pick it up so I actually posses it but the video station was in use all damn day. It's often sits idle for days at a time but not today.

Tomorrow's my day off but I've got some errands to run and I'm a bit curious myself so if I have time I'll pop in and digitize it so I can post it.

If not it'll be Thursday.

12th November 2002, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Well, sorry, but the tape is a no-show for tonight.

I did pick it up so I actually posses it but the video station was in use all damn day. It's often sits idle for days at a time but not today.

Tomorrow's my day off but I've got some errands to run and I'm a bit curious myself so if I have time I'll pop in and digitize it so I can post it.

If not it'll be Thursday.

Hi Blue MOnk:

Nobody is hurryng you, just take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

12th November 2002, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

Excellent point.

Of course there is no investigation Harter could have done that would have satisfied Carlos.
There is nothing we will ever be able to do to satisfy Carlos.
There is only one answer Carlos wants and no amount of analyzing anything is ever going to produce it.

Hi Blue Monk:

Harter investigation is not only poor for me, is a fact according to some others members.

Or are you still thinking was good enough?

Just look at you, you are doing a better job, just to eliminate the doubts you have.

I hope you will have the access to the equipments as you did in TELECLIP : "I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice." (????)

Thanks,
S&S

Wyrd1

12th November 2002, 10:12 PM

How do you like my avatar? How do you like me now? Maybe someday you'll be a famous artist like your brother in arms, S&S? Tell them where you got your start big boy.

Pablo

12th November 2002, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by latinijral

Se nota que ciertos perros llegan lejos....por ejemplo tù llegaste a Alemania.

Se nota que estàs sudando frìo...perros.

Coño, pues claro que estoy sudando frío. ¿Quién no tendría miedo de un individuo que reside a medio mundo de distancia y afirma que una imagen captada por otra persona es prueba irrefutable de una actividad paranormal en uno de los atentados terroristas más documentados de la historia? ¿Como no va a estar temblando alguien como yo, que vive a diez mil kilómetros del valedor del video y de sus palanganeros y a seis mil del lugar del supuesto fenómeno? ¿No se da cuenta de lo mucho que me afecta todo ello? Tampoco a usted le llegaría la camisa al cuerpo con semejantes adversarios y semejantes argumentos.

Ah, y otra cosa.... si te tomas la molestia de escribir los acentos, escríbelos correctamente, imbécil.

12th November 2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Pablo

Coño, pues claro que estoy sudando frío.

¿No se da cuenta de lo mucho que me afecta todo ello?
.

Perro:

Si no tienes argumentos, escóndete debajo de tu cama.
Puedes optar por acurrucarte en los brazos de tu marido si no te gusta la primera opción.

Thanks,
S&S

Pablo

12th November 2002, 10:52 PM

Hablando de argumentos, ¿Cuáles son los tuyos?

Tienes un video que no grabaste tú, en el que se ve durante un par de fotogramas lo que a todas luces es un pájaro. Para demostrarlo, una serie de gente (mucho más preparada que tú y que yo) ha aportado argumentos y pruebas más que convincentes para determinar que es un pájaro. Esos argumentos van desde estudios exhaustivos de la grabación hasta una observación muy lógica: visto que hay centenares de tomas de aquel suceso, ¿por qué la supuesta "actividad paranormal" no quedó registrada en ellas?

A todo esto, tu respuesta es "no es un pájaro, es una actividad paranormal. Lo digo yo, y eso debe bastar". Buen argumento, si señor. Sin olvidar la inestimable colaboración de latinjiral, por supuesto, siempre al quite para ofrecer testimonios gráficos.

Con este último mensaje has acabado de demostrarme que das la argumentación por perdida, y ya sólo te interesa comprobar hasta dónde alcanza la educación y la paciencia de la gente. Ahora que ya sé por dónde van los tiros, puedo relajarme (aún más si cabe: estoy a punto de tirarme un pedo :D ) y disfrutar del espectáculo que ofrece un individuo mayor de edad comportándose como un crío de seis años.

En otro orden de cosas, absolutamente al margen de la disputa, me gustaría obtener la dirección de Internet en la que se puede admirar tu obra artística. Son muchos ya los que la han alabado públicamente en este foro, y me han picado la curiosidad.

Atentamente

Pablo

PS he renunciado al usted siguiendo tu ejemplo. Bastará una indicación para que recupere el tono formal.

12th November 2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Pablo

Con este último mensaje has acabado de demostrarme que das la argumentación por perdida, y ya sólo te interesa comprobar hasta dónde alcanza la educación y la paciencia de la gente. Ahora que ya sé por dónde van los tiros, puedo relajarme (aún más si cabe: estoy a punto de tirarme un pedo :D ) y disfrutar del espectáculo que ofrece un individuo mayor de edad comportándose como un crío de seis años.

En otro orden de cosas, absolutamente al margen de la disputa, me gustaría obtener la dirección de Internet en la que se puede admirar tu obra artística. Son muchos ya los que la han alabado públicamente en este foro, y me han picado la curiosidad.

Atentamente

Pablo

PS he renunciado al usted siguiendo tu ejemplo. Bastará una indicación para que recupere el tono formal.

El tono formal lo perdiste en tu primera aparición en este tema, o es acaso que te has olvidado de los insultos publicados?
Retrocede a tu primera aparición y ponte la mano en el pecho si fué suficientemente educada para merecer lo que has logrado.

Te agradezco tu curiosidad por a cuestión artística pero no tengo el link guardado.
Es una página de latinijral, tu otro amigo , si la consigo a futuro te la envío por privado para evitar malinterpretaciones, suficiente con las que tengo.

Si tu tienes argumentos, los míos son propios de una realidad. Puede ser que necesites leer todo el "thread".Esto no es una guerra, es simplemente un debate y como te darás cuenta sigo tranquilo y campante. Tampoco necesito esconderme.

Thanks,
S&S

Blue Monk

12th November 2002, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Harter investigation is not only poor for me, is a fact according to some others members.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I hope you notice my new tagline.

Originally posted by S&S
Or are you still thinking was good enough?

Of course, I think he did an excellent job. He wasted absolutely the minimal amount of time and resources on a something easily proven false. Look far enough to see it wasn't worth pursuing any further and probably tossed your tape into the trash.

Originally posted by S&S
Just look at you, you are doing a better job, just to eliminate the doubts you have.

I am quite capable of expressing why I do this myself, thank you.

It is most certainly not to eliminate and doubts I have. Your theory is false (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html).

And as to your petty little beef with JREF, I don't care. I know you don't believe that and I don't care about that either.

I've already told you that clip that I already had would have been enough for me to toss your tape in the trash.

Originally posted by S&S
I hope you will have the access to the equipments as you did in TELECLIP : "I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice." (????)

I meant I just didn't take to much time to look. I knew I could look at it at me leisure later.

Pablo

12th November 2002, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by S&S

El tono formal lo perdiste en tu primera aparición en este tema, o es acaso que te has olvidado de los insultos publicados?

Acepto que perdí las formas, pero no el tono formal. Cuánto más fácil habría sido caer en el tú para resultar más desagradable. Entiende empero que acababa de tragarme las tropecientas páginas de disputa, y la falta de argumentación por tu parte me sacaba de quicio.

Thanz

13th November 2002, 06:12 AM

Blue Monk -

Well, I for one think that your new tagline is excellent. Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

Seriously, I thank you for putting this in. I also thank you for all of the investigative work that you have done. When I first saw the animated gif, I was curious and thought that there had to be something more to the story. Now that I have seen all of the evidence that you have put forth, I am convinced that it is something peculiar to the angle of that particular camera, like a bird, out of focus and well in front of both towers.

