The "Carlos Swett affair"

[rwald]

Well, since your application was invalid from the beginning, it doesn't matter how poor or dodgey you think Andrew's response was; your application was still invalid.

Yes, the original clip was just 30 frames per second, as opposed to 60 frames (fields, whatever) per second as the TV clip was. But that doesn't automatically mean you're right; it just suggests that the 30 FPS clip isn't the best evidence available. We can still make assumptions based on inconplete evidence, as long as we remain open to the possibility that new evidence can be found.

What's wrong with changing your opinion over time in response to new evidence? If you refuse to look at any evidence or even consider that your original opinion could be wrong, you have the problem, not us.

Your application does give a reason why you think it was not a bird. I will admit that. Your reason is, "It is not seen against the wall of the right/rear tower."

However, as you may have noted, I JUST POSTED A PICTURE OF THE OBJECT AGAINST THE WALL OF THE RIGHT/REAR TOWER!!! Sorry for yelling, but you apparently didn't see it. It's at the bottom of page 25. I'll even add it again to the bottom of this post. The bird is right there, IN FRONT OF THE TOWER. So stop acting like "the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it" is a valid argument. It is not.

Yes, the image is hard to see if you look at the stills. But if you look at my animated GIF, it's plain as day. It's right there. Look at it.

If you think that I have faked my animated GIF, I invite you to create your own version, combining frames 11, 12, and 13 together and focusing on the area pointed to by the red arrows in frames 12 and 13. If you don't like Blue Monk's images, by all means make your own set of digital images and give them for all of us to see. But until you do either of these things, you cannot complain that Blue Monk or I have changed anything. You must specifically prove that we have faked the images, not just say, "They're digital, so they're faked."

Anyway, there you are. I have a picture of the bird in front of the tower. What else do you want?

Originally posted by davidhorman


My JPEG (attached here so it is present on this page) and rwald's GIF both show that frame 12 DOES contain an image of the obect, in front of the tower.

By the way, having an image on videotape doesn't make it any more authentic than a digital image.

David

Hi Davidhorman:

I saw what you posted , a dark square with 2 arrows, one is green and the other is red.
About Rwald GIF let me remind you this:Please look at this, is another version of the same shot and video , originally posted by Rwald: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

My conclution is that if YOU ALL are trying to act as really skeptics, you CAN NOT be based in a digitized image, is not a proof,

I made it different , I send a referential tape to the JREF, not to be analyze that tape , just to have the referential shot to find the broadcast tape and then analyze that shot.

They did not; THEY (JREF) trusted in an internet unknown link of a digitized version of the shot.

I told you that I also have a digitized version but I didn't send it because I explained in a letter to James Randi (march 28 2002) that digitized versions can be tricked , so I send just the referential shot. Please read it:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...hoto&PhotoID=13

So YOU ALL have no excuses .YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
The images of the shot that are taped in the networks are authentic, they all transmmited to the world "live " that particular shot, are aunthentics, NO EXCUSES.

[rwald]

Carlos, for the nth time, we DON'T need to provide proof. That is not our job. Everything we have done, from Andrew's analysis, to Blue Monk's getting the videos, to my creation of animated GIFs, has been out of the goodness of our hearts. We do not need to prove anything. We are automatically assumed to be correct. We will only change our mind when YOU prove anything. YOU must provide COMPELLING proof that it COULD NOT have POSSIBLY been a bird. Sure, my animated GIF may not absolutely prove that it was a bird. But it does prove that it MIGHT have been a bird. I don't need to do anything else. If I've shown that it might be a bird, than I've shown that your claim, namely that it could NOT be a bird, is wrong. You must defend your claim, not just by saying that our evidence is inadequate, but by providing your own evidence. Until you have done so, you have no claim. The only "paranormal thing" going on is that you can feed yourself without a brain. A true scientific miracle.

[davidhorman]

So YOU ALL have no excuses .YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Do we have to tell you again that we are making no claim? We are challenging your claim. In a scientific sense the only option must be to assume the normal until there is compelling evidence of the paranormal.

I saw what you posted , a dark square with 2 arrows, one is green and the other is red.

I'm assuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse, but it's hard to tell. Look where the arrows point - you'll see two areas much brighter than the rest. You may need to turn up the brightness on your monitor. The reason these patches are much brighter is that the two areas are markedly different in frames 10 and 12. It is the object, passing in front of the tower.

About Rwald GIF let me remind you this:Please look at this, is another version of the same shot and video , originally posted by Rwald:

We've learned our lesson. We'll never attempt to connect to your sense of humour again, because it's clear you don't have one. Rwald does; but that is no reflection on his integrity.

My conclution is that if YOU ALL are trying to act as really skeptics, you CAN NOT be based in a digitized image, is not a proof,

Essentially you're trying to cast doubt on the images we've used - you're practically accusing us of faking the images.

Since you can easily confirm for yourself that we haven't, you might as well accuse the original cameraman of faking the video. The likelihood is that the original recording was digital.

So YOU ALL have no excuses .YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Do we have to tell you again that we are making no claim? We are challenging your claim. In a scientific sense the only option must be to assume the normal until there is compelling evidence of the paranormal.

The images of the shot that are taped in the networks are authentic, they all transmmited to the world "live " that particular shot, are aunthentics, NO EXCUSES.

Again you sound like you're accusing us of fakery.

On another note, I'll remind you again that the other angle shot that has been posted here was ALSO broadcast and is authentic. It does NOT show the object.

David

[rwald]

I was debating with Carlos in a private chat (you can imagine how futile that is), and I asked him a question. He said he would answer it in the thread, but only if I posted the question. I said, sure, I'd post it. So here it is, my question to Carlos:

Carlos, is there anything anyone could ever do to make you think that you could possibly be wrong?

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, for the nth time, we DON'T need to provide proof. That is not our job. Everything we have done, from Andrew's analysis, to Blue Monk's getting the videos, to my creation of animated GIFs, has been out of the goodness of our hearts. We do not need to prove anything. We are automatically assumed to be correct.


Hi Rwald:

Yes chatting and writing here.
Of course I agree with you that YOU all had not provide no proof of nothing.

I just provided to all of you my application , Harter's poor answer to it based on an study of internet, randi's insulted e.mails , some tips for the work in the videos, and now the letter I send to James Randi.

Now I feel that you have some regrets of your digitized version of the shot.
originally posted by Rwald:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496


But let me tell you, that proved that digitized images can be tricked, so is good for skeptics to know this kind of fact. So there is always a good point to learn about it.

There is a difference from "live" broadcasted images that are showing an particular EVENT and that finally also shows something else. Those tapes are at almost all tv stations and networks of the world.


I also told Randi this fact and to be prepare enough.
I have alsoa digitized version of my own, is told in my letter to Randi also:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13

Please read the post data.

About your question:"Carlos, is there anything anyone could ever do to make you think that you could possibly be wrong?"

Let me tell you Rwald; when I send this stuff to the JREF, I first "think" if it was correct to have complains or mockery, but I made many views and analysis of any kinds and specially I am a rational educated person, I have a family I love so much, I have a free work I like it, I "thought" Randi must use the correct method and equipments, so I had no fear. I never was cared about the prize, I wanted to investigate the truth with an skeptic man. I had propositions from charlatans to make money about that tape, but my education refuses that. I am just a normal person, I don't beleive in easy money.

After Harter's answer with Randi's aprooval I was dissapointed of the method they used and the mistakes they made.
Now I am just pretending that you all don't make the same mistakes of analysis.That's all.

I also pretend to accept me as your friend, I know that there will be differnts points of views from this particular stuff but that must be no reason for acting like in a war.
So is just a debate , though some members doesn't like the word. Let me tell you something: I never started the insults. Randi did it, then some members, then I did some , but that will be part of this "thing".

I will still put you answers and arguments in this thread only until my wife and family say to me : Hey Carlos, is enough.
Don't worry the time I am spending with all of you is disturbing them, though they know and support that is a fight for thre honour of the "name" of my family on it.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

You gave us your application. Your application is not proof. It's simply a statement of what your theory is. If you want us to believe it, you'll need to provide proof, like finding a picture to confirm the statement "the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it." Words alone cannot act as proof in this debate (at least, not proof of that statement above); only picture can do so.

Yes, my previous King Kong clip does show that digital pictures aren't the absolute best type of evidence. (If that's so, then why does Latin always post that digital image he has? is it any better than my digital images?) But Blue Monk's digital pictures are all the evidence we have. Sure, we must look at them and remember that the could be faked, but since we don't have any evidence that they are faked, nor any other evidence of any kind, we have to assume that his pictures are good to work with. Just because digital images can be faked doesn't mean you should automatically assume that all digitial images are faked. You have to prove that Blue Monk's images are fake before you can discount them as evidence.

Regarding your answer to my question: Did you actually answer the question? All you said was that you were dissapointed by Harter's method and our insults. You still havn't told us what we can do to show you that you are wrong. A key principle of any scientific claim is that it can, in principle, be disproven. If you were to show us a second camera shot from a different angle which also showed your paranormal object, that would seriously damage our counter-claim. But by the same token, you must tell us what evidence, if we hypothetically came up with, would disprove your claim. Is there anything we could provide you which could show that your claim is false? Any footage, any testimony, anything at all? I don't promise that we will find this for you if you ask (if you demand that we track down the cameraman who shot the footage and ask his opinion, for example, I can't promise that we would do it), but if you won't even admit that your claim is in theory refutable, than your claim cannot have any scientific merit, and cannot be considered valid.

And if you were a truly rational person, you would not claim to know more about science than I (a claim made in the chat room), when clearly you do not understand the most basic principles of science.

[hal bidlack]

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here. This reminds me of the challenge of teaching logic, evidence, and reason. My students really enjoyed silly theories, and often were not bothered by the problem of non-falsifyability.

Here are the stages of the debate, stripped of much nonsense.

-Carlos claims we don't have the right tape, says with right tape we will see him proven correct

-right tape is obtained by Blue Monk (what a great guy!) who uses cutting edge equipment and proves Carlos's basic claim false

-Carlos NOW says it's not about having the right tape, it's about, well, I dunno what it's about now.

Simply put, Carlos will consistantly redefine his claim as the evidence proves his previous claims false. I'm not quite sure why he is so tied up emotionally in "proving" to us that he saw something paranormal. In answer to the earlier question, what would he accept as evidence as proving him wrong: NOTHING. He will continue to redefine the issue as long as we keep responding.

Blue Monk has closed the last reasoned chapter in this strange saga, leaving only a shrill and vacant protestation.

Carlos, again, let me say. You have, in the minds of all here save one other, been proven wrong. We firmly, finally, and reasonably reject your claims. Your time here is wasted. You are certainly welcome to stay, but if you still feel the need to carry on, I really do think you should contact your national media. If you are right, you'll have the last laugh.

I close with a certainty that you will attack this post, most tangentally, but I close none the less.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by S&S
after entering in the hole left by the first plane is not seen at the right side of the hole against the wall.No Carlos. The object is seen against the wall to the right of the hole. If you watch the path of the object in the mp4 clip, frame by frame, you will clearly see that it darkens that particular spot of the wall. And this is conclusive proof that it didn't go through the hole.

Originally posted by S&S
My conclution is that if YOU ALL are trying to act as really skeptics, you CAN NOT be based in a digitized image, is not a proof.Blue Monk analized the video tape of the very same shot with "professional equipments" and he saw the object in front of the buildings the entire time.

[Tesserat]

Thank you, Blue Monk for the incredible job that you did in demolishing carlos's claim.

I think this thread has been very useful. It's one of the first times that somebody has cried "foul" about the JREF, and the board members were able to get together and cry "fowl" right back. That it took such a long time was a tribute to the obtuseness that carlos used to defend his ego.

Carlos is already preparing his departure, citing family pressure. I, for one, sincerely hope that he does get a life.

In claiming, however obliquely, that the video that you posted was faked, he's as much as admitting that it destroys his claim.

Congratulations on a decisive win.

[Blue Monk]

Well, now that we have all seen what I have concerning Carlo's tape perhaps you'd like to see some of the other clips I got from Teleclip.

I certainly wasn't going to go to all that trouble and only get Carlos' clip. Time and expense was a limiting factor but I did manage to get three others.

This one's my favorite. It's a nice clear shot of the hole that Carlos' "paranormal hat form" should be exiting from if it were really there.
<TABLE>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD COLSPAN="4">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/second_angle_medium.jpg</td>
</TR>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD>second_angle.mov (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mov)</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mp4 (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mp4)</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mpg)</TD>
<TD>second_angle.avi (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.avi)</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="4"><H3>Coming Soon....</H3></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="2">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/third_angle_small.jpg</TD>
<TD COLSPAN="2">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/fourth_angle_small.jpg</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Tesserat
I think this thread has been very useful. It's one of the first times that somebody has cried "foul" about the JREF, and the board members were able to get together and cry "fowl" right back And it also gave us a lesson: paranormal claims survive and prosper because debunking them can take such a big deal of effort, that not so many people can afford it. Blue Monk and Randi can, however.