I think that by the time Harter got Carlos tape, he had already seen the video several times and been asked about it by more than a few people. The video you posted on the internet is enough for me to conclude that there is nothing paranormal going on. Carlos is just upset because he feels he was blown off by the JREF.

Excellent work. You have the patience of Job.

Thanz

13th November 2002, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

I am quite capable of expressing why I do this myself, thank you.

"I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice."

I meant I just didn't take to much time to look. I knew I could look at it at me leisure later.

Hi Blue Monk:

So YOU and I "think" also the workers at TELECLIP reviewed the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipments , but also you didn't have much time to look it. (????????)

I "thought " you already new and study before that particular shot in your's preview, so you were prepared to look at the "particular" frames that I told JREF and you. But you didn't have time, but you looked it in slow motion and in stop action(??)

Is a little complicate to me to understand that point, or you didn't see "your bird" at the right side of the hole or in front of the TOWERS? I mean at TELECLIP equipments.

Do you really now need to digitize the tape and look at it in another equipments? You are welcome, I trust in your honesty , but remember digitized images can be tricked (ask Rwald)

Well , just take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

13th November 2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Pablo

Acepto que perdí las formas, pero no el tono formal. Cuánto más fácil habría sido caer en el tú para resultar más desagradable. Entiende empero que acababa de tragarme las tropecientas páginas de disputa, y la falta de argumentación por tu parte me sacaba de quicio.

Hi Pablo:

Primero hay que reconocer los errores y tú lo has hecho. Bien de tu parte.
Hay momentos en que es mejor conservar la "cabeza fría" y es lo que intento, llenarme de paciencia.

¿No te has puesto ha pensar que si no tuviera argumentos que replicar esto ya hubiera concluído en la primera página?
El "tuteo" no lo hago con intenciones de faltarte el respeto , simplemente como una apertura más informal de mi parte.

Tus argumentos son bienvenidos y te recomiendo que lo hagas en inglés para beneficio del resto de participantes.

Talvez te escriba un privado para aclarar ciertas "malinterpretaciones " de ambos lados y para proporcionarte el link de latinijral.

Thanks,
S&S

Blue Monk

13th November 2002, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Blue Monk:

So YOU and I "think" also the workers at TELECLIP reviewed the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipments , but also you didn't have much time to look it. (????????)

I "thought " you already new and study before that particular shot in your's preview, so you were prepared to look at the "particular" frames that I told JREF and you. But you didn't have time, but you looked it in slow motion and in stop action(??)

Is a little complicate to me to understand that point, or you didn't see "your bird" at the right side of the hole or in front of the TOWERS? I mean at TELECLIP equipments.

Do you really now need to digitize the tape and look at it in another equipments? You are welcome, I trust in your honesty , but remember digitized images can be tricked (ask Rwald)

Well , just take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

Teleclip is a commercial company and not a research facility. I reviewed the information there briefly so they could be sure they knew what I wanted and I got the right information. It was their hand on the controls, not mine.

The equipment at the University is far superior to what they have at Teleclip I assure you. The equipment at Teleclip is merely for review. The equipment at the University is state of the art and there are stations that are set up precisely for research. I will be at the controls and I can view the tape at my leisure.

About digitization.

Digitization will not harm the tape in anyway. I will always have the tape.

Often when a tape is digitized for the internet it is done at a lower resolution and compressed to save space. This is fine for most applications but you will lose information if you do it that way.

I will, however, digitize the tape at full resolution with no compression. It will make a larger file but we will have a quality digitized copy. Then copies can be made of the digitization without any loss of quality.

Also I will consult some of the others here who are experienced in this and we can compare notes. I will be able to tell them exactly how I did it and so we can all be assured that we have the best quality possible.

Also there is no other way for others to view this information. If this is done right you will probably find that you can see more detail this way than when you view it on a large monitor.

Once I actually post the file you will be able to tell and I think you will be satisfied with the results. Maybe not but I really don't know what more I can do.

But as long as we're talking about honesty why do you continue to use Thanz quote in your tagline? He has told you repeatedly that he no longer holds that view and has asked you specifically to remove it.

13th November 2002, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

Teleclip is a commercial company and not a research facility. I reviewed the information there briefly so they could be sure they knew what I wanted and I got the right information. It was their hand on the controls, not mine.

The equipment at the University is far superior to what they have at Teleclip I assure you. The equipment at Teleclip is merely for review. The equipment at the University is state of the art and there are stations that are set up precisely for research. I will be at the controls and I can view the tape at my leisure.

But as long as we're talking about honesty why do you continue to use Thanz quote in your tagline? He has told you repeatedly that he no longer holds that view and has asked you specifically to remove it.

Hi BlueMonk:

But you had "time" to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on the commercial company of TELECLIP, or not?
I mean you review the tape in slow motion and in stop action there but you didn't have time enough to review it many times as you wish. But at least you must reviewed once or twice, and you were prepared enough to see what you want to see.
What did you see there? What did the personal of TELECLIP said?
Can I have also a copy of Teleclip of that particular shot and how?

Yes, you must need more time to review the tape in better equipments (?).

About Thanz' quote that is in my signature: I don't "think" he is lying, when he wrote this :"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality."
That is a fact , so please don't be so traumatic about that truth, besides he wrote "WE".

Also Davidhorman posted this:
"Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
Assuming the original was recorded on some professional format, you might get more information by viewing it on that original format. "

So Blue Monk, don't be worry, now you have a tape with more frames, you already looked at slow motion and in stop action at TELECLIP, and now you are trying to use better equipments.

Keep on going,

Thanks,
S&S

Tesserat

13th November 2002, 11:02 PM

Carlos, Davidhorman posted:
[quote]
Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
[/bold]

This does not mean that frames were missing from video an the internet, it means it's a possibility. There are other ways of converting between formats, and not all of them lose frames.
I disagree that it's "likely" that half the frames are missing, although I agree that it's a possibility. Don't jump to conclusions, it hasn't helped you yet.

I think it's funny that you're asking Blue Monk to supply you with a copy of the tape he paid money to find. Aren't you supposed to have a copy? How come you haven't sent a copy to Blue Monk?

In regards to Thanz's quote, it's his intellectual property, if he asks you to remove it, you should comply. It's a question of honor. Do you have a sense of honor? Why are you using Thanz's words without his permission?

I used to have respect for you, you seemed to be trying honestly to discover the truth, without hiding. However, to use Thanz's words after he has asked you to stop is dishonest.

davidhorman

14th November 2002, 03:07 AM

This does not mean that frames were missing from video an the internet, it means it's a possibility.

The original video was (I assume) 60fps interlaced video. The internet video is 30fps and non-interlaced - if it was interlaced you'd see fringing as the camera moves. Or they could have merged even/odd fields, in which case we'd see blurring as the camera moves. We don't, so I think it's safe to assume that half the frames (by which I really mean fields) are missing.

David

Wyrd1

14th November 2002, 12:08 PM

The Swetts only have a sense of honor when it seems to suit them or their ulterior motives. They (I believe S&S is Carlos and his brother Guillermo) aren't going to remove those offending quotes unless the moderator forces them to. They also aren't going to quit posting to this forum until they get booted.

These are the facts boys and girls. Get used to them. They are here to stay.

Arguing with them is a waste of time. Facts are just tools to confuse the issues. Fact 1: They lost their challenge no matter how the determinition was made. Fact 2: No million dollars. Fact 3: No matter how hard they try there will be no further responses from either Andrew Harter or James Randi. Fact 4: Despite fact 3 they will continue.