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Well, now that we have all seen what I have concerning Carlo's tape perhaps you'd like to see some of the other clips I got from Teleclip.

I certainly wasn't going to go to all that trouble and only get Carlos' clip. Time and expense was a limiting factor but I did manage to get three others.

This one's my favorite. It's a nice clear shot of the hole that Carlos' "paranormal hat form" should be exiting from if it were really there.
<TABLE>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD COLSPAN="4">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/second_angle_medium.jpg</td>
</TR>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD>second_angle.mov (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mov)</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mp4 (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mp4)</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mpg)</TD>
<TD>second_angle.avi (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.avi)</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="4"><H3>Coming Soon....</H3></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="2">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/third_angle_small.jpg</TD>
<TD COLSPAN="2">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/fourth_angle_small.jpg</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

Hi Blue Monk:

I am glad you posted these anothers angles of that tragic event.

Now you will notice the position and direction of the smoke of the north tower(first plane crashed).

Also the members will notice the difference of quality in resolution of the videos of Teleclip and the one YOU made with your "own" digitalyzation.
YOu can also notice that REALLY exists TWO HOLES on the north tower. (sorry Charlie of Dayton)

The day you "found " the tapes at teleclip, you said that you looked at the shot of my claim in slow motion and stills in the equipments of teleclip, but YOU NEVER said what you saw there.
Then you said you didn't have time (?) but you had time enough to look the shot in slow motion and still frames,and you already knew what specific frame is the discussion about, is on my notarized application and is also the frame you STILL have difficult to see at your NEW own digitized version(????).

Again you came with nothing. I already have all the angles .
I send one particular angle to the challenge, Harter studied that particular angle "frame by frame " in a copy (?) of a video of internet, and was HIS support to gave me HIS poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes.

Now that you know you only have the enthusiasm to defend Harter's position , you still don't have the principal argument to demostrate that is a bird.

Why don't you separate "your bird" and study it with another programs? Ask latin how to do it. Or do your OWN version.


About digitized works I already said to Mr. James Randi I alsohave my own study:read the post data of this letter

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...hoto&PhotoID=13

But I am honest enough. You are just "beleivers" in digitized versions.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by bidlack


Here are the stages of the debate, stripped of much nonsense.

-Carlos claims we don't have the right tape, says with right tape we will see him proven correct

-right tape is obtained by Blue Monk (what a great guy!) who uses cutting edge equipment and proves Carlos's basic claim false

-Carlos NOW says it's not about having the right tape, it's about, well, I dunno what it's about now.

Simply put, Carlos will consistantly redefine his claim as the evidence proves his previous claims false. I'm not quite sure why he is so tied up emotionally in "proving" to us that he saw something paranormal. In answer to the earlier question, what would he accept as evidence as proving him wrong: NOTHING. He will continue to redefine the issue as long as we keep responding.

Blue Monk has closed the last reasoned chapter in this strange saga, leaving only a shrill and vacant protestation.

Carlos, again, let me say. You have, in the minds of all here save one other, been proven wrong. We firmly, finally, and reasonably reject your claims. Your time here is wasted. You are certainly welcome to stay, but if you still feel the need to carry on, I really do think you should contact your national media. If you are right, you'll have the last laugh.

I close with a certainty that you will attack this post, most tangentally, but I close none the less.

Hi Mr . Hal Bidlack:

If you are a proffesor is correct, if you are acting like a Randi's defender is also correct , besides you are part of the foundation.
So YOU must said things with the truth first.
Hal:"Carlos claims we don't have the right tape, says with right tape we will see him proven correct."

You only have digitized versions.Harter studied "frame by frame " a copy of the video on a link (?) on internet. Only the shot is the correct, and the reason? he had my REFERENTIAL tape.

Blue monk is supposed to have "the tape", he looked at teleclip "THE TAPE" in slow motion and stills but NEVER said what he looked there.He needed to digityzed the tape , make his own version. Here at the thread we have also a version with King Kong moving in front of the towers.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

dID YOU LAUGH THAT DAY WHEN YOU SAW IT? i DO NOT, i WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO PROTESTED.

Now YOU also want to "beleive " a personal unknown work, from a guy who refused to say what he saw the same day he saw THE TAPE in slow motion and stills in the same EQUIPMENTS of TELECLIP. Now is too late, he has a "digitized version" of the tape.
I send an application.
I have your answer to my notarized application based in another digitized version.
I DID study THE TAPE, and YOU know that, you have also a copy of that TAPE and is wrote in the letter I send to Randi.

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...hoto&PhotoID=13

Or if you want to look at all the documents of the application

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

Or you can look at it in the same page you saw my works in art.
You JREF know the page.

Those are facts for the REAL SKEPTICS, no for the beleivers in digitized versions.

Sorry for your students.

So if now are you so sure, Why don't you Mr.James Randi write about my application and your poor answer full of lies and/or mistakes?

Thanks,

S&S

[hal bidlack]

quod erat demonstrandum

[davidhorman]

A question, Carlos - I'd appreciate it if you kept the answer short and concise.

How do you explain the fact that the object only appears in footage from one camera, and all other cameras trained on the towers at the same time do not show it?

I'd also like to say that if you wish to dismiss all of our efforts simply because they are digital images, you must dismiss the tape you saw. It could just as easily have been faked (and was probably a digital recording itself). The only evidence you should accept is that of your own eyes - and you weren't there.

David

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
Blue monk is supposed to have "the tape", he looked at teleclip "THE TAPE" in slow motion and stills but NEVER said what he looked there.No Carlos, read this:

Originally posted by Blue Monk
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.

[Blue Monk]

ROFLMAO!

You’re a real genius aren’t you Carlos. Such an eye for detail.

Except you failed to notice the most significant feature.

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

Do you see anything come out of that hole? Is there anything there?

Tell me Carlos, as I’d love to get an opinion of an intelligent man such as yourself, what does the absence of a large dark object passing through that hole mean to you? Hmmmmm?


Originally posted by S&amp;S
Also the members will notice the difference of quality in resolution of the videos of Teleclip and the one YOU made with your "own" digitalyzation.


I didn’t shoot the video Carlos. I’ll post a reference clip showing what came before and after that clip so you can see for yourself.

What am I saying? You’ll only accuse me of cheating. Well, what the hell, I’ll post it anyway.

Originally posted by S&S
The day you "found " the tapes at teleclip, you said that you looked at the shot of my claim in slow motion and stills in the equipments of teleclip, but YOU NEVER said what you saw there.

All I saw was a bird passing in front of the towers.


Originally posted by S&S
Then you said you didn't have time (?) but you had time enough to look the shot in slow motion and still frames,and you already knew what specific frame is the discussion about, is on my notarized application and is also the frame you STILL have difficult to see at your NEW own digitized version(????).

Carlos, I don’t work for you, get it?

Now I’ve already told you this and since you are not very bright there is no doubt I’ll have to tell you again until it sinks in.

We have better equipment at UT. They were using a TV monitor at Teleclip. They’re not doing research, they are just cueing up the clips. I knew I had better equipment I could view it on and it wouldn’t cost me $30 bucks an hour.

But the main reason was I don’t give a damn about your tape. I already knew from viewing the CNN tape that there was nothing passing through the tower. We did look at it long enough for all of us to have a good laugh though.

Originally posted by S&S
Again you came with nothing. I already have all the angles.

But you are apparently aren’t smart enough to realize that they prove your object isn’t passing through the tower.

Originally posted by S&S
I send one particular angle to the challenge, Harter studied that particular angle "frame by frame " in a copy (?) of a video of internet, and was HIS support to gave me HIS poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes.

You are a cry baby. You have a stupid claim that is easily disproved. Grow the hell up.

Originally posted by S&S
Now that you know you only have the enthusiasm to defend Harter's position , you still don't have the principal argument to demostrate that is a bird.

I don’t give a damn. I tried to tell you that from the beginning but you insisted I answer your questions so I’m answering them and I don’t give a damn if you like the answers, I don’t give a damn as to what you think my motivation might be, I don’t give a damn if I ever convince you.

And most importantly, I don’t give a damn about proving to you it’s a bird.

Originally posted by S&S
Why don't you separate "your bird" and study it with another programs? Ask latin how to do it. Or do your OWN version.

Why don’t you? You’re the one interested in that stupid tape. There is nothing on that tape that is going to make your object ‘magically’ appear in any of the other videos.

Originally posted by S&S
About digitized works I already said to Mr. James Randi I alsohave my own study:read the post data of this letter

Oh yeah I have. For a guy who’s not concerned with the rules you have made sure your documents made it online. You can’t produce a single clip from your tape but you can damn sure document the date JREF received your application.

Your theory is false and easy to disprove.

If you want to whine about how your application was handled then by all means be my guest.

You insisted I answer your questions concerning whether using an internet copy was a valid method so I did. In my opinion yes.

Was the method used appropriate? Again, the answer is yes.

But only an idiot could belief your theory after seeing the other tapes that clearly show there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

But don’t worry Carlos. There are still some questions you gave me that I haven’t answered yet but don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten.

Originally posted by Blue Monk
ROFLMAO!

You’re a real genius aren’t you Carlos. Such an eye for detail.

Except you failed to notice the most significant feature.

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

Do you see anything come out of that hole? Is there anything there?

Tell me Carlos, as I’d love to get an opinion of an intelligent man such as yourself, what does the absence of a large dark object passing through that hole mean to you? Hmmmmm?




I didn’t shoot the video Carlos. I’ll post a reference clip showing what came before and after that clip so you can see for yourself.

What am I saying? You’ll only accuse me of cheating. Well, what the hell, I’ll post it anyway.



All I saw was a bird passing in front of the towers.




Carlos, I don’t work for you, get it?

Now I’ve already told you this and since you are not very bright there is no doubt I’ll have to tell you again until it sinks in.

We have better equipment at UT. They were using a TV monitor at Teleclip. They’re not doing research, they are just cueing up the clips. I knew I had better equipment I could view it on and it wouldn’t cost me $30 bucks an hour.

But the main reason was I don’t give a damn about your tape. I already knew from viewing the CNN tape that there was nothing passing through the tower. We did look at it long enough for all of us to have a good laugh though.



But you are apparently aren’t smart enough to realize that they prove your object isn’t passing through the tower.



You are a cry baby. You have a stupid claim that is easily disproved. Grow the hell up.



I don’t give a damn. I tried to tell you that from the beginning but you insisted I answer your questions so I’m answering them and I don’t give a damn if you like the answers, I don’t give a damn as to what you think my motivation might be, I don’t give a damn if I ever convince you.

And most importantly, I don’t give a damn about proving to you it’s a bird.



Why don’t you? You’re the one interested in that stupid tape. There is nothing on that tape that is going to make your object ‘magically’ appear in any of the other videos.



Oh yeah I have. For a guy who’s not concerned with the rules you have made sure your documents made it online. You can’t produce a single clip from your tape but you can damn sure document the date JREF received your application.

Your theory is false and easy to disprove.

If you want to whine about how your application was handled then by all means be my guest.

You insisted I answer your questions concerning whether using an internet copy was a valid method so I did. In my opinion yes.

Was the method used appropriate? Again, the answer is yes.

But only an idiot could belief your theory after seeing the other tapes that clearly show there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

But don’t worry Carlos. There are still some questions you gave me that I haven’t answered yet but don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten. :

Hi Blue Monk:

Is too late, when you SAW THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills with their equipments.YOU NEVER said what you saw there.
You needed To make YOUR own digitized version of the SHOT of my application WITH TRICKS on it, easily noticed. The same way Rwald posted a picture of KING Kong dancing IN FRONT of the TOWERS.

Even to you is hard to see "YOUR BIRD" in your frame still , I guess is number 12, so you have nothing.And NOW no excuses for the FRAMES.
What kind of TAPE you got from TELECLIP?
Where is the adress of Teleclip?

So now AGAIN you are looking from another angle the "PARANORMAL ACTIVITY" as the only proof you can have .So you waisted time, money and efforts. But you still have your enthusiasm in defending Harter's poor answer to my application, that was based in an unknown link of a another digitized version on the internet. Can you please DEFINE what is PARANORMAL?

WOW, the NONPLUSULTRA of the skeptics are based on an unknown links of digitized images. Sorry IS BLUE MONK link(WOW)

I am sure that when you saw Jurassic park(the movie) the first time, you also beleived those dinosaurs were real.Of course then you must regret when they explained you that were digitized images, POOR SKEPTICS, always regreting.

Yes, you also post a "referential clip" done by yourself.
Sorry you have nothing, and is thair fault if you have a bunch of beleivers of your "magic equipment".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Now you can return to the first part, that my application was not valid, but take your time again.

P:S: I have the document (FED EX)of the date JREF received my application and REFERENTIAL TAPE, not digitized tape.

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?albumlist=2

Any more regrets?

[Patricio Elicer]

<img src=http://www.royaldragonusa.net/images/Emoticons/banghead.gif>

[rwald]

Carlos, simply because Blue Monk could have faked his digital shot doesn't mean that he did. You must prove that he faked the shot before you can act like it's fake. You can't just say, "It's digital, so it's fake." You must provide some sort of evidence that it is in fact fake.

Ah, why am I bothering. It's evident that you don't understand the meanings of the words "proof" or "evidence." To help you, I'll post definitions of these two key terms:
Proof: noun
1.The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a.The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b.A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a.Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b.The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

Evidence: noun
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.Try reading these and understanding the concepts before you make claims. It will spare you some future embarrassment.

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, simply because Blue Monk could have faked his digital shot doesn't mean that he did. You must prove that he faked the shot before you can act like it's fake. You can't just say, "It's digital, so it's fake." You must provide some sort of evidence that it is in fact fake.

Ah, why am I bothering. It's evident that you don't understand the meanings of the words "proof" or "evidence." To help you, I'll post definitions of these two key terms:
Try reading these and understanding the concepts before you make claims. It will spare you some future embarrassment. :

Hi Rwald:

Are you the same person who posted this before?(09/15/02):

"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"

Or you know are also regret of your own words?

The method ALL YOU "poor skeptics" are based on are the INCORRECT. That's a fact.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

I will try to renovate my signature in the future, I have more "pearls" from you all.

[rwald]

"can be edited" does not equal "must be edited". I agree, it is possible that Blue Monk edited his shots. But that does not mean he did. You must prove that he did. Simply saying, "But you edited your shots two months ago!" is not proof that Blue Monk edited his shots now.

Originally posted by rwald
"can be edited" does not equal "must be edited". I agree, it is possible that Blue Monk edited his shots. But that does not mean he did. You must prove that he did. Simply saying, "But you edited your shots two months ago!" is not proof that Blue Monk edited his shots now.

Hi Rwald:

I don't need to prove YOU nothing.
If the possibility exists as you said , you must act as REAL SKEPTICS and don't be SO SURE of a digitized edition of the shot.
That's all.

Remember I was honest enough to the JREF and I didn't send MY digitized tape of the shot, and explained Mr.Randi why I was not sending that CD ROM , I just send a REFERENTIAL TAPE, so they will be free to do what you said before:

RWALD(09/15/02):

"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"

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

Is too late, when you SAW THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills with their equipments.YOU NEVER said what you saw there.
You needed To make YOUR own digitized version of the SHOT of my application WITH TRICKS on it, easily noticed. The same way Rwald posted a picture of KING Kong dancing IN FRONT of the TOWERS.

Nobody needs to alter anything to disprove your stupid theory Carlos. I understand that you are too stupid to realize that your object just doesn’t appear in any other video.

Fortunately the rest of the world is not so incredibly dense.

Originally posted by S&S
Even to you is hard to see "YOUR BIRD" in your frame still , I guess is number 12, so you have nothing.And NOW no excuses for the FRAMES.

I don’t care if you ever believe it’s a bird. I’m certainly not going to waste my time trying to prove it to you.

I only wanted to see if you could see the object in front of the towers and of course you can.

And of course I have had great fun showing it to other people and telling them about this fool I know that thinks there is a paranormal object passing through the tower.

Of course the laughter gets out of control when I show them the clip that clearly shows there is nothing exiting the tower and explain to them that as hard as it may be to believe there is really a man walking this Earth that is too thick to accept that as proof of his error.

We have all sorts of jokes now concerning ‘magic sombreros.’

Originally posted by S&S
What kind of TAPE you got from TELECLIP?
Where is the address of Teleclip?
VHS

Teleclip-Austin Inc
3601 S Congress Ave # 100, Austin, TX 78704
Phone: (512) 851-8800


Originally posted by S&S
So now AGAIN you are looking from another angle the "PARANORMAL ACTIVITY" as the only proof you can have .

What do you mean the only proof? The other angles prove there is no object passing through the tower Einstein. Duh!

Who the hell dresses you in the morning?

Originally posted by S&S
So you waisted time, money and efforts.

Oh no, it was well worth it to show how foolish you are.

If you put as much effort into analyzing your own tape as you do crying about how your feelings got hurt you’d have something to show.

But you don’t want the facts to come out. You’d rather sit here and cry and call everyone liars and cheaters.

Well, that’s good because I enjoy the hell out of it. You are very entertaining. Please cry and whine some more for me because I just can’t get enough.

Originally posted by S&S
But you still have your enthusiasm in defending Harter's poor answer to my application, that was based in an unknown link of a another digitized version on the internet. Can you please DEFINE what is PARANORMAL?

Harter gave you a great answer. Your theory is nonsense.


paranormal
adjective
impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science.

This is from the Cambridge dictionary.

Don’t they have dictionaries in Ecuador?

Who the hell does your thinking for you when I’m not around?


Originally posted by S&S
WOW, the NONPLUSULTRA of the skeptics are based on an unknown links of digitized images. Sorry IS BLUE MONK link(WOW)

We’ve had to. You’re not intelligent enough to be able to present your evidence so we’ve been forced to use what we can and it has been more than enough to prove your silly little theory is nonsense.

Originally posted by S&S
Yes, you also post a "referential clip" done by yourself.
Sorry you have nothing, and is thair fault if you have a bunch of beleivers of your "magic equipment".

Your theory is nonsense.

Nothing on your tape will ever make your object ‘magically’ appear on any other video. No one has to take my word for anything. There are thousands of clips out there and they all, including yours, prove that you are a very foolish and childish man.

The only thing left is your never-ending crying.

But since you are so damn concerned about your fair treatment here why don’t we take this up in another forum, perhaps one that is friendlier to your view.

I can guarantee there is not a person on this planet except for you and your idiot brother that will not accept the other views as concrete proof that there is nothing passing through the tower.

Want to go somewhere where you can’t claim people are plotting against you? Want to go somewhere where the people have no connection to JREF and therefore would be impartial?

The only thing left is your never-ending crying and I enjoy every minute of it.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by rwald
"can be edited" does not equal "must be edited". I agree, it is possible that Blue Monk edited his shots. But that does not mean he did. You must prove that he did. Simply saying, "But you edited your shots two months ago!" is not proof that Blue Monk edited his shots now.

Let him claim they are faked. I knew that would be his response before I posted them.

He knows they're not.

He just wants a point to argue.

The evidence is out there. If Carlos can convince others it's fake then let him.

Who cares.

The main thing is that anyone can check any clip they want and see that there is no object passing through the tower.

The only thing left to do now is have fun ridiculing Carlos. I say if he's going call anyone who disagrees with him a liar and accuse anyone of dishonesty then he's only proving what we've all known all along.

He's a prick.

Say, did you hear the one about the magic sombrero?

[PinkRabbit]

Given that this board is a digital medium and most people cannot simply walk in to a news station and demand to see the tape, for the purposes of this discussion, what option other than a digital version is possible?

You keep demanding the people here "prove" something and don't seem to understand the concept that you're the one who must prove something. You've accused a whole raft of people of lying, either subtly or openly because they don't agree with you, yet the only thing we have here is your word, which doesn't jibe with what ANYONE else has seen (except latinjrl ... who, I personally think is you, given your shared ineptitude in English).

How about you post your version of the tape and prove that Blue Monk edited his as you've pretty much accused him of doing. You say you have one, so let's see it. We can't see your referential tape, but you could show us your much acclaimed proof. Frankly, all we've seen from you to date is your word, and to be perfectly honest, it's nowhere near good enough.

Barb

Originally posted by Blue Monk





The main thing is that anyone can check any clip they want and see that there is no object passing through the tower.


:

Hi Blue Monk:

Are you sure? I have your "analysis" of your missing frame just in that part. And now in "YOUR" digitized version , is also HARD to see "the bird" in that part of the building.

Besides you are still refusing to isolate "your bird" and study its form. Askl Latin for help.
Congratulations for "your 's beleivers".

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
Are you sure? I have your "analysis" of your missing frame just in that part. And now in "YOUR" digitized version , is also HARD to see "the bird" in that part of the building.

So what?

Originally posted by S&amp;S Besides you are still refusing to isolate "your bird" and study its form. [/B]

I'm not refusing.

I don't give a damn.

I don't analys your magic hat for the same reason I don't analys the water stains in my toilet.

I don't care and there is no point.

[thatguywhojuggles]

How incredibly f*cking pathetic is this? It boggles the mind that this man has spent 2 months pursuing this. You are truely a world class idiot, Carlos.

Originally posted by Blue Monk


So what?



I'm not refusing.

I don't give a damn.

I don't analys your magic hat for the same reason I don't analys the water stains in my toilet.

I don't care and there is no point.

Hi Blue Monk:

I thought you made a big effort , with money and time spend, nights without resting well to make a "good digitazed version", preparing Harter's defense, but not now you appear just like another loser.

Just relax, now you have a bunch of "beleivers".Maybe you receive a T-shirt from JREF

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
How incredibly f*cking pathetic is this? It boggles the mind that this man has spent 2 months pursuing this. You are truely a world class idiot, Carlos.

Hi:

Are you the same "that guy"?.

How many times you said you will never post here?And I am not calling you idiot.

Is that also in your "diary"?
Is a hello kitty diary?

Thanks,
S&S

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Blue Monk:

I thought you made a big effort , with money and time spend, nights without resting well to make a "good digitazed version", preparing Harter's defense, but not now you appear just like another loser.

Just relax, now you have a bunch of "beleivers".Maybe you receive a T-shirt from JREF

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos,

I don't know Blue Monk from Adam, but I have to protest at you calling him a loser. He has done more work on YOUR application than you have yourself. All you did was see something on a videotape, make a copy, and send it to the JREF. It wasn't your tape, you didn't shoot the video, and you could not even explain what was on it. You claim that it wasn't a bird or insect because you couldn't see it in front of the towers. You claim that it goes in one hole, and out the other. You don't even explain why this makes it paranormal.

Blue Monk, on the other hand, finds a copy of the video on the internet which shows that it is in front of the towers. That isn't good enough for you. He also finds another shot of the same incident from a similar angle, which doesn't have the object at all. This is enough to prove that your claim is false. Again, you claim that the object is paranormal because it passes through the tower. If your claim were true, it would have been on every shot of the tower at that moment. However, it is only on the one shot. Blue Monk could have stopped here, and I (as well as others) would have been grateful for his hard work and help.

But it wasn't good enough for you, was it Carlos? NO, you still insisted there was a paranormal object even though you had no explanation as to why it was not on the CNN tape. So, Blue Monk, on his own initiative and at his own expense, obtained a broadcast tape of your claimed paranormal object. He viewed the tape at no less than 3 professional quality video stations. The object was in view the entire time. He then posts digitized images of YOUR tape (which you have never done) which prove that the object never goes into the tower. He also shows several other views, none of which have the object.

Blue Monk has proven that your claim is 100% false. The only 'loser' here is you - you have lost the JREF challenge and can't accept it. You have even stooped so low as to accuse Blue Monk of cheating. I have lost what little respect I had for you.

When I first learned about this video, I was intrigued, I thought that the object merited some further investigation. Now that I have seen the further investigation, I am convinced that there is nothing paranormal in your clip.

I have asked you twice to remove the quote from my earlier post from your signature. You have said that I need to ask in a proper way. I do not know what you mean by this, so I will ask you once again: Mr. Swett, please remove my quote from your signature.

Thank you to all of you who have supported my requests to have the quote removed, only to have your points fall on deaf ears. I truly appreciate the effort.

The biggest thank you goes to Blue Monk, who has been tireless in his efforts to show to Carlos his error. When this began, I thought that Carlos simply was upset because he wanted an investigation and explanation of the object, and didn't get it from the JREF. Blue Monk has now done all he can do short of going back in time to show what the object is or isn't, and Carlos still protests. Thank you Blue Monk. Carlos, please accept the truth and move on.

[davidhorman]

Carlos,

One very good reason that neither I nor anyone else wants to analyse the form of the object (besides the fact that our animated GIFs have clearly shown that it flaps like a bird) is that there isn't any real way to do a decent analysis. The information is simply not available.

Secondly, you have now, finally, outright accused BlueMonk of fraud. So you should reject any other analysis by any of us.