Blue Monk, you have been great tirelessly trying to combat these people with facts, reason, and logic. Despite this they will not be satisfied.

Look at it all like it's a pony ride that won't stop. Which end of the pony is Carlos?

Blue Monk

14th November 2002, 02:39 PM

Oh I agree with you Wyrd1.

I hope no one here thinks I am foolish enough to believe I will ever convince Carlos of anything.

If he is, however, going to whine about all of this silly nonsense then let him do it in the face of the evidence.

Which brings me to his tape. Consider this a preliminary report.

I have now viewed this tape on three separate professional systems (four if you count Teleclip).

In addition to my brief viewing at Teleclip I have also view it from our own video station here at the Fine Arts Microcomputer Lab where I work.

I also took it over to CASA (The Center for Advance Studies in the Arts). Their department head is my big boss. They have an excellent system that is tuned mostly for digitization but they have excellent monitors.

Finally I took it over to the communications building where there system is tuned precisely for video and watched it on their huge monitor. This monitor's resolution far exceeds that of the videotape so I know nothing was loss.

What can I say? I see the object in full view the entire time. The two key frames that have been the subject of such great concern for Carlos are indeed in the video and they show the object in front of both towers.

This now brings us to the point of an Internet copy.

For simplicity sake I will speak in broad terms. The video is 60 frames per second and Internet media runs at 30 frames per second (actually 29.97 but who’s counting).

So the Internet media will only show every other actual frame. Which set of frames depends simply on where you start the capture.

I did 20 test captures to be sure and in each case the result included one set or the other. It is a 50/50 chance.

Now we have seen one clip that shows one set.

The other set is very significant as it shows both key frames that Carlos was worried about and in both of those frames you can see the bird in front of the building.

I will post both versions so you can all see what I’m talking about. Step through them frame by frame and you will see.

The second version shows exactly what Harter describes. The object clearly passes in front of the towers, both of them.

Since Internet media doesn’t support 60 frames per second I have assembled a third video. It includes all frame segments but it will appear in slightly slow motion. Anyone wishing to can go frame by frame and see that the object is in view the entire time and never enters the building (shock!).

Remember, these are preliminary posts. They are enough to prove that 50% of the Internet versions of this tape will show exactly what Harter described. He obviously viewed a clip that showed the object passing in front of both towers and he then probably threw Carlos’ tape in the trash.

I am working on one high quality representation but I need to work on it.

I did one briefly but I still didn’t get the quality just right. Even so, the 1/3 of a second clip was 275 megabytes, done at full resolution, no compression and millions + colors, hehe.

Give me an hour or so and I’ll have some clips online. I have to burn them to a CD to get them off of the station

Tesserat

14th November 2002, 03:23 PM

Hi Davidhorman

Yep, I know what you're saying, I do agree with you 99% but in the clip I was looking at, the camera wasn't moving that much. But I'm not a professional, so I'll defer to others with more experience. Anyway, my point is pointless after reading Blue monk's latest video analysis.

If I check out the properties of digital video that i've captured, it always says 29.97 fps. Never 60 fps. A lot of video I can get off the net has the same properties. I agree that if a lot of camera movement is happening, some blurring will be seen on interlaced video. Do you know any technique to check video that doesn't rely on camera movement?

Hellbound

14th November 2002, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Tesserat
Hi Davidhorman

If I check out the properties of digital video that i've captured, it always says 29.97 fps. Never 60 fps.

Well, that'sthe whole point, Tesserat :)

Digital video is typically 29.97 fps, non-intelaced. However, the NTSC standard used for TV broadcast and some analog video recording is 60fps interlaced. The interlaced means that each frame has half a picture; it skips every other row of pixels and alternates rows between frames. The net effect is a 29.97 fps shot.

However, when you capture (at 30fps) a shot recorded at 60 fps interlaced, you get half the frames and each frame has half the pixel rows updated, essentially. That make sense, I hope? :)

Since the tape is from a TV broadcast, my guess is that it is in NTSC format, thus it's 60fps interlaced.

14th November 2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Thanz 08-27-02
"Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality. I haven't seen the whole video - I just saw the short thing linked to in this thread. But Andrew seems to be saying that it didn't come from behind the tower, so therefore it is not paranormal. Huh? There must be more to this. The apparent speed of the object (again, I just saw the crappy thing linked to) seems to go against the 'bird' hypothesis.

Blue Monk`s investigation is better, but...............

Peter S.

14th November 2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by S&S in the Fairy Godfather Peter thread

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Peter S.
Wow, I've never had a topic with my name on it before! I feel just like Carlos Swett.

Have you ever done anything nice for someone with no thought of reward?

No? I didn't think so.

I guess you'll never understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peters :

Why don't you just tatoo my name in your ass?
You will be more happy.

Thanks,
S&S

Oh come on Carlos!! Yes, I was making a joke that included your name, but I wasn't mocking you an any way, (even though you deserve it you brainless ****head).

I guess some people just have no sense of humor.

I bet you would like to have your ugly name on my ass. You like guy's asses, don't you?

14th November 2002, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Oh I agree with you Wyrd1.

I hope no one here thinks I am foolish enough to believe I will ever convince Carlos of anything.

For simplicity sake I will speak in broad terms. The video is 60 frames per second and Internet media runs at 30 frames per second (actually 29.97 but who’s counting).

So the Internet media will only show every other actual frame. Which set of frames depends simply on where you start the capture.

I did 20 test captures to be sure and in each case the result included one set or the other. It is a 50/50 chance.

Hi Blue Monk:

So now you also agree that is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape?

Yes, that was my reply from the beggining, Harter's method was not the appropiate . You are making a better job.

Keep on going.

Thanks,
S&S

CurtC

14th November 2002, 07:37 PM

Blue Monk, the 1/3 of a second clip was 275 megabytes? That's just 20 frames, or about 14 megabytes per frame? This sounds, well, a little excessive to me. There's no way that I could hope to see a 275 megabyte clip. Do you think you could save it as 20 separate JPG images, saved at a low compression? I can't imagine that each image would be more than 200 kbytes or so, for a total of 4 MB. I mean, a TV picture has what, 200,000 pixels, if you multiply the horizontal "resolution" by the vertical lines? And probably less than that, because at 60 fps, only half of the lines are updated.

14th November 2002, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Tesserat
Carlos, Davidhorman posted:
[quote]
Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
[/bold]

This does not mean that frames were missing from video an the internet, it means it's a possibility. There are other ways of converting between formats, and not all of them lose frames.
I disagree that it's "likely" that half the frames are missing, although I agree that it's a possibility. Don't jump to conclusions, it hasn't helped you yet.

I think it's funny that you're asking Blue Monk to supply you with a copy of the tape he paid money to find. Aren't you supposed to have a copy? How come you haven't sent a copy to Blue Monk?

In regards to Thanz's quote, it's his intellectual property, if he asks you to remove it, you should comply. It's a question of honor. Do you have a sense of honor? Why are you using Thanz's words without his permission?

I used to have respect for you, you seemed to be trying honestly to discover the truth, without hiding. However, to use Thanz's words after he has asked you to stop is dishonest.

Hi Tesserat:

I was reading your reply after Davidhorman and BlueMonk's aclaration about the frames, I "think" NOW you agree with my conclusion about the difference about an internet video and a broadcast tape.

I never asked Blue Monk to send me a copy of the Teleclip tape .
I said this:"Can I have also a copy of Teleclip of that particular shot and how?"
Yes I have a particular copy, but since Blue Monk got it from Teleclip, I just want to know how I can get one, I need to know the location , city, address and stuff, that's all.
Of course I will paid for it, and make my own research. Is that not fair enough? I only want the ADDRESS of Teleclip.