So how about answering my question, the same one BlueMonk and others have asked you time and time again:

Why does the object not appear in any other of the videos made of the second impact?

David

[Skeptoid]

Say, did you hear the one about the magic sombrero?
Carlos walks into a bar wearing his cosmic sombrero. Bartender says, "Hey, where did you get that stupid looking thing?" Sombrero says, "Ecuador". *Rimshot*

:D

Originally posted by bidlack
It will be interesting to see where this goes from here. This reminds me of the challenge of teaching logic, evidence, and reason. My students really enjoyed silly theories, and often were not bothered by the problem of non-falsifyability.



Sorry for your students and your boss Mr. R. Please share with them this link.
Congratulations Blue Monk for your tricks, maybe you can send an aplication to JREF and be a part of the amazing meeting.

Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg




Frame 17: with filters big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg



Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum

Originally posted by Thanz

Blue Monk has proven that your claim is 100% false.

Blue Monk has proven that his "digitized video analysis and pictures" is 100 % tricked.


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.

Sorry, friends, I forgot this:


This is another digitized version with the paranormal "King kong" in front of the towers.

Author: Rwald

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

[Blue Monk]

You're not very bright are you, latinijral.

Your little smear campaign is never going to make your object appear on these other videos.

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/second_angle_small.jpg
</A>

And I completely enjoy pointing out how foolish you and Carlos are.

There is no dark object passing through or even near either tower. The proof is here. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

I think these accusations of altering images is hilarious coming from you. You have offered nothing but altered images.

I can't wait to post my movies again to make fun of your foolishness so please write again soon.

Originally posted by latinijral


Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg




Frame 17: with filters big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg



Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum

[rwald]

Interesting thing, Latin: If you blow up frame 17, it looks exactly like your favorite digital image. But if you blow up frame 21, it looks different. Your conclusion: Frame 21 must have been faked. Most everyone else's conclusion: Maybe it happens to look different in frams 17 and 21 because it is a moving object and it changes shape as the wings go up and down...

Originally posted by rwald
Interesting thing, Latin: If you blow up frame 17, it looks exactly like your favorite digital image. But if you blow up frame 21, it looks different. Your conclusion: Frame 21 must have been faked. Most everyone else's conclusion: Maybe it happens to look different in frams 17 and 21 because it is a moving object and it changes shape as the wings go up and down...

Or because Blue Monks try to erased !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rwald]

Why would Blue Monk want to erase that? He says that the bird should be visible in every frame, so why should he erase it from one frame?

Originally posted by rwald
Why would Blue Monk want to erase that? He says that the bird should be visible in every frame, so why should he erase it from one frame?


Because he is a Randi`s fan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rwald]

Here's a copy of Frame 21, enhanced the same way that Latin's favorite image was. Where's the "hat-like structure"?

Carlos didn't like the version of the picture I uploaded earlier, so here's a different version. Let's see if Carlos likes this better.

Originally posted by rwald
Here's a copy of Frame 21, enhanced the same way that Latin's favorite image was. Where's the "hat-like structure"?

Thanks Rwald, it also shows how he manipulated and edited the picture, see how he did it or not? You are smart enough so find the answer , if you can not Latin or I will help you.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S
Now do the same with frame 17, Please.

[rwald]

Wait a second...

Why is Latin allowed to use edited digital images as proof, but I can't? And why can't Blue Monk, either?

JUST CHANGING MY SIGNATURE

Now that we have "digitized versions".

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

For whom it may concern, here's my edit of frame 17.

[rwald]

Carlos, a word of advice: The signature line should not be longer than 90% of your posts. Seriously, you shouldn't have more than 3 quotes, unless they're all only a line long. You shouldn't have a 20 line long sig.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by rwald
Wait a second...

Why is Latin allowed to use edited digital images as proof, but I can't? And why can't Blue Monk, either?

They don't think I altered the tape, rwald.

They're jerks.

It's the only way they have left to attack and they do it to anybody that disagrees with them.

They one formula they follow over and over is to raise another new issue concerning their stupid little tape.

They will do anything, and I mean anything, from calling people liars to suggesting they fake evidence to draw attention away from the most obvious question of all.

Why isn't there object on any other video?

I don't care if they convince everyone on the planet that I'm dishonest it will never change the fact that every single video clip of the event proves these two foolish men are wrong.

And so there is nothing left for these two pathetic individuals except the name calling.

No one needs defend my honor from these morons.

I never gave a damn about the stupid tape. None of us did.

But they know that if they claim I faked the tape stills then everyone will be talking about their dumb tape again which is what they want.

I say if they are too stupid to provide their own evidence then there is no reasoning with them. I knew that from the begining.

But now I don't have to put up with their nonsense.

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/second_angle_small.jpg
</A>

I can easily prove them the fools with a simple hyperlink. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

I mean does anyone need more proof that their theory is nonsense? Of course not.

Does anyone need any more proof that they are creeps? I don't think so.

Let the children play. I will make sure the other clips are available for a long, long time.

Originally posted by Blue Monk


They don't think I altered the tape, rwald.

They're jerks.




Hi Blue Monk:

Well we don't "think" that , we are SURE.

From the first time you find the TAPE at Teleclip and you saw it there with their equipments in slow motion ans stills, and you NEVER said what you saw there , only excuses to give you time to make YOUR digitized version WITH CLEARLY TRICKS ON IT.

Now that you were discovered in your enthusiasm to defend Harter poor method , you again only want to focus in the other angles.

What is paranormal? Loser.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Carlos, the other angles prove that you are wrong. As a newbie who just came on the chat a few minutes ago said, "something that big, and black against the light sky would have shown up on more than one angle." Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S
Well we don't "think" that , we are SURE.


Well I can prove I didn't.

If anyone wants a copy of the tape to judge for themselves they can send me the money to cover postage and the tape and I'll send them a copy.

What? Don't trust me?

Then order it from the company yourself.

Teleclip, Inc.
3601 S. Congress Ave. Building B Suite #100
Austin, TX 78704
Ph: (512) 851-8800, Fax (512) 851-8507
www.teleclip.com

Information you'll need to tell them
Sept 11, 2001 ABC Network
News footage of the World Trade Center Attack

They can't sale you just the clip your interested. You have to buy the specific news segment.
The segment your clip is on is the 5:00pm segment.
I also got the 5:20pm segment and the 6:01pm segment.

Anyone anywhere in the world can check for themselves and see that what I posted was not faked.

Dumbass.

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/other_angles/second_angle_small.jpg
</A>

But you just want to talk about that because you don't want anyone seeing these other clips that prove just how foolish you and latinijral are. Anyone can see there is no large dark object passing through or even near either building.

Proof Carlos' Theory is Nonsense (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html)

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Blue Monk:

Well we don't "think" that , we are SURE.

From the first time you find the TAPE at Teleclip and you saw it there with their equipments in slow motion ans stills, and you NEVER said what you saw there , only excuses to give you time to make YOUR digitized version WITH CLEARLY TRICKS ON IT.

Now that you were discovered in your enthusiasm to defend Harter poor method , you again only want to focus in the other angles.

What is paranormal? Loser.

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos,

It has been shown that whatever you are trying to do here is futile. I don't really understand why you still post here, seems to me you just like to annoy people. If that is the case, then rest assured your job is done.

If, however, your idea is to lend credence to science, then I suggest you take some time and re-evaluate what evidence you have, on your own, and then come back when you have something really interesting.

just my opinion.

buki

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, the other angles prove that you are wrong. As a newbie who just came on the chat a few minutes ago said, "something that big, and black against the light sky would have shown up on more than one angle." Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Hi Rwald:

Are you talking about the bird or the paranormal object?

Please a definition of paranormal.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

Anything which was moving through the hole in the tower would have been seen from more than one angle.

[Ceinwyn]

Ok, now he's just posting for the hell of it.

I commend all of you, Blue Monk particularly, for working so hard to show the truth. This guy, he just wants to dance.

Do you want to dance with him?

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Rwald:

Are you talking about the bird or the paranormal object?

Please a definition of paranormal.

Thanks,
S&S

Oh, I don't ****** BELIEVE this...now you want US to define YOUR terms?

You're the one who claimed there was a 'paranormal' something on the tape. YOU define what paranormal is.

DO YOUR OWN WORK, MANURE-FOR-BRAINS!!!!

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton


Oh, I don't ****** BELIEVE this...now you want US to define YOUR terms?

You're the one who claimed there was a 'paranormal' something on the tape. YOU define what paranormal is.

DO YOUR OWN WORK, MANURE-FOR-BRAINS!!!!

Are YOU afraid again?
Is on Randi's challenge.
Poor Cid.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
I forgot you are preparing another SCIENTIFIC method base on an internet tape. Is another survey?Good luck.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by buki
Ok, now he's just posting for the hell of it.

I commend all of you, Blue Monk particularly, for working so hard to show the truth. This guy, he just wants to dance.

Do you want to dance with him?

I wouldn't necessarily call it dancing. It's more like fumbling around drunk in the dirt and drooling all over the place!

He is a troll.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


I wouldn't necessarily call it dancing. It's more like fumbling around drunk in the dirt and drooling all over the place!

He is a troll.

And you are my best couple for the dance, always saying you will NEVER post here again. How many times you said that?

I think your hello kyttie diary is full now.

Thanks,
S&S

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


And you are my best couple for the dance, always saying you will NEVER post here again. How many times you said that?

I think your hello kyttie diary is full now.

Thanks,
S&S
Still looking for the truth are you? Here it is:


YOU ARE A DUMBASS

That's from me in Canada. You dimtwat.

[Ceinwyn]

I have no respect for carlos swett. To me, he would make a horrible witness.

"So you saw this guy actually stab him?"

"Well, I saw this guy with a knife....I assumed he did it..."*













*the guy is a chef.

[davidhorman]

Carlos, you seem to be afraid to answer this question:

Why does the object (whatever it is) not appear from any other angle?

David

Originally posted by latinijral

Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg




Frame 17: with filters big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg



Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum


What is your opinion about Blue Monk`s digitized pictures????


Blue Monk: Did you change your eraser for your new analysis of your new digitized videos???????????????????????????????????

Originally posted by rwald
Here's a copy of Frame 21, enhanced the same way that Latin's favorite image was. Where's the "hat-like structure"?



Hey Rwald, are you loosing part of your brain????????

Did you remember this post:
Originally posted by rwald
Interesting thing, Latin: If you blow up frame 17, it looks exactly like your favorite digital image.

Are you trying to confuse???????? 17 is not 21

Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg

Frame 17: with filters big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg











Rwald.:It looks exactly like your favorite digital image

[rwald]

Latin, I first blew up frame 21, and then frame 17. The first one I did, frame 21, did not look like your favorite image. The second one, frame 17, did. Here, I'll post links. This is frame 17:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=238441

Note that it does look like your image, with a "hat-like structure" on top of it.

Now, this is frame 21:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=238425

Note that it does not have a "hat-like structure." Does that clarify things?

Rwald.:It looks exactly like your favorite digital image

[rwald]

Frame 17 looks exactly like your favorite digital image.

Frame 21 does not.

How much clearer can I be?

Originally posted by davidhorman
Carlos, you seem to be afraid to answer this question:

Why does the object (whatever it is) not appear from any other angle?

David :

Hi David:

You helped so much with "your" knowledge of images on internet and broadcast tapes.
The difference between them that you exposed before specaially in the matter of FRAMES proved that many members here were with WRONG assumptions about it, but the time Blue Monk started his first set of videos of internet ( not "his " new work).

Now that is demostrated that Blue Monk manipulated "his " digitized version, and I guess YOU know that like a "technician" in images, the ONLY stuff you are replying now is about " the other angle".

Blue Monk saw the tape at teleclip in slow motion and stills in their equipments and NEVER said what he saw there, but "needed to make a "his digitized TRICKY version to fool YOU ALL, and have the congratulations of "the SKEPTICS" that beleived in his work.Poor kind of skeptics, just beleivers. Bidlack is on that bunch too.

Let me tell you David that I 've been asking about YOUR definition of PARANORMAL and seems to be that everybody is afraid to post here it. Why?
It is THE PARANORMAL CHALLENGE according to Randi's words, so please answer : What is paranormal ? over what laws are based the paranormal?

Are YOU all afraid to give a definition?
Ask Randi for help and post it here, so I will answer your "smart question" abouth the other angle.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Here's a good definition of supernatural/paranormal I've thought of. If anyone disagrees with this, say so.

Paranormal/Supernatural -- Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules.

Originally posted by rwald
For whom it may concern, here's my edit of frame 17.

Edition?????

I only see that you post a big picture of Blue Monk`s frame 17, so it means that you change the resolution and lost the quality of it, maybe you fix it and then you attach your edited file.