So now you and Thanz must be relax enough, he never said a lie in this thread with my name on it, so there is no reason to be ashame of.
You are all trying honestly to dicover the truth.

Thanks,
S&S

Blue Monk

14th November 2002, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by S&S
So now you also agree that is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape?
When did I ever disagree? Most internet videos have a great deal of information reduce the size. That does not mean you can't digitize a tape and retain that information.

But of course that is not the question before us. Just your little beef with JREF.

Originally posted by S&S
Yes, that was my reply from the beggining, Harter's method was not the appropiate . You are making a better job.

I totally disagree. I now know for a fact that half the internet copies of this tape have those key frames on them showing your bird in front of a building. Now which set of frames do you think he viewed when one set matches what he said he saw exactly?

He did his job perfectly. He quickly found evidence that your theory was false and that was that. He did not waste any time or resources on a silly claim.

Originally posted by S&S
Keep on going.

What do you mean keep on going? I'm done.

I viewed your tape on professional equipment and all it did was help me see your bird clearer passing in front of both towers.

I'm just working on making a good copy so everyone can see what's on the tape.

Oh sure, I'm still going to reproduce those scary pictures of yours following the method give on that web site and I'll do my best but I can't promise. He doesn't say exactly what he does.

I am putting together a clip that has all of the frames so you can step through them and see for yourself (or not if you choose).

Blue Monk

14th November 2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
Blue Monk, the 1/3 of a second clip was 275 megabytes? That's just 20 frames, or about 14 megabytes per frame? This sounds, well, a little excessive to me. There's no way that I could hope to see a 275 megabyte clip. Do you think you could save it as 20 separate JPG images, saved at a low compression? I can't imagine that each image would be more than 200 kbytes or so, for a total of 4 MB. I mean, a TV picture has what, 200,000 pixels, if you multiply the horizontal "resolution" by the vertical lines? And probably less than that, because at 60 fps, only half of the lines are updated.

Well actually I misspoke a bit there, hehe. The clip was actually about a second and a half I think. Only the key time is about 1.3 of a second.

But don't worry I will put up friendlier versions and jpegs.

I just did a test run with everything maxed out. I could have cut down on the size considerably by simply trimming it a bit, hehe.

I do want to put up at least one good copy out of fairness to Carlos. It will probably be a bit big but it will be there for anyone with the bandwidth and desire to see.

But I want to put one up with alternate frames in it at the same level you would expect to see on the internet just to show that it is possible to to see the object, probably a bird, pass in front of both towers and and prove Carlos' theory false.

I'm also going to post some new clips showing a couple of new views. Of course there is nothing passing through the tower.

Tesserat

15th November 2002, 12:20 AM

originally posted by carlos

I was reading your reply after Davidhorman and BlueMonk's aclaration about the frames, I "think" NOW you agree with my conclusion about the difference about an internet video and a broadcast tape.

See, now that's the difference between me and you Carlos, I'm able to look at what I believe, and change my beliefs of they don't fit the facts. I don't get into useless ego battles.

And as Blue Monk is about to prove, it is possible to post information on the internet that is better quality than what you see on a TV screen.

The thing that annoys me is when Blue Monk talks about video being 60 frames per second,
BlueMonk, a bit earlier
For simplicity sake I will speak in broad terms. The video is 60 frames per second and Internet media runs at 30 frames per second (actually 29.97 but who’s counting).

when technically, it's 60 fields per second, or 60 half - frames.
But that's me nitpicking more than anything else, I do understand what they mean, video takes 60 pictures of something every second, and it's difficult to translate that to the internet in a meaningful form. I think Davidhorman, Hunstman, Bluemonk and the rest did a great job of explaining what they mean to me, and I have to agree with them.

You, however, are an idiot stuck in an ego battle, unable to admit that youre wrong.

Thanz has asked you to take his words out of your sig (His words, not yours), and you don't do it. You're a dishonest thief. Show some self respect, and do as Thanz asks.

davidhorman

15th November 2002, 01:41 AM

If I check out the properties of digital video that i've captured, it always says 29.97 fps. Never 60 fps. A lot of video I can get off the net has the same properties. I agree that if a lot of camera movement is happening, some blurring will be seen on interlaced video. Do you know any technique to check video that doesn't rely on camera movement?

I think there might be room in the AVI format for indicating interlaced video. My video capture card will capture interlaced video, but it plays back at 30fps with interlace fringing on my monitor. When played back out through the capture card, it rips out the fields and plays it back properly (in theory anyway; the card itself is a heap of crap :mad: )

Hey BM, any chance of doing that flapping bird gif thing with all the fields? :D

David

hal bidlack

15th November 2002, 06:56 AM

I think we see some interesting psychology here. When BlueMonk began his remarkable and praise-worthy efforts, Carlos was a supporter. But when the results began to near, Carlos started to lay the groundwork to 'debunk' the debunking. Now, with results completed (again, what a great job!), BlueMonk has become a bad guy.

Not a suprise, really, but another interesting chapter in the Carlos saga. Carlos is one heck of an artist, not the world's clearest thinker.

Carlos, please do feel free to use that last sentance above in your sig line, perhaps to replace the one you have been asked again and again to remove.

edited to fix a misspelled name

PinkRabbit

15th November 2002, 12:06 PM

Sticking my head back in here to say that I'm really glad Blue Monk was able to find a place that could make a dub of the shot legally, and look at it on good equipment, since there's no way a new division was going to do so. You're lucky to have a service that can do that for you, since most places don't, unless you're in LA or NYC. I look forward to seeing the internet dub, since I'm curious to see if it's any better than what we were looking at (the setup we used at the station was an older one they keep rigged as a backup and it doesn't have the greatest monitor around or much in the way of extras).

Anyhoo, I have to admit, I'm looking forward to Carlos' next attempt to squirm out of the obvious truth that it's just a bird moving in front of the camera, not a paranormal hat. *grabbing some popcorn while I sit back and enjoy the show*

Barb

15th November 2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by bidlack
I think we see some interesting psychology here. When BlueMonk began his remarkable and praise-worthy efforts, Carlos was a supporter. But when the results began to near, Carlos started to lay the groundwork to 'debunk' the debunking. Now, with results completed (again, what a great job!), BlueMonk has become a bad guy.

Not a suprise, really, but another interesting chapter in the Carlos saga. Carlos is one heck of an artist, not the world's clearest thinker.

Carlos, please do feel free to use that last sentance above in your sig line, perhaps to replace the one you have been asked again and again to remove.

edited to fix a misspelled name :

Hi Mr. hal Bidlack:

Well, now you are full af assumptions about me.
I am just waiting Blue Monk to put his digitized version.

What results from BlueMonk? Nothing yet.
He got a copy uf a video from Teleclip.
Nobody knows the format: vhs, 3/4 or what.
Where and what is Teleclip?
He saw the tape in slow motion and in still frames at Teleclip, but never said what he saw there and then he said he didn't have no time to see it. (?)
Now he is digitizing the tape and we are still waiting.
Something wrong with that?

The sentence in my signature that you want me to remove, was posted by Thanz BEFORE I came to this forum with a thread with my name on it.
Why are you worried? Read it again:
Originally posted by Thanz 08-27-02
"Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality."

That is fact Mr. Bidlack, also Blue Monk knows that when he replied me this:

Originally posted by S&S
So now you also agree that is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape?
-------
Originall y posted by Blue Monk
When did I ever disagree? Most internet videos have a great deal of information reduce the size. That does not mean you can't digitize a tape and retain that information.

But of course that is not the question before us. Just your little beef with JREF.

So Mr Hal Bidlack, Andrew's investigation was pretty poor ( dodgy ??) to me ,
or maybe you can ask your friend and partner about the link if you want, to me is not a big deal , the investigation JREF made was their mistake.

Thanks again for your words about my work arts, but artist needs to "think" to make our jobs, we create from nothing.
What are you trying to say ? That I don't "think"?
I am sure of what I applicated and I am sure of your answers as JREF researchers.

If I didn't have no arguments this threat must be death in the first page, but I am still here almost alone after you know how many replies and views.

Think about it.

Thanks,
S&S

PinkRabbit

15th November 2002, 06:08 PM

Just as a total side note, Carlos, it's generally considered good Netiquette (ie, the honorable thing to do) if you are using someone else's words in your sigline to cease and desist if asked by the rightful owner of those words. Given that Thanz has asked you to remove his comments, you should do so as a matter of courtesy.

Barb

15th November 2002, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Tesserat

See, now that's the difference between me and you Carlos, I'm able to look at what I believe, and change my beliefs of they don't fit the facts. I don't get into useless ego battles.

And as Blue Monk is about to prove, it is possible to post information on the internet that is better quality than what you see on a TV screen.

The thing that annoys me is when Blue Monk talks about video being 60 frames per second,

You, however, are an idiot stuck in an ego battle, unable to admit that youre wrong.

Thanz has asked you to take his words out of your sig (His words, not yours), and you don't do it. You're a dishonest thief. Show some self respect, and do as Thanz asks.

Hi Tesserat:

Well you are admiting that you were the idiot (I am just using your words) that had to change your beleif.

Yes, I am still waiting for Blue Monk digitized version, the same as you are.

Why should I admit that I am wrong?
I didn't see it on my tv screen, I saw it and really study with the equipment and personal of a tv station in their own 3/4 broadcast tape, that session and interview brodcasted in the news is also taped in the video I send to the JREF.

If you admited that you were wrong about quality of tapes, then Thanz quote is a truth. So be proud that you have a truth in my signature. This thread has my name on it, so everything you said concerns to myself.

Just relax next time you reply and just use anothers adjectives to me.This time THE IDIOT you posted was like a boomerang to you.

Thanks,
S&S

15th November 2002, 07:19 PM

What results from BlueMonk? Nothing yet.
He got a copy uf a video from Teleclip.
Nobody knows the format: vhs, 3/4 or what.
Where and what is Teleclip?
He saw the tape in slow motion and in still frames at Teleclip, but never said what he saw there and then he said he didn't have no time to see it. (?)
Now he is digitizing the tape and we are still waiting.

Carlos. please explain to us, why Bidlack is Randi`s pope?

15th November 2002, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Just as a total side note, Carlos, it's generally considered good Netiquette (ie, the honorable thing to do) if you are using someone else's words in your sigline to cease and desist if asked by the rightful owner of those words. Given that Thanz has asked you to remove his comments, you should do so as a matter of courtesy.

Barb

Hi Barb:

Thanz made that comment in a thread that has my name on it.
Nobody asked me to put it on, I just keep replying as you all do.

What Thanz posted was before I came to this thread and to the forum.

Now we have opinions that agree with that signature, so why he is ashame on it ? Is a truth what he said, just face it.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I also saw some signatures with my quotes on it. I remember rwald, de bunk, etc. I am not crying, those were my words.
But if Thanz is getting a kind of illness with this, he must just tell me again in a propper way.

rwald

15th November 2002, 09:05 PM

Carlos, seriously, just because Thanz posted that before you came around doesn't mean you have automatic permission to include his words. I agree, you could assume permission -- right up until the time he specifically asked you to remove his words. From that time onwards, you did not have permission, and have been using his words against his will. If you're truly "fighting for your honor," you should act honorably. Do the honorable thing, and remove his words.

A related note: You may use my words in your sig, so long as I may use yours. If you request that I take your quote out of my sig, I will do so, after seeing you remove mine from yours. Sound fair? If you would like me to do this, just ask, and do the honorable thing. I will follow.

Tesserat

16th November 2002, 04:27 AM

[i]originally posted by Carlos[i/]

Hi Tesserat:

Well you are admiting that you were the idiot (I am just using your words) that had to change your beleif.
....
Just relax next time you reply and just use anothers adjectives to me.This time THE IDIOT you posted was like a boomerang to you

No, Carlos, it's just your poor understanding of what I wrote. That's not a surprise, since english isn't your first language. I have the same problems in french.

No, the reason I'm calling you an idiot is because you saw a dark blur on a tape, and decided it was paranormal. You submitted it for Randi's million, and even though many people have explained to you that you were never eligible, you've refused to acknowlege that.

I'm saying that you're driven by your ego, and that you're not capable of even imagining you might be wrong.

I'm saying that you're dishonorable, because Thanz asked you to take his words off your quote, and you still haven't.
But if Thanz is getting a kind of illness with this, he must just tell me again in a propper way
What?? Why would he have to ask you more than once? Why must he ask you again? And what, to you, is a proper way?

And finally, you're ungrateful. Blue Monk has spent a lot of his time and money to find a good copy of the clip. He's trying to digitize it, and find a place to put it on the internet. In other words, he's done a lot more than you ever did about this whole thing. If it takes him a few days, learn some patience.

16th November 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by rwald

A related note: You may use my words in your sig, so long as I may use yours. If you request that I take your quote out of my sig, I will do so, after seeing you remove mine from yours. Sound fair? If you would like me to do this, just ask, and do the honorable thing. I will follow.

Hi Rwald:

The word "fair" is only for YOUR side.
So I must ALSO remove your words in my signature after you remove my words from your signature?

Why is not the opposite? Why don't you remove it AFTER I remove your words?

I am giving you the permission you never asked to keep on posting my words in your signature, YES I said that and was my answer to a "smart" member.

I first "try to think" when I write something, so then I will have no problems of regrets like some skeptics members are now suffering.

Yes I am waiting to Randi and Harter's regrets to their answer to my application full of lies and /or mistakes that was based in a poor and "dodgy" method of analizing a tape on internet. The fact is the quality and the frames. like Thanz perfectly said before, and now Davidhorman, Blue monk, Curt C, Tesserat ,etc.

Hey Rwald you posted this also:"Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with." 10-27-02

I will use that in my signature someday, or more regrets?

Thanks,
S&S

16th November 2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Tesserat

No, the reason I'm calling you an idiot is because you saw a dark blur on a tape, and decided it was paranormal
.

Hi Tesserat:

I am forgiving your words, maybe IDIOT is your favorite word that shows your way of life.

Originally posted by Tesserat 10 /27/02
" I am an idiot who desperatley needs to get a life"

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

16th November 2002, 12:47 PM

A reasonable enough question, Carlos. Why should you remove my words before I should remove yours? Why shouldn't I remove your words first. However, as it so happens, I have a reasonable answer to these questions. Based on how you've acted with Thanz, I have no reason to believe you will behave honorably. If I remove your words, what guanteree do I have that you will remove mine? I need a show of good will on your part before I will do anything on mine.

And if you decide to use my quotes, I'll go find some good quotes from what you said in the chat room to include in my signature. Remember these?