Originally posted by rwald
It looks exactly like your favorite digital image.

[rwald]

Of course I just took frame 17 and made it larger. That's what I said I did. There's no argument there.

And it should come as no surprise that my version of frame 17 looks just like your favorite picture. Both your picture and Blue Monk's frame 17 came from the same source. If they looked different, it would imply that Blue Monk had been lying. But as you keep quoting me saying, "it looks exactly like your favorite digital image."

And why didn't you mention that frame 21 looks different from your favorite image? I think that's more important, personally.

LOOKING FOR THE DEFINITION OF PARANORMAL AT THE CHAT, TONIGHT. (sounds like a song)

Carswett> define supernatural rwald
Carswett> and paranormal too
rwald> "Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."
rwald> I would say they are synonyms.
Carswett> thanks can you post that at the thread rwald
rwald> For example, a bird can be explained by known scientific rules.
rwald> Sure.<rwald> Your object, if it acts as you say, breaks many scientific rules.
rwald> It moves away from the camera without getting any smaller.
rwald> Also, it doesn't move as normal objects do; when you look at it for 1/60 of a second, you don't see a blur where it moved for that time period, but you see its "exact form."
rwald> Neither of these are actually possible.
rwald> You explained that it could do these because it was "paranormal."
rwald> So, even you agree that a paranormal object, by definition, breaks scientific rules.
Carswett> Rwald can I paste that at the thread?
rwald> Sure. As long as you put it in the context of, "If the object acted as Carlos believes, the following must be taking place."
Carswett> thanks rwald.

Only for the afraid members that refuse to give a definition of paranormal or supernatural.

Any others definitions are welcome.

Thanks,
S&S

rwald> Why should he bother? If you think he tricked the
picture, you're going to think he lied, as well.
Carswett> and never said what he saw at teleclip in slow
motion and stills
rwald> He didn't get a good look at teleclip.
rwald> He only looked long enough to tell that it was the shot
he wanted.
latinijral> because...people with honor always defend his job
Carswett> that's a fact, he needed to go to the "proffesional
equipments"
latinijral> but his job is a liar
rwald> He looked at it with better equipment BEFORE he
digitized it.
latinijral> and he tricked the image
rwald> If he didn't use "professional equipment," you would
claim that his equipment wasn't good enough.
latinijral> he edited the image
rwald> Besides, none of this answers the question: Why isn't
the object seen in any other shots?
latinijral> he is a liar
rwald> You see? Why should he bother saying, "I didn't fake
the shots."? You don't listen to him anyway.
latinijral> rwald: do you remember your words????? i will
never analized the video...never
rwald> Well, whenever I talk about the rules, you ignore me.
rwald> So if I want to have a dialog, I have to talk about the
video.
rwald> I'd rather talk about the rules, but you people won't
pay attention.
latinijral> fine randall
latinijral> your rules???
rwald> Randi's rules.
rwald> Not the introduction to Randi's rules; Randi's rules
themselves.
latinijral> and what is the opinion of randi and harter about
their rules??????
rwald> I assume that Randi respects his rules.
SpaceLord has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving )
latinijral> assume??????
rwald> "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural going
on here."
latinijral> so...he didn`t find something supernatural?????
rwald> Andrew did not find anything supernatural. That is
correct.
latinijral> supernatural like what????
rwald> I don't know. Carlos never said what type of
"supernatural" object he thinks his "hat" is.
rwald> He just says it's "supernatural" or "paranormal."
latinijral> randall: how many types of supernatural exists????
rwald> I would say none.
rwald> But that's just me.
rwald> I mean, if you want a list, like "aliens, ghosts, acts
of God, etc.", there you are.
Carswett> define supernatural rwald
Carswett> and paranormal too
rwald> "Something which cannot be explained by known
scientific rules."
rwald> I would say they are synonyms.
rwald> For example, a bird can be explained by known
scientific rules.
Carswett> thanks can you post that at the thread rwald
rwald> Sure.
latinijral> fine randall
latinijral> well definition
Carswett> but the "object not?
Carswett> ponla en el thread
Carswett> copiala
rwald> Your object, if it acts as you say, breaks many
scientific rules.
rwald> It moves away from the camera without getting any
smaller.
rwald> Also, it doesn't move as normal objects do; when you
look at it for 1/60 of a second, you don't see a blur where
it moved for that time period, but you see its "exact form."
rwald> Neither of these are actually possible.
rwald> You explained that it could do these because it was
"paranormal."
rwald> So, even you agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

[PinkRabbit]

Let me guess this straight, the supposed proof that Blue Monk digitally manipulated the image is a series digitally manipulated images by latinjrl?

This thread just gets weirder and weirder because I have zero doubt that Carlos will fail to see the basic paradox there.

Meanwhile, Carlos, you've yet to answer the question about why the object that you claim is paranormal and went through the tower isn't seen on any single other frame of footage shot that day. C'mon,Carlos, avail us of your brilliant explanation. Quit throwing around the insults and just tell us why it's not visible in any other camera angle.

Do you even have ANY explanation?

Barb

Originally posted by PinkRabbit



Meanwhile, Carlos, you've yet to answer the question about why the object that you claim is paranormal and went through the tower isn't seen on any single other frame of footage shot that day. C'mon,Carlos, avail us of your brilliant explanation. Quit throwing around the insults and just tell us why it's not visible in any other camera angle.

My guess is you simply don't have an explanation?

Barb

Hola Barbarita:

I send an notarized application to the JREF PARANORMAL CHALLENGE.

The definition of paranormal is this( unless you have another version) :"Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."

So, even you agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

Please try to focus on that , so YOU ALL can answer yourself that question, now that everybody knows that a "digitized version" is not a proof to anybody , only for fools.

Gracias Barbarita,

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
About insults, thankyou all for the presents and gifts you all are sending to me.

[Peter S.]

I'm not sure why latinijral would post a chat that makes him look like the idiot he is. You and Swett are unbelievable!

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Let me guess this straight, the supposed proof that Blue Monk digitally manipulated the image is a series digitally manipulated images by latinjrl?


I only used a filter and the option "negative" on Adobe Photoshop, so I can demonstrate that Blue Monk`s digitized pictures were manipulated.

So, Who is the liar??? Blue Monk



P:S: Blue Monk never answered me saying...hey Latin. my digitized pictures are OK.

Originally posted by rwald
Of course I just took frame 17 and made it larger. That's what I said I did. There's no argument there.

And it should come as no surprise that my version of frame 17 looks just like your favorite picture. Both your picture and Blue Monk's frame 17 came from the same source. If they looked different, it would imply that Blue Monk had been lying. But as you keep quoting me saying, "it looks exactly like your favorite digital image."

And why didn't you mention that frame 21 looks different from your favorite image? I think that's more important, personally.

Frame 21 was tricked by Blue Monk.

Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg



Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum [/B]

[Yahzi]

27 pages of this drivel?

Oh well, it's all in one thread, so I suppose I shouldn't complain.

Originally posted by Peter S.
I'm not sure why latinijral would post a chat that makes him look like the idiot he is. You and Swett are unbelievable!

Hi PeterS :

You are the one that always send me presents and gifts (no insults) but you NEVER put arguments.

I "guess" you don't have that ability, maybe you are only related with tricks.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
How is your tatoo? Always looking it at the mirror?

[rwald]

What PinkRabbit is asking is, why can't it be seen from other angles? Are you saying that, because the object is paranormal, it can only be seen from certain angles?

http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/avatar.php?userid=1489&dateline=1035770620

[rwald]

Latin, as I think I've said before, if Blue Monk had erased anything, or edited the shot in any way, it would have been child's play to use the smudge tool in Photoshop to get rid of the circle. So why does the circle's presence mean the shot was faked?

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Yahzi
27 pages of this drivel?

Oh well, it's all in one thread, so I suppose I shouldn't complain. I never thought this thread was going to be such a big "success". There is a positive side however, it tells us something of the psychology of beliefs. When someone strongly believes in something, no matter how much or how good the evidence against it is, he/she will not stop believing

LOOKING FOR MORE PARANORMAL OR "SUPERNATURAL" DEFINITION

I send a notarized application to the JREF PARANORMAL CHALLENGE.

The definition of paranormal is this ( unless you have another version) :"Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."

So, even ALL OF YOU WILL agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

Please try to focus on that , so YOU ALL can answer yourself the question about the others angles, now that everybody knows that a "digitized version" is not a proof to anybody , only for fools.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Carlos, again, what does the fact that you think the object is paranormal have to do with the other angles? Do you think that because the object is paranormal, it can't be seen from other angles?

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I never thought this thread was going to be such a big "success". There is a positive side however, it tells us something of the psychology of beliefs. When someone strongly believes in something, no matter how much or how good the evidence against it is, he/she will not stop believing


Good evidence, perro?????

I imagine that you are talking about Blue Monks`s digitized tricked poor resolution video and pictures.

I guess that.


P:S: Los perros no saben de sicologìa, sòlo ladran y menean la cola a su`amo.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by rwald
Latin, as I think I've said before, if Blue Monk had erased anything, or edited the shot in any way, it would have been child's play to use the smudge tool in Photoshop to get rid of the circle. So why does the circle's presence mean the shot was faked?

A very good question. When I went through the gif files frame by frame, I noticed the circle myself, yet did not notice anything in particular when it came to full blown editing! http://www.tnfj.com/Images/Smilies/rocketwhore.gif

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I never thought this thread was going to be such a big "success". There is a positive side however, it tells us something of the psychology of beliefs. When someone strongly believes in something, no matter how much or how good the evidence against it is, he/she will not stop believing

Hi Patricio:

Sorprendido?
Eso te pasa por farsante . Te acuerdas del primer dia en el chat que conversaste con latin antes de que publiques esto?
Has quedado como un mentiroso oportunista.Está grabada esa conversación, espera otra sorpresa.

Are you the same guy who's little brother show you the "object" at the smoke?(wow a "discovery")

Are you just another BELEIVER of Blue Monk's "digitized version"?

Are are you just another one who beleives on Randi's silence?

He comprobado que son solamente un grupo de fanáticos, con poco poder de razonar sobre métodos que conduzcan a esclarecer la verdad, y tu eres el abanderado de la farza.
Imaginate que aún no publico lo que me mandaste por privado y tus comentarios sobre Randi y el caso..Acuerdate que tengo tu permiso.
Farsante.

Thanks,
S&S

[Patricio Elicer]

Carlos,

Remember that the official language of the boards is English, so please write your messages in that language so that everyone can read your ramblings.

One last thing: I'm not against you, nor I'm in favor of Blue Monk or Randi. I'm in favor of the truth. All the cards have been dealt by now, and the truth is that there's no paranormal object, but just a common and normal BIRD.

[PinkRabbit]

First off, on an unrelated note, Carlocita, I find your tendency to screw around with/mock people's names in what you seem to consider is some cutsie fashion really annoying, condescending, and makes you look like a serious jerk. Just had to comment.

And now, on with the show.

We have Blue Monk's word he hasn't screwed with the digital images and latinjrl's screwing with digital images to theoretically prove he has. Why should I take Latinjrl's word over Blue Monk's?

Now on to my question: Why wasn't the object seen by any other cameras. I see you answered it ... sort of.

And your answer is is essentially that anything that doesn't support your thesis is because the object is paranormal. Got it.

Well, it would make science easier if only the evidence one wishes to agree with counted and all else was superfluous.

But, reality check, life doesn't work that way.

Barb

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Carlos,

Remember that the official language of the boards is English, so please write your messages in that language so that everyone can read your ramblings.

One last thing: I'm not against you, nor I'm in favor of Blue Monk or Randi. I'm in favor of the truth. All the cards have been dealt by now, and the truth is that there's no paranormal object, but just a common and normal BIRD.

Patricio:

Remember YOU are the "official translator" of this thread.

Don't you remember your first post that originated this thread?
The only thing "you forgot" to translate was my notarized application that day.You lied that day also.

YOU DID IT then only because I forced you to do it, because you are the kind of "skeptic" that only "beleives" in tricks.

Of course all the cards have been dealt by now, and YOU all are still like a bunch of "beleivers" in digitized versions.Remember Blue Monk refused to said what he saw THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills ?He didn't say anything that day, he waited to have his OWN digitized versions for fools like you.

You can translate what I said to you in spanish ( are you afraid?), besides you said in another thread you LOVE english language more than spanish.

Thanks
S&S

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
First off, on an unrelated note, Carlocita, I find your tendency to screw around with/mock people's names in what you seem to consider is some cutsie fashion really annoying, condescending, and makes you look like a serious jerk. Just had to comment.

And now, on with the show.

We have Blue Monk's word he hasn't screwed with the digital images and latinjrl's screwing with digital images to theoretically prove he has. Why should I take Latinjrl's word over Blue Monk's?

Now on to my question: Why wasn't the object seen by any other cameras. I see you answered it ... sort of.

And your answer is is essentially that anything that doesn't support your thesis is because the object is paranormal. Got it.

Well, it would make science easier if only the evidence one wishes to agree with counted and all else was superfluous.

But, reality check, life doesn't work that way.

Barb

Hi Barbarita:

I love your name , and the "ita" is not a mockery, in spanish is like a diminutive to express tender, that's all.You can ask Patricio Elicer about that.

About paranormal objects:
I send a notarized application to the JREF PARANORMAL CHALLENGE.

The definition of paranormal is this ( unless you have another version) :"Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."

So, even ALL OF YOU WILL agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.
Or maybe you can ask Randi for some help in the definition , so you will understand the point.

Carlitos

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

So, Carlos, you think that your object broke the rules of physics? Well, here's a scientific principle that directly relates to that:

When there are two different theories to explain one event, and one theory requires that many of the laws of physics be broken, while the other theory conforms with all the laws of physics, the theory which does not involve breaking many laws of physics is assumed to be correct.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

Of course all the cards have been dealt by now, and YOU all are still like a bunch of "beleivers" in digitized versions.Remember Blue Monk refused to said what he saw THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills ?He didn't say anything that day, he waited to have his OWN digitized versions for fools like you.


:rolleyes:


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.

Blue Monk (Page 24,) 11-14-2002

Originally posted by rwald
So, Carlos, you think that your object broke the rules of physics? Well, here's a scientific principle that directly relates to that:

When there are two different theories to explain one event, and one theory requires that many of the laws of physics be broken, while the other theory conforms with all the laws of physics, the theory which does not involve breaking many laws of physics is assumed to be correct.

Hi Rwald:

Are you talking about paranormal theories?Or not?


Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Well, if one theory is paranormal, and the other isn't, the non-paranormal theory is assumed to be correct, until the supporter of the paranormal theory presents a massive load of evidence supporting his side.

And whatever you, Harter, or Randi said does not count as evidence supporting your side.

[Wyrd1]

I do believe I have said before that no matter what Carlos will never admit defeat or leave this board. This is a object lesson in Woo Woo Psychology.

Evidence reason and logic mean nothing. Show them how wrong they are and it doesn't do any good. Ask them questions that show exactly how untenable their position is and you're really wasting your own time.

They won't listen and they won't look. The are comfortable with their little worlds where they are never wrong and they are just as smart as everyone else.

Why fiddle with facts? That only opens doors that the demons of doubt may enter through. Carlos really believes he is correct in his assumption that he saw something paranormal and won't consider the mountain of facts threatening to bury him.

Latinijral is just stupid. He is little more than one of those little yapping dogs that girlfriends insist on keeping just to annoy you. Check out his site at msn groups to see just how little he has to say.

[davidhorman]

So Carlos has decided to evade the question. Instead he chooses to imply that the object doesn't appear from any other angles because it's paranormal. He implies probably because he knows if he says that outright he'll only look more of a fool to us.

The reason I'm concentrating on this question is because you've totally refused to even consider the BlueMonk's evidence which shows the object in front of the towers. If you're going to ignore evidence, there's no reason for me to pursue that line. The beauty of the question of angles is that you can't claim any of the footage has been faked.

Latin, big deal. The object appears to take on a circular shape in frame 21. Unless you can show another version of frame 21 which looks markedly different to BlueMonk's version (and that should be easy if BM faked it - Carlos says he has access to professional equipment), you should accept it on face value. Either that or discard it entirely - the rest of the frames are more than enough to show that a) the object appears to "flap" just like a bird and b) the object can be seen in front of both towers.

Carlos, you also seem to have a problem with BlueMonk not saying what he personally saw at Teleclip, and yet you've accused him of faking. He's posted images so we can see for ourselves what he saw. What makes you think that he is so bipolar that he can fake those images, but can't bring himself to lie about it to you?

Read read what rwald wrote again:

When there are two different theories to explain one event, and one theory requires that many of the laws of physics be broken, while the other theory conforms with all the laws of physics, the theory which does not involve breaking many laws of physics is assumed to be correct.

David

[Thanz]

All right, Mr. Swett, a paranormal object breaks scientific rules. If the object on the tape actually does go in one hole and out the other without changing speed or trajectory, yes it would be breaking scientific rules. Unfortunately for your claim, it does not enter the building.

If it did enter and exit the building, it would be shown on other camera angles. But it isn't.

Why is the object not on any other camera angle? Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it? Is it somehow invisible?

If this is your theory, why does the one camera have it on tape? Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

Please, Mr. Swett, if you have any honour at all, answer my questions in a straightforward manner.

Thanz

[PinkRabbit]

Carlos, we aren't friends (actually, I find myself disliking you more intensely with every passing day), and your "tenderness," comes across as condescending, a not so subtle way of treating me like you consider me to be a foolish child.

Now as to your explanation: So you're basically confirming that in your opinion anything that doesn't support your claim is because it's paranormal.

Yes, I understand the definition of paranormal perfectly well. You, however, have turned that definition into a self-serving semantic nightmare, using it to explain away anything that doesn't support your thesis. You stretch the definition of the word until it has no meaning beyond, "Paranormal is what Carlos Swett says it is."

Barb

[thatguywhojuggles]

Wait, I think I have it all figured out. It is the video camera itself that is paranormal!!! Think about it. If no other camera caught the images of a blur flying through the building, then it must be the camera that is paranormal!!! We should track down the owner of that camera, and we might be able to video tape some amazing paranormal things like Elvis Presley's spirit puking into a toiled in a Las Vegas hotel! Just think of the possibilities!!

[PinkRabbit]

I think you've got it, Walter, I really do. :D

We've solved the question. It's all the camera's fault. ;)

Barb

I am sure of this:

A)That I made a notarized application to the PARANORMAL challenge.

B) That my application , referential tape and letter to Mr. James Randi was received at the offices of JREF.

C) That Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Randi gave me an answer to my application, based in an "study frame by frame " of a "video" available on INTERNET.

D) That in that answer JREF researcher never said that my application was not valid.

E) That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk.

F)That the definition of paranormal is this ( unless you have another version) :"Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."

So, even ALL OF YOU WILL agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

G) That NOBODY here at the forum did a correct and certified analysis of THE BROADCAST TAPE

H) That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics.

I) That you all were not able to silent me ., want to know why? Because I am sure when I write something or say something. At the other side some members are full of regrets or insults like arguments.


Thanks,
S&S

[davidhorman]

D) That in that answer JREF researcher never said that my application was not valid

Perhaps not. But we have, at the very least, cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation of the footage. The same kind of reasonable doubt Harter and Randi had.

That NOBODY here at the forum did a correct and certified analysis of THE BROADCAST TAPE

Well what if I said that I don't believe you did a correct analysis, because you weren't there? You didn't see the event happen, all you have is a tape.

We have done enough analysis to show that the object flaps, and that it passes in front of both towers (analysis which you've dismissed as fraud, with no evidence).

Even if you did accepted that the object appears in front of the towers, you would just say it's a paranormal object, implying that it can take on the exact of a bird and appear to be in front of the towers while simultaneously flying through the hole in the building.

Hey, Carlos, here's a link to a picture of an alien spaceship caught by a webcam in Seattle:

http://www.frg.org/frg/images/320x/jpgs/spider.jpg

Of course, BlueMonk would analyse this and say it's a spider, but I know he's wrong. The explanation? It's paranormal.

Now, do you see the similarity between your claim and my (admittedly facetious) one?

David

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
I am sure of this:

A)That I made a notarized application to the PARANORMAL challenge.

B) That my application , referential tape and letter to Mr. James Randi was received at the offices of JREF.

C) That Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Randi gave me an answer to my application, based in an "study frame by frame " of a "video" available on INTERNET.

D) That in that answer JREF researcher never said that my application was not valid.

E) That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk.

F)That the definition of paranormal is this ( unless you have another version) :"Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."

So, even ALL OF YOU WILL agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

G) That NOBODY here at the forum did a correct and certified analysis of THE BROADCAST TAPE

H) That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics.

I) That you all were not able to silent me ., want to know why? Because I am sure when I write something or say something. At the other side some members are full of regrets or insults like arguments.


Thanks,
S&S

Okay, I'll bite.

Point by point:

A) No one is denying this. The fact that you sent an application to JREF is not a big deal.

B) No one is denying this either. They got your application, and responded.

C) Yes, Harter analysed a video on the internet. He also said that he had seen the video before, and he responded to you.

D) NO, Harter said that you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place.

E) I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that some people believe that Blue Monk obtained a copy of the tape, and put a version of that on the internet (stills and video), then yes. If you mean to imply that the digitized version is different from the tape (altered by Blue Monk) than no.

F) This seems to be a common sense definition. From the Oxford English Dictionary (online version):

Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;

G) Absolutely incorrect. Blue Monk examined the broadcast tape at at least 3 different places, and concluded that the object can be seen in front of the towers at all times.

H) I don't know what you mean by this. Blue Monk went out and found all of the evidence available to explain the phenomena, including the tape you rely on and other angles shot of the same event. The methods used are quite acceptable. You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence at all, other than the one tape, which has been explained.

I) True, we have not silenced you. You keep posting. But you haven't actually said much - just the same things over and over.

I have answered your post point for point. Please do me the courtesy of answering my post above.

Thanz

Originally posted by davidhorman

Latin, big deal. The object appears to take on a circular shape in frame 21.


David

Yes, because Blue Monk try to erase the object and show it different.

Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg



Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum [/B]

[Wyrd1]

Gee, Carlos, NOBODY? Are you ignoring Blue Monk's efforts? Of course you are. You ignore everything and everyone who doesn't agree with your notarized application (which is everybody except you, your brother Guillermo, and Latinijral. ) Why am I not surprised?

Maybe if Carlos behaves himself Santa Claus will bring him a Clue for Christmas. Too bad Latin will be getting another lump of coal. Bad, bad. bad Latinijral.

Originally posted by Wyrd1
Are you ignoring Blue Monk's efforts


Please James Randi and Andrew Harter don`t ignore Blue Monk`s effort. You can publish his "amazing" pictures on your week`s commentary with Carlos`s notarized challenge.



P:S. Who is the owner of the Super VHS?

[Wyrd1]

I am you dummy. Since you aren't able to keep up with the grownups you go nappy bye. Nite nite.

Originally posted by Thanz


Okay, I'll bite.

Point by point:

C) Yes, Harter analysed a video on the internet. He also said that he had seen the video before, and he responded to you.

D) NO, Harter said that you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place.

E) I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that some people believe that Blue Monk obtained a copy of the tape, and put a version of that on the internet (stills and video), then yes. If you mean to imply that the digitized version is different from the tape (altered by Blue Monk) than no.

F) This seems to be a common sense definition. From the Oxford English Dictionary (online version):

Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;

G) Absolutely incorrect. Blue Monk examined the broadcast tape at at least 3 different places, and concluded that the object can be seen in front of the towers at all times.

H) I don't know what you mean by this. Blue Monk went out and found all of the evidence available to explain the phenomena, including the tape you rely on and other angles shot of the same event. The methods used are quite acceptable. You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence at all, other than the one tape, which has been explained.

I) True, we have not silenced you. You keep posting. But you haven't actually said much - just the same things over and over.

I have answered your post point for point. Please do me the courtesy of answering my post above.

Thanz
Hi Thanz:

I guess that you are happy now with my signature, your quote just says the main point about the quality of tapes, that's a fact.

About your respond to my quote "I am sure of this" seems that YOU are almost "with me" in my arguments, some points you are not sure of what I mean so I will help you.

C) Yes Harter analyzed a video "FRAME BY FRAME" on an unknown link of internet, Your comment about this point is also on my signature(I agree with that)

D) Is possible that you missunderstand this point.They NEVER wrote in their answer that my application was not valid.
David horman in his comments about this point wrote:"Perhaps not. But we have, at the very least, cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation of the footage"

So I am sure that there is not a single word that my application was not valid in Harter's answer, only Harter wrote as YOU said :
"you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place." Well he was based in the study "frame by frame on the unknown link of internet, the "preety dodgy method" according to your quote.

E) When I am sure of this "That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk."

I mean that HE DID that digitized version, so is up to you to "beleive or not" in HIS digitized version.
Can "digitized versions" be tricked?
I have one too, but I refused to send it to the JREF, is explained in my letter to Mr.James Randi.

G)You forgot that he saw FIRST the TAPE in slow motion and stills at the equipments ofTELECLIP . The only thing is that he NEVER told us what he saw there, and he was prepared enough to look at determined frames.His conclusions are based on "HIS" digitized version, not in the tape.