<Carswett> I want you in my harem
(10/21/02)

<rwald> Just tell me true or false: As an object moves away from the viewer, it will appear to get smaller.
<Carswett> depends
<rwald> Depends?
<Carswett> if it is normal or paranormal
(11/07/02)

<rwald> The frames weren't really still. It was still traveling 122 feet, even in the "still" frames.
<rwald> So it should be spread across 122.22 feet of space.
<rwald> You never saw the object sitting still, Carlos. You just saw it when it was moving 122 feet.
<Carswett> but remember is paranormal
(11/08/02)

<rwald> Carlos's argument: "It's paranormal, therefore it's paranormal."
<Carswett> I never said that rwald
<rwald> Whenever we ask for proof that it's paranormal, you say, "It's paranormal."
(11/08/02)

I'll be happy to include these in my sig, if you want me to. Sound fair?

Blue Monk

16th November 2002, 02:56 PM

Here's what I got so far.

Video Clips (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/web_video.html)

Video Stills (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/all_frames.html)

Carlos' theory is false. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

Harter's method was correct. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/questions/method_used.html)

Carlos's theory can be proven false by an internet video that matches what JREF describes exactly. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/web_video.html)

Tesserat

16th November 2002, 06:02 PM

Carlos, you're as hilarious as you are pathetic.

I'm honored that you went back to page 17 or so to post something that I wrote out of context. It's OK, carlos, I understand that you have trouble understanding what certain english phrases mean, for example:

"You have no claim"

You still haven't clued in to that one yet.

English isn't your first language, and thinking isn't your first priority.

davidhorman

16th November 2002, 06:06 PM

Nice work BlueMonk - after viewing the MP4 I think it's now irrefutable that the object was not inside the tower and does in fact pass in front of both towers.

Hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making an animated GIF from frames 15-20 (frame 14 wasn't posted and frames 21 and 22 were both too close to the right-hand edge). Lest I have shenanigans called on me, I'll point out that in the last two frames of my GIF I've edited out the station logo, and, of course, applied an auto levels filter to make things clearer.

It's either a bird, or aliens are using ornithopters.

David

Patricio Elicer

16th November 2002, 06:54 PM

Good work Blue Monk, thanks again.

I just saw the mp4 clips. In the full motion mode it's absolutely clear that the object is a bird passing much closer to the camera than to the buildings.

In the frame by frame mode it's also absolutely clear that the object is seen against both towers. And it's also seen against the last bit of the wall of the right tower, a fact that Carlos has denied so far.

So this is the ultimate proof that the object didn't go through the hole and that is was indeed a bird.

The case is definetly closed.

16th November 2002, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Here's what I got so far.

<
.</A>

Hi Blue Monk:

Nice work in "your" digitized version.

I was looking this:All Stills
"Here are stills from all 22 frames of the video where the object is in view."
I only "saw " 8 frames , or this computer only captured 8.

"A digitized video clip will capture either all of the odd frames or all of the even frames. ".
I think is too much filter

I will be fair enough with you : or my computer is so dark or your posted pictures are so dark.

I also saw a looped version of Davidhorman (was more clear) that "shows " the form of the "It's either a bird, or aliens are using ornithopters."

I am going to change to another computer to keep on looking your analysis.

This was just a preview.

By the time what format did Teleclip gave to you?

Thanks,

S&S

.

16th November 2002, 08:23 PM

Hi Blue Monk:

Yes was the other computer that was "dark".
Now I am looking "your work" in another computer, is more clear "your stills"

BM"frame 10 - This frame shows the object passing in front of this building. In the odd set, we have already seen this. It shows up in the previous frame, frame 9. The next significant frame is frame 12."

CS :Yes that frame is before the object "entered in the hole" , I already said that. Is at the left side of that tower.
Frame 11 is the "object " entering in the hole . You have no comment in that frame.

BM"frame 12 - Though it is hard to see in this still, this is the frame that shows the object still in front of this building. It can be seen clearer by stepping through one of the clips frame by frame."

CS:Well , is hard to see according to your words. Is the frame I was asking YOU to post before : A picture of the object at the right side of the hole., in front of that side of the tower.Frame 12 shows NOTHING at that side.

BMframe 13 - "This, of course, is the frame that has mislead some of the more gullible among us to believe the object is passing through the tower. Should anyone still be foolish enough to believe that this is possible then please review this clip from another angle to remove all doubt that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either building."

CS:Now ,again your "work" only can be based on a clip from another angle.(?????)

Frame 12 shows NOTHING.

BM"frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'

CS: Why you didn't use your filters and equipments to enlarge and clear that image?

Blue Monk Conclusion: "The clips I have provided here prove that an internet clip can contain the information that conforms exactly to what was said in JREF's response to Carlos."

Yes this is YOUR internet clip, was made by yourself after Harter's answer to my application.
No Harter's answer was not based in your "digitized" version or in the "enthusiastic work" that you had done, maybe as you said before was the other clip by abc (second video in your web page).

I also saw in this thread another "digitized version" of a video of the same shot posted by Rwald. Yes in that version I saw King Kong moving in front of the towers. Of course he explained that was a gallows humour.I also protested that day, yes was the only one. Yes was another digitized version, not yours.

Can I have the adress of Teleclip?
What kind of tape (format) they gave you?

Well, keep on working, this was just a preview.

Thanks,
S&S

16th November 2002, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Rwald:09/15/02

"OK, I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything (Carlos, please don't tell me your video was originally broadcast live to everyone in the world, and couldn't have been edited; I already know this); I just think it is funny.
Yes, I know this is gallows humor, at best. I mean no disrespect to those who died on 9/11/01. I'm just making fun of the Swett video. Please don't turn around and say I'm anti-American; that simply isn't true. I'm just taking the existing video, and trying to find some humor in it."
[/edit]

rwald attached his "digitized version" of the same video with king kong moving in front of the towers in page 5 of this thread:http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=5

My answer that day to Rwald was :"As you see, in your"gallows humor" is a fact that internet is not the correct method to analize the video, it can be tricked.
Sorry for the big favor you did to Andrew Harter and the JREF (The Amazing Randi) proving they used the stupid , antitechnical and poor method , That is a fact.

I don`t know if U:S: people aprooves your humor, perhaps some stupids yes (they will think lyke you: is about "SWETT`S VIDEO),
but the rest I am sure they will not."

Then Rwald answered this to me:
"Carlos, I know that the internet video can be edited, as I proved. I never said that Randi and Harter did the best possible review of your case; I know that it would have been better had they looked at the original video"

Yes any digitized version can be tricked.

Thanks,
S&S

PinkRabbit

16th November 2002, 08:48 PM

What difference does it make what clip Harter viewed, if his conclusion was correct?

Just as I and others have said, you can see the object all the way across both buildings, clearly in front of them. It does not go through either building.

It's undoubtedly a bird.

Harter's conclusion was right, whatever his technique. Isn't that what's important?

Barb

16th November 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
What difference does it make what clip Harter viewed, if his conclusion was correct?

Just as I and others have said, you can see the object all the way across both buildings, clearly in front of them. It does not go through either building.

It's undoubtedly a bird.

Harter's conclusion was right, whatever his technique. Isn't that what's important?

Barb

Hi Barb:

Where did you saw that?

Of what version are you refering?
Your's 3/4 tape unknown and incomplete analysis?
Or Blue Monk's or Rwald's digitized version on internet?
Or to the unknown link where Harter did his analysis "frame by frame"?

I also have another version but is taped and really shows how and where the analysis were done. Yes that tape was also send to JREF. Remember was broadcasted also .Yes , read my application.

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

16th November 2002, 09:19 PM

Ah, you brought up my King Kong clip. I guess I should have expected that. Well, if you're trying to use that to suggest that Blue Monk's digitalization is incorrect, then at least go ahead and explicitly say so. But remember, while I was at odds with you from the start, Blue Monk actually went out and got a copy of the video. I would trust his analysis more than mine, were I you. Also, note that I never claimed my King Kong video was genuine; I freely admited it was edited. When I later posted clips from Blue Monk's earlier videos, I said they were real. You obviously don't have to trust me, but I promise that I will only ditigally edit the pictures if I direcly say so -- and I know that the same holds for Blue Monk.

16th November 2002, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Ah, you brought up my King Kong clip. I guess I should have expected that. Well, if you're trying to use that to suggest that Blue Monk's digitalization is incorrect, then at least go ahead and explicitly say so. But remember, while I was at odds with you from the start, Blue Monk actually went out and got a copy of the video. I would trust his analysis more than mine, were I you. Also, note that I never claimed my King Kong video was genuine; I freely admited it was edited. When I later posted clips from Blue Monk's earlier videos, I said they were real. You obviously don't have to trust me, but I promise that I will only ditigally edit the pictures if I direcly say so -- and I know that the same holds for Blue Monk. :

Hi Rwald:
I understand your point, I already said that was just your "gallows humour", but I also agree in the words you said the same day:
"Carlos, I know that the internet video can be edited, as I proved. I never said that Randi and Harter did the best possible review of your case; I know that it would have been better had they looked at the original video"

Try NOW to understand my point.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I already said is a good effort made by Blue Monk, but he stills have problems in some particular stills, "his" video shows a different trajectory from the one he posted before , and there are more facts to be analize .He is still working.

Well, anyway we have "his word" and must be honourable enough like the words of the rest of the members, but words are not prove to skeptics.That doesn't mean I don't trust in his effort to defend Harter's method.

rwald

16th November 2002, 09:49 PM

Carlos, I'm going to write out the Burden of Proof argument here once and for all, so maybe you're stop demanding that we "prove" it was a bird, or whatever. It won't help, but maybe in the future, we can just cite this post, instead of repeating our arguments.

In science, the person who has the burden of proof must produce the proof. Who has the burden of proof? The person who is making the claim, or alternatively, the person whose claim is in greatest contradiction to known science. Randi's (and mine, and Blue Monk's, etc.) claim is that the object it the video is a bird. Your claim is that it is a paranormal object. You have also said that your paranormal object is able to break the laws of physics. So, clearly, you are the person who must provide the proof. It is not enough for you to say, "There are missing frames, and because you can't produce them, I win." You must produce evidence that there are in fact missing frames. If you don't like Blue Monk's digitation of the video, that's fine. It isn't Blue Monk's burden to produce a quality digitation of the video; that burden lies on you.

I know your reply to this is going to be something like, "I have proved the claim! It's in my application!" Could you quote to us the exact parts which prove that it could not have been a bird (simply saying, "It could not have been a bird," is not proof that it wasn't a bird). You say it passed through the tower. What proof do you have of that? Blue Monk has posted pictures of the bird clearly in front of the tower. Unless you have proof that those pictures are false or misleading, we have no reason to believe you. If any of us disagree with you, than by definition you have not provided convincing proof. Though Blue Monk has been nice in providing proof that you are wrong, he is not obligated to. If you want anyone to believe you, you can't say, "Go find the proof for yourself!" You must say, "Here's the proof, right here." What proof do you have that we should believe you? Why should we believe it passed through the tower?

You're probably going to make some sort of innane comparison to da Vinci, or Newton, or Einstein. Well, guess what. When they first made their claims, people didn't believe them. They only won people's beliefs when the ran experiments, conducted tests, and provided proof that their theories were correct. So don't act like you have anything in common with them. They had proof. You don't.

thatguywhojuggles

16th November 2002, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
The case is definetly closed.

:rolleyes:

PinkRabbit

16th November 2002, 10:21 PM

In short, there is no proof you will accept.

Is that the long and short of it, Carlos?

The footage he digitized shows the same thing I and others have seen in looking at the tape. Namely an object that is blurry and fast moving and in front of the towers the entire time.

Have you considered that perhaps you were the one on substandard equipment? That perhaps the monitors you used weren't very clear, or the footage was dubbed onto cruddy quality tape that didn't give a clear image? That maybe your method and not the entire world's is the one that's flawed? You're not a videographer. Would you even know good equipment from bad, or a sharp image from a muddy one. And don't give me the, I'm an artist crap. Being an artist doesn't mean you know everything about all technical aspects of every craft.

The fact that you submitted an application doesn't make you right. It just means you submitted an application.

Whatever method Harter used, he was right. It's a bird. Whatever you convinced yourself you saw, you didn't. There's nothing paranormal there. Just an out of focus bird a short distance from the camera.

A thousand notarized applications don't change that basic fact, and they never will.

Barb

Andalyn

16th November 2002, 11:26 PM

Only 9 more posts till this thread reaches 1000.

This may be a good time to display this smilie for Mr. Swett:

<img src=http://www.tnfj.com/Images/Smilies/crucified.gif>

17th November 2002, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Good work Blue Monk, thanks again.

I just saw the mp4 clips. In the full motion mode it's absolutely clear that the object is a bird passing much closer to the camera than to the buildings.

In the frame by frame mode it's also absolutely clear that the object is seen against both towers. And it's also seen against the last bit of the wall of the right tower, a fact that Carlos has denied so far.

So this is the ultimate proof that the object didn't go through the hole and that is was indeed a bird.

The case is definetly closed.

CLEAR??? Seguro que me quedò claro que eres perro y sòlo ladras mentiras.

17th November 2002, 12:11 PM

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_17.jpg (http://)

Blue Monk`s frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'

Latin: The study of this frame that shows YOUR "paranormal hat shaped form" is the same that i am posting here.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_21.jpg (http://)

Blue Monk`s frame 21 - How come these guys never posted this frame? Gee, I wonder, is this a bird or a 'paranormal hat?'

Latin: I never used digitized tricks as you are doing here. You forgot to erase the circle around your "bird".
Your videos are really very poor resoluted.
You never posted "your black bird" at the right side of the hole, so you again you have NOTHING yet.

PLEASE DON`T USE DIGITIZED TRICKS IN YOUR PICTURES AND VIDEOS.

davidhorman

17th November 2002, 12:33 PM

PLEASE DON`T USE DIGITIZED TRICKS IN YOUR PICTURES AND VIDEOS.

I hope you don't think one of us has done so.

Have you viewed the MP4 file? It's a lot clearer, in a moving image, that the object passes in front of both towers. DON'T go by the AVI or the MPG - it's much clearer in the MP4.

And latinraj, what do you have to say about the fact that your "paranormal hat" seems to be flapping, much as a bird would?

If it moves like a bird and is close enough to be the size of a bird, it's probably a bird.

David

17th November 2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

Have you viewed the MP4 file? It's a lot clearer, in a moving image, that the object passes in front of both towers. DON'T go by the AVI or the MPG - it's much clearer in the MP4.

And latinraj, what do you have to say about the fact that your "paranormal hat" seems to be flapping, much as a bird would?

If it moves like a bird and is close enough to be the size of a bird, it's probably a bird.

David

I saw the MP4 "digitized version" of Blue Monk, can you as a skeptic determine that this is a proof????

Carlos also has a digitized study of the same shot, but he did it from the original broadcasted transmission. He refused to send this study to JREF because he knows that digitized versions can be tricked like Rwald and Blue Monk did it. He was honest enough to send only a referential tape, so JREF should find a broadcasted tape to do the analysis and don`t try to be based on internet or tricked digitized tapes.