H) I am sure of this :" That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics."

Yes YOU are still defending "blue monk's digitized version".
About why not in the other cameras angles? here is your answer:Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;

________________________-

Thanz,I am just helping you in the points you had doubts, the others points you agreed wiyh me.Thanks for that.


Thanks,
S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

G)You forgot that he saw FIRST the TAPE in slow motion and stills at the equipments ofTELECLIP . The only thing is that he NEVER told us what he saw there, and he was prepared enough to look at determined frames.His conclusions are based on "HIS" digitized version, not in the tape.


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.

Blue Monk (Page 24,) 11-14-2002



Lies again!

Nobody here believes you. You are wasting your time.

Edited to add:
Carlos, you are such an idiot, that I should probably explain in simple words what Blue Monk stated (quoted above.)

He retrieved a copy of the tape and annalyzed it in the following manners BEFORE digitizing it to show us.
1. Brief viewing at Teleclip
2. Viewed at video station at Fine Arts Microcomputer Lab
3. Viewed at communications building at The Center for Advance Studies in the Arts on equipment "tuned precisely for video" with a monitor with a resolution that "far exceeds that of the videotape."

Now, lets see if your simple mind can understand this. He viewed your tape as you requested at Teleclip. But he went further than that. He analyzed it at two other places as well.

The CONCLUSION was, after viewing all three methods:

"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."

My conclusion:
Get a life, moron!!

[susheel]

With special mention to Blue Monk for the pains he is taken and all the others (Thanz, thatguywhojuggles, davidhorman, and others) who have (sadly to no avail) achieved little where S&S's beliefs are concerned, let us now declare this horse oficially dead.

As of now S&S and Latinjral are truly trolling and any discussion with them is going to be nonproductive.

However, I think this thread can be a benchmark for how ordinary members of the forum, in spite of distances can sit around a common problem and thrash it out.

Kudos to all.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
Is possible that you missunderstand this point.They NEVER wrote in their answer that my application was not valid.

Yes he does.

From Harter's response.
You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.


Duh! How the hell was he supposed to know you couldn't understand this? What do you think? People aren't going to waste their time investigating something so easily disproved just because you can spell your own name right?

And as if that was clear enough after another brief email exchange, Randi apparently looks into it personally and tells you….

Randi's response to Carlos.
Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious.

Your application is closed.


How dumb can you be? How clearer can that be?

Originally posted by S&S
Yes YOU are still defending "blue monk's digitized version".


No one has to take my word for anything. I'll send anyone, including you a copy of the tape.

What don't trust me?

Then order it from the company yourself.

Teleclip, Inc.
3601 S. Congress Ave. Building B Suite #100
Austin, TX 78704
Ph: (512) 851-8800, Fax (512) 851-8507
www.teleclip.com

Information you'll need to tell them
Sept 11, 2001 ABC Network
News footage of the World Trade Center Attack

They can't sale you just the clip your interested. You have to buy the specific news segment.
The segment your clip is on is the 5:00pm segment.
I also got the 5:20pm segment and the 6:01pm segment.

Originally posted by S&S
About why not in the other cameras angles? here is your answer:Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known.


There are buildings visible on some angles and not others. What you're saying would prove these buildings are paranormal.

Everything I have shown is consistent with something passing in closely in front of the camera in that shot, probably a bird.

from Carlos' application

<Q>
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.</Q>

I don't see anywhere where you say it is paranormal because it only shows up on your 'magic' camera.

Something flew close by in front of the camera. From that angle it looks as if it swoops from the heavens and through the tower. The tape I have, which I am more than happy to share with anyone, clearly shows it in front of the towers.

You guys just want your names in Randi's column. Grow the hell up.

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I have found Carlos' tape!

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.




Blue Monk did not find MY tape. He find a tape with the same shot I send in a REFERENTIAL tape to the JREF.

Blue Monk 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."

He already knew what specific FRAME (1) must look at it . He had time enough, slow motion and stills, but NEVER said what he saw.

Justice for who? TO HARTER or RANDI?

Then he went to do HIS own "digitized version". He posted that "version" and YOU all beleive in that "digitized version".
Blue Monk made "justice " to the forum.


Thanks,
S&S

[PinkRabbit]

Actually, speaking for myself, the version I believe is the one I saw at the local news station.

The one in which the object was visible in every single frame and clearly passed in front of the twin towers.

True, it happens to correspond with what Blue Monk digitized and posted, but it's what I saw on a good tape and a medium quality monitor.

As for your accusations that Blue Monk tried to manipulate any of those shots, I'd have to disagree. I'm a computer graphics artist, so I downloaded all of the frames and took a close look. I saw no sign of the smudging and smoothing that typically happens when one starts digitally manipulating a video capture. With video captures, there's always texturing from the translation from the tv signal to standard bitmap form. That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand, and it's easy to spot it when someone has started airbrushing over it because it smooths things out. Same with using an eraser tool. In the shots I looked at, nothing breaks that pattern.

There is some blurring around the object, but that's motion blur and visible around the object in all of those frames to varying degrees. What Latinjrl insists is digital manipulation is just a product of the rather poor quality that typically comes from screen grabs.

In short, sorry, Carlos. You lose again.

Barb

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
Blue Monk did not find MY tape. He find a tape with the same shot I send in a REFERENTIAL tape to the JREF.

Well Duh!

Originally posted by S&S
Blue Monk 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."


So are so damn slow. You have to hear everything a millions times to get it right.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Does Teleclip have some sort of 'magical' equipment that I don't know about.

The whole point is you've been lying all along about even having a tape haven't you. I know you and you're not very bright.

You looked at the tape at the studio and then they made you a copy. You, not being very bright, sent that tape to JREF without making another copy. I'm right aren't I.

So in between all of your childish whining why don't you simply PM me with an address and I'll send you a copy free of charge. I'll even pay the postage. It may not be as good as the one you say but at least you'll have something.

Originally posted by S&S
He already knew what specific FRAME (1) must look at it . He had time enough, slow motion and stills, but NEVER said what he saw.


Is this going to be one of those questions that you are too slow to understand unless it's repeated over and over because I don't have the time. If you're going to get all miffed because I had the audacity to view your stupid tape on better equipment than what Teleclip provided then you can kiss my butt.

Originally posted by S&S
Then he went to do HIS own "digitized version". He posted that "version" and YOU all beleive in that "digitized version".


Of course. How else are you going to present a video via the web?

I am glad you finally admit that the object is not on the other videos. It's probably a bird.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles



Carlos, you are such an idiot, that I should probably explain in simple words what Blue Monk stated (quoted above.)

He retrieved a copy of the tape and annalyzed it in the following manners BEFORE digitizing it to show us.
1. Brief viewing at Teleclip
2. Viewed at video station at Fine Arts Microcomputer Lab
3. Viewed at communications building at The Center for Advance Studies in the Arts on equipment "tuned precisely for video" with a monitor with a resolution that "far exceeds that of the videotape."


My conclusion:
Get a life, moron!!

That guy:

You "forgot" this: In Blue monk's" brief viewing of THE TAPE at teleclip he had time enough to saw the TAPE in slow motion and stills , but he refused and NEVER said what he saw there until he "made " his own digitized version.

About idiots , let me remind you these words:

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles :
One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????"

You said that in 10/28/02 in your fifth or whatever "return" to the thread.

Yes now there are more pages at the thread, and you are still returning, so I think YOU ARE MORE STUPID according to your own words.

Are you copying this at "your diary"?
I hope will help you.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
That was not an insult, just a remember to your own words.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Barb,

This foolishness should have ended a long time ago. It definitely should have ended when you, as requested by Carolos, viewed the video on profesional equipment. However, noticing how he calls you Barbarita, I imagine he values your opinion as a woman as he might value a child's opinion. I grew up in South America, I know how latin men are.

I, and the other rational thinking people on this thread were more than satisfied with your efforts, but Carlos I'm sure just brushed it aside as, "Oh, look Barbarita went and looked at the video. How cute. Well, there is no point in listening to her. She is just a woman."

These are my own views, and I don't give a dead rat's ass if Carlos disagrees with me.

:D

[Tesserat]

Hey Carlos

I don't believe what you said that Harter and Randi wrote. I think that you digitally changed it. I'm sure that Harter actually wrote "Your claim is not valid" but you changed it so that you'd have something to whine about.

My proof? You are not an honorable person. Thanz asked you again to take his words off of your quote and you still don't. That makes you a liar. You said that you would remove his words if he asked again.

You lied, and you faked Andrew's words. You owe him an apology.

Originally posted by Blue Monk





I am glad you finally admit that the object is not on the other videos. It's probably a bird.


Hi Blue Monk:

Yes I admit YOUR definition of PARANORMAL related to the others angles you alo posted.
By the way those angles have a better resolution than the "specific shot".

But , don't be so sure you have all the angles and that the "objects" can not be seen there.
You are missing at least 2 "more important angles" , one was caught from the street ( not the one you have with the surprised man on it) and another one: a long shot from CNN , with an "open " wide angle almost 1500 feets before the second plane crashed.That camera was at the south of the towers.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Why you didn't tell us what you saw on THE TAPE at teleclip in slow motion and stills before you made your digitized version to the thread?
Was hard to analyze there that "specific frame"?

Originally posted by Tesserat
Hey Carlos

I don't believe what you said that Harter and Randi wrote. I think that you digitally changed it. I'm sure that Harter actually wrote "Your claim is not valid" but you changed it so that you'd have something to whine about.

My proof? You are not an honorable person. Thanz asked you again to take his words off of your quote and you still don't. That makes you a liar. You said that you would remove his words if he asked again.

You lied, and you faked Andrew's words. You owe him an apology.

Hi Tesserat:

Good point. that is why I am asking Mr. James Randi To put my application and the answer they gave me .
So your assumption is that Harter wrote this:"Your claim is not valid" .

I have Harter's originals words :
"You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

Andrew Harter
Researcher
James Randi Educational Foundation

____________

I "forgot also to put paranormal instead of supernatural"?
I "invented" also Harter's study frame by frame on a video(?) at internet?
Ca n it be possible that also I did not make a notarized application to the JREf and I also "invented" that they received my referential tape?
Why I replied him about his answer:"I AM VERY GLAD AND HAPPY THAT YOU FINALLY ANSWERED MY APPLICATION TO THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE. THAT MEANS THAT YOU RECIEVED AND ACCEPTED IT, WITH NO OBJECTIONS AS LANGUAGE, NOTARIZED FORMS, ETC., BUT THE CONCLUSIONS YOU MADE ARE VERY POOR AND DEFICIENT."

Is that answe also a trick?

So just ask Mr. James Randi why he is still on silence about this points, or you think also Mr.Hal Bidlack is writing about fictions.

I edited Thanz quote in my signature, is only the part about the difference about "videos" and methods. that is a fact for Skeptics, so is not a big deal now-

Being an honorable person means a lot much than only have differences in how things must be analyze.

I think you are honorable enough, as well as most of the members and also JAMES RANDI FOUNDATION.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Note: When I first started to write at internet I didn't know how to typewrite on a keyboard, sorry, so it was more easy to me to write in capitals letters. Then I learned about some " polite rules" (about caps) so I improved my lessons in type writing.I guess.
I was more familiar to pencil and paper(is my work) and always asked for help when I needed to typewrite something before I started this rally.

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Actually, speaking for myself, the version I believe is the one I saw at the local news station.

The one in which the object was visible in every single frame and clearly passed in front of the twin towers.

True, it happens to correspond with what Blue Monk digitized and posted, but it's what I saw on a good tape and a medium quality monitor.

As for your accusations that Blue Monk tried to manipulate any of those shots, I'd have to disagree. I'm a computer graphics artist, so I downloaded all of the frames and took a close look. I saw no sign of the smudging and smoothing that typically happens when one starts digitally manipulating a video capture. With video captures, there's always texturing from the translation from the tv signal to standard bitmap form. That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand, and it's easy to spot it when someone has started airbrushing over it because it smooths things out. Same with using an eraser tool. In the shots I looked at, nothing breaks that pattern.

There is some blurring around the object, but that's motion blur and visible around the object in all of those frames to varying degrees. What Latinjrl insists is digital manipulation is just a product of the rather poor quality that typically comes from screen grabs.

In short, sorry, Carlos. You lose again.

Barb

Hi Barbarita:

Of course I think (I better say I am sure) you are a woman, and pretty as all the woman of the world. The "ita" is used in my country and in almost all south america as an affective term.