About the "size" of the "bird", do you have the perspective to determined it size, but you can see that it is impossible to you to post a picture of the "bird" at the right side of the hole.

About the "flapping" of the "bird", where are the wings????

I just saw a "particular" movement of the object.

And what about the "form of the bird":
Why don`t you use your filters to enlarge just the "bird" and make a separate study of it????????????

You can use this frame to make the study that will show you the form of the "bird".

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_17.jpg

Blue Monk`s frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'

You can also use your filters that will show you that this frame was tricked by Blue Monk.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_21.jpg

Blue Monk`s frame 21 - How come these guys never posted this frame? Gee, I wonder, is this a bird or a 'paranormal hat?'

I ALREADY DID THAT ANALYSIS

rwald

17th November 2002, 01:15 PM

Latin, it doesn't matter if you think that Blue Monk's pictures conclusively prove that it was a bird. IT IS NOT BLUE MONK'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE ANYTHING. Any work Blue Monk has done has been out of the goodness of his heart; neither he nor anyone else from our side is obligated to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with you. You must prove that it could not have been a bird. You have not done that.

Did you notice that Blue Monk *did* post a picture of the bird to the right side of the hole? It is frame 12. Here, I'll even include it below:

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_12.jpg

See that black spot to the right of the hole? That spot doesn't appear in any other frame. That spot is the bird, sitting to the right side of the hole. What do you think that black spot is? Why do you deny that this spot exists?

As we've already told you, using filters to "enhance" a digital image will just reduce its quality. Besides, if we did, you would just say we digitally altered it, like my King Kong clip, and ignore our posts anyway. There's no reason to bother using filters. Of course, Blue Monk may still do so; but it won't prove anything to you.

You have clearly not convinced any of us of your point of view. Therefore, by definition, you have not given us convincing proof that you are correct. Until you do, you have no cause for complaint.

davidhorman

17th November 2002, 01:18 PM

Carlos also has a digitized study of the same shot, but he did it from the original broadcasted transmission. He refused to send this study to JREF because he knows that digitized versions can be tricked like Rwald and Blue Monk did it. He was honest enough to send only a referential tape, so JREF should find a broadcasted tape to do the analysis and don`t try to be based on internet or tricked digitized tapes.

If a digital image can be faked, it can just as easily be laid off onto tape.

About the "size" of the "bird", do you have the perspective to determined it size

In a way, yes. Other video clips from almost, but not quite, identical angles do not show the object. Therefore the object is much closer to the camera than the towers.

About the "flapping" of the "bird", where are the wings????

The wings are the things that move up and down either side of the body. That's how birds fly. The fact that we don't have an instantly and unmistakably recognisable image of a bird is due to the motion of the object and the probable nearness of the object. We'd only get a sharp view of this object if it was at the same distance from the camera as the towers.

I just saw a "particular" movement of the object.

That's like dismissing video evidence of a stabbing by saying you only saw the defendant make a "particular" movement of his arm. It looks like a flapping bird.

And what about the "form of the bird":
Why don`t you use your filters to enlarge just the "bird" and make a separate study of it????????????

Because I have a better understanding of what those filters do to the information in the image than you do.

I ALREADY DID THAT ANALYSIS

It's not an analysis. It's the application of a filter whose sole purpose is to invent information to fill in the blanks.

David

davidhorman

17th November 2002, 01:21 PM

Thanks for mentioning burden of proof again rwald, I forget to do that in my post.

but you can see that it is impossible to you to post a picture of the "bird" at the right side of the hole.

Attached is an image made by subtracting frame 12 from frame 10 - this more-or-less removes the common elements (ie the Tower) and leaves only the differences. This shows very clearly that there is something in frame 12 at the right hand side of the tower (that's the faint line on the right) that wasn't there in field 10.

David

rwald

17th November 2002, 02:04 PM

OK. Though this won't convince Carlos or Latin, I promised Latin I would make this clip, and so I did. I took frames 11, 12, and 13 (remember, frame 12 is the frame showing the bird in front of the tower to the right of the hole), cropped them, and made them into an animated GIF. The frame without any red arrow is frame 11; 12 and 13 follow in order. Notice the black spot in frame 12 which is not present in frame 11. That is the bird. Also notice the black smudge to the right of the tower in frame 13. If you look closely, you can see that it covers the tower a bit as well, not as much as in frame 12, but it's there nonetheless. Though there was no real purpose to making this clip, I've made it, so I might as well post it.

17th November 2002, 02:47 PM

I understand BlueMonk's position from the beggining: TRY TO DEFEND HARTER's POOR ANSAWER TO MY APPLICATION.

His "enthusiastic work" is not really neutral, was conducted to justify the poor dodgy method Harter's did when he studied a digitized tape on internet ( not Blue Monk's work).

I heard from almost all of YOU that "is a bird" from the beginning of the thread, FIRST when nobody saw the video neither my application, SECOND when Blue Monk posted the video with "missing frames" and now when Blue Monk posted HIS "digitized version" of a tape he found at Teleclip.(?)

So is not new for me to try to debate your "beleiver's facts" , also I have many regrets from members that know "think" different than when they first posted quotes, or that recognized that made "mistakes"
I will remind you all the principal part of my application to demostrate you all that YOU ALL are just as the beggining, only with doubts and with the efforts to justify JREF position about the thread.

I WROTE IN MY APPLICATION:
"In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode. "

"It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it. "
-------

Now that we have Blue Monk's digitized version with no excuses about frames, it is possible to see:

A) the smoke of the north tower (where the first plane crashed) is moving , bacause of the direction of the wind, not behind the south tower., the smoke is moving south west , so is covering the up side of the south tower. I said in my application that the object is moving through the smoke, in the opposite direction of it.
You all can see now that effect.

B) I explained in my application the reasons why is not a bird or an insect (proving that I "thought " first about the possibility of that optical illusion) WHY ?:after entering in the hole left by the first plane is not seen at the right side of the hole against the wall. I saw this particular "effect" in proffesional broadcast equipments, with technicians that work at a tv station, and that made a particular "news" of that "particular event.

Now we have Blue Monk's "stills frames" that show the dark object , but I found this in that particular frame :and according to Blue Monk's words.
BM"frame 12 - Though it is hard to see in this still, this is the frame that shows the object still in front of this building. It can be seen clearer by stepping through one of the clips frame by frame."

Yes Blue Monk : IS HARD TO SEE (NOTHING), and now you don't have no excuses to frames., but is easy to see when it gets out of the other side of the hole, when the sky is its background.

So what I said in my application was correct . AGAIN, YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Now I will write to you for the first time of the thread an extract from the letterof 2 pages I send to Mr. James Randi, in the same package I send my application. Is about digitized versions.
The link to that letter is this:page 1
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=14

and specially the pos data in page 2
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13

I wrote in that post data to James Randi :"WE HAVE ALSO DIGITALIZED THE IMAGES; BUT THAT IS ONLY A PROOF FOR US BECAUSE THIS KIND OF IMAGE CAN BE TRICKED"

Yes members I already told Randi and the JREF about digitized images. My tape was only referential, please read the letter.
Remember is the first time I am refering to that link.

The entire documents are in a web page of MSN that Latinijral have , the link to the entire albums are:

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw

There are pictures of documents and stuff , not posted by me , but that I send to Latin to be able to make his own research.
I also send before this documents to some particular friends in others countries but that are not notified by me of the existence of this thread, I tried to be honest enough in this case, I am sure of what I am claiming.
Please read the letter to James Randi (wrote in March 28 2002)and then make your conclutions.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I have also more facts about the "running of the frames" and the movement of the object. I guess Blue Monk also noticed this.