The point of my challenge is a particular frame, the one still Blue Monk have difficult to look at it .
Of course I know that the smoke of the north tower is in front of the south tower, also I wrote in my application about the trajectory of the object in the smoke .
Is also wrote ther the reason why I said that is not a bird or an insect between the cameraman and the towers.
Congratulations for your work as an graphic artist.

Did you noticed "the circle" around "the bird" and compared with another digitized versions posted also here?
try to compare with this and try to see the same circle. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=228541

Anyway the problem stills in the method Harter used to give me an answer.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Barb,

This foolishness should have ended a long time ago

These are my own views, and I don't give a dead rat's ass if Carlos disagrees with me.

:D

About idiots , let me remind you these words:

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles :
One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????"

You said that in 10/28/02 in your fifth or whatever "return" to the thread.

Yes now there are more pages at the thread, and you are still returning, so I think YOU ARE MORE STUPID according to your own words.

Are you copying this at "your diary"?
I hope will help you.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
That was not an insult, just a remember to your own words.

[PinkRabbit]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Barb,

This foolishness should have ended a long time ago. It definitely should have ended when you, as requested by Carolos, viewed the video on profesional equipment. However, noticing how he calls you Barbarita, I imagine he values your opinion as a woman as he might value a child's opinion. I grew up in South America, I know how latin men are.

I, and the other rational thinking people on this thread were more than satisfied with your efforts, but Carlos I'm sure just brushed it aside as, "Oh, look Barbarita went and looked at the video. How cute. Well, there is no point in listening to her. She is just a woman."

These are my own views, and I don't give a dead rat's ass if Carlos disagrees with me.

:D

Yup. I grew up an hour from the border in a heavily hispanic town. Been there and done this before. God, I hate that whole "pat the little girl on the head" routine.

Oh, and Carlos. Quit lecturing me on what you saw. I got what you say you saw. We all know what you say you saw as you have repeated it numerous times.

However, what I saw is an object, visible in every single frame, that clearly does not enter either building, but can be seen at all times. In short, I saw exactly what Blue Monk posted.

Moreover, as I said, I looked very closely at the stills, and saw no sign of any tampering.

As for my attractiveness level and your affection, I'm a lesbian, and you're nuts. Trust me, it would never work out.

Barb

[Blue Monk]

I don't need to fake your stupid tape Carlos. Check out the videos below. More on their way.

By the way, one of the videos below has your clip in it. You know, the one no one dared to show.

I won't tell you which one. I guess you'll have to look at them all to find it. While your doing that please notice that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

<TABLE><TR><TD COLSPAN="3">from Carlos' application
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.</TD></TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER">
<H2>First Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR><TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_005.jpg</TD><TD>This is the clip provided by Purple Tentacle. It is the only source I have for this angle.

WorldTrade01.avi (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/cnn/WorldTrade01.avi)
</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Second Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/second_angle.jpg</TD>
<TD>I have a total of five sources for this angle.

second_angle.mov (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mov)

second_angle.mp4 (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mp4)

second_angle.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.mpg)

second_angle.avi (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/second_angle.avi)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Third Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/third_angle.jpg</TD>
<TD>Only one source for this angle.

third_angle.mov (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/third_angle.mov)

third_angle.mp4 (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/third_angle.mp4)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Fourth Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/fourth_angle.jpg</TD>
<TD>I have three sources for this angle.

fourth_angle.mov (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/fourth_angle.mov)

fourth_angle.mp4 (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/fourth_angle.mp4)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Fifth Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_010.jpg</TD>
<TD>I have three sources for this angle. This clip was originally named, WORLD TRADE Center - 2nd Crash - Panning on the airplane just.mpg


panning.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/panning.mpg)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Sixth Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_020.jpg</TD>
<TD>I have two sources for this angle. This clip was originally named, World Trade Center -Twin Towers Plane Crash.mpg



twin.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/twin.mpg)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Seventh Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_014.jpg</TD>
<TD>This is the only source I have for this angle. This clip was originally named, World Trade Center home videos of plane crash from cbs and vh1.avi




home_videos.avi (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/home_videos.avi)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Eighth Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_011.jpg</TD>
<TD>This is the only source I have for this angle. This clip was originally named, World Trade Center home videos of plane crash from cbs and vh1.avi




home_videos.avi (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/home_videos.avi)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>

<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Ninth Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_021.jpg</TD>
<TD>I have two sources for this angle. This clip was originally named, World_Trade_Center_Plane_Crash2.MPG


crash2.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/crash2.mpg)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="CENTER"><H2>Tenth Angle</H2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/thumbnails/movie_019.jpg</TD>
<TD>I have two sources for this angle. This clip was originally named, WTC world trade center best footage of 2nd second crash.mpg


best.mpg (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/movies/other_angles/best.mpg)

</TD>
<TD>Conclusion: There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

Hey, Carlos, see that guy in the fourth angle? I don't see him in any other clips. I think he might be paranormal.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

Hi Thanz:

I guess that you are happy now with my signature, your quote just says the main point about the quality of tapes, that's a fact.



Actually, no, I am not happy with your signature now. I asked you to remove my quote, not edit it. Specifically, I no longer believe that Harter's investigation was "dodgy". From all that I have seen on the internet, I am also able to conclude that there is nothing paranormal going on in the clip you sent to the JREF. The fact that no other camera picks up this object is conclusive proof that it did not go through the building as you claim.

About your respond to my quote "I am sure of this" seems that YOU are almost "with me" in my arguments, some points you are not sure of what I mean so I will help you.

C) Yes Harter analyzed a video "FRAME BY FRAME" on an unknown link of internet, Your comment about this point is also on my signature(I agree with that)

D) Is possible that you missunderstand this point.They NEVER wrote in their answer that my application was not valid.
David horman in his comments about this point wrote:"Perhaps not. But we have, at the very least, cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation of the footage"

So I am sure that there is not a single word that my application was not valid in Harter's answer, only Harter wrote as YOU said :
"you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place." Well he was based in the study "frame by frame on the unknown link of internet, the "preety dodgy method" according to your quote.

Again, Mr. Swett, I no longer believe the method used was "dodgy". You would only have a valid application if there was something paranormal going on. They have evaluated your claim and determined that there is no paranormal activity. Therefore you do not have a valid application. Their answer was adequate - you are simply misunderstanding it.

E) When I am sure of this "That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk."

I mean that HE DID that digitized version, so is up to you to "beleive or not" in HIS digitized version.
Can "digitized versions" be tricked?
I have one too, but I refused to send it to the JREF, is explained in my letter to Mr.James Randi.

Do I believe that Blue Monk posted an accurate digitized version of the tape he obtained? Yes I do. You have done nothing to show that it is incorrect. If it is incorrect, post the correct version for all to compare. Show us the 'true' version side by side with Blue Monk's, and show us the differences.

G)You forgot that he saw FIRST the TAPE in slow motion and stills at the equipments ofTELECLIP . The only thing is that he NEVER told us what he saw there, and he was prepared enough to look at determined frames.His conclusions are based on "HIS" digitized version, not in the tape.

This is just wrong. See thatguywhojuggles post.

Blue Monk viewed the tape at Teleclip. He then viewed the tape at better, more professional equipment that he had available to him. He came to the conclusion, based on those viewings, that the object is in front of the towers at all times. He then posted a digital version so that the rest of us can see.

If he is wrong, post your version.

H) I am sure of this :" That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics."

Yes YOU are still defending "blue monk's digitized version".

What else do I have to compare it to? You have not posted any other version for me to believe in. You are the one making a claim. Where is the evidence?

About why not in the other cameras angles? here is your answer:Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;


Simply repeating a definition I gave to you is not an answer to my question. I have answered your questions. Please answer mine. Here they are again:

Why is the object not on any other camera angle? Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it? Is it somehow invisible?

If this is your theory, why does the one camera have it on tape? Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

Also, I ask once again that you remove my quote COMPLETELY from your signature.

Thanz

Originally posted by PinkRabbit


Yup. I grew up an hour from the border in a heavily hispanic town. Been there and done this before. God, I hate that whole "pat the little girl on the head" routine.

As for my attractiveness level and your affection, I'm a lesbian, and you're nuts. Trust me, it would never work out.

Barb

Barbarita:

I don't care about your sexual preferences, for me you are still a woman, so is just my way to talk or write to all of them.
Is not a big deal, so relax.

Carlitos.

Thanks,
S&S

[rikzilla]

Mr. Swett,

By retaining Thanz's quote after he has changed his position on the subject you are perpetuating the fraudulent notion that Thanz thinks Andrew's investigation was "dodgy". This does not help your claim. It seems to support the fact that you are one of those people that finds supporting evidence, and ignores unsupportive evidence. In other words you emphasize the hits and ignore the misses.

This would put you within the category of "true believers" such as Biblical Literalists, Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, and John Edward fans.

Please prove me wrong, and do as Thanz has asked you quite nicely to do.

-zilla

Originally posted by Thanz


Why is the object not on any other camera angle? Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it? Is it somehow invisible?

If this is your theory, why does the one camera have it on tape? Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

Also, I ask once again that you remove my quote COMPLETELY from your signature.

Thanz

Hi Thanz:

I told you before the answer to your question is also your another definition of paranormal:

Originally posted by Thanz:
"Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known"

Thanz , I didn't make that definition, so that PARANORMAL object operates outside LAWS considered normal or known.

But yes I made a notarized application to the PARANORMAL challenge of JREF.

And again : Harter made a preety dodgy method ( he did the "study frame by frame" on a link of internet) because there is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape.

That is a fact, so don't worry , you are not lying in my signature.Besides there are more quotes there that almost say the same.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rikzilla
Mr. Swett,

By retaining Thanz's quote after he has changed his position on the subject you are perpetuating the fraudulent notion that Thanz thinks Andrew's investigation was "dodgy". This does not help your claim. It seems to support the fact that you are one of those people that finds supporting evidence, and ignores unsupportive evidence. In other words you emphasize the hits and ignore the misses.

This would put you within the category of "true believers" such as Biblical Literalists, Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, and John Edward fans.

Please prove me wrong, and do as Thanz has asked you quite nicely to do.

-zilla

Hi Rikzilla:

I have a question to you about this quote:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Rikzilla, please answer me is that true or not?
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?
Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove Thanz quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S
P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Rikzilla:

I have a question to you about this quote:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Rikzilla, please answer me is that true or not?
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?
Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove Thanz quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S
P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

Mr. Swett,

I believe that any answers to your questions that I might provide would not only be immaterial to the subject being discussed, but might also be used by you out of context as you have Thanz's quote.

What you are attempting to do is prove that a paranormal event is shown on a piece of video tape. You should realize that this cannot be done logically.

Andrew says it's a bird. You say it is a paranormal event. Spaceship, ghost, I don't know as I haven't been following this thread. (I just popped in because it's the longest thread I've ever seen here.) Using Occam's razor it is very easy for me to select the simplest (and most likely) correct answer.

Regardless of the differences between a digitzed video, or a video tape, or anything else for that matter....it is, and will always be, more likely that the thing you percieved on that broadcast was a bird.

Sorry, but there it is.

As for the Thanz quote,....I still think you are using it in an out of context kind of way and that if you were indeed a gentleman of high character you would cease to use it if asked to do so by the person in question.

Your continued use of it makes you look bad. If you really wish to convince others of your ideas you should not do things which throw your character into question.

Regards,
-zilla

[PinkRabbit]

Well, Carlostroll, I note you didn't deal with the actual meat of my comments, namely that my experience viewing the video corresponds with what Blue Monk posted.

Namely an object that is visible in every single frame and so, cannot possibly have gone through either tower.

Or the fact that I analyzed all of those stills and saw zero sign of any tampering by Blue Monk or anyone else.

The only one doing any tampering with digital images around here appears to be your friend Latinjrl. Not surprising as neither one of you has the slightest trace of honor.

Barb

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Well, Carlostroll, I note you didn't deal with the actual meat of my comments, namely that my experience viewing the video corresponds with what Blue Monk posted.

Namely an object that is visible in every single frame and so, cannot possibly have gone through either tower.

Or the fact that I analyzed all of those stills and saw zero sign of any tampering by Blue Monk or anyone else.

The only one doing any tampering with digital images around here appears to be your friend Latinjrl. Not surprising as neither one of you has the slightest trace of honor.

Barb

You got that right, Barb.

They come here and if anyone disagrees with them the first word out of their mouths is liar.

Then these fools can't understand why we don't accept everything they say at face value.

The total sum of evidence they've brought has been one crappy animated GIF and a spooky image that's been run through PhotoShop so many times there is probably little left of the real image.

Their behavior shows what should be clear to all by now.

They are pr*cks.

They will lie, cheat, defame anyone and everyone for their own little selfish motives. They are immature little boys with nothing better to do.

Carlos wants us to believe that Harter lied to him. Who among us have these idiots not called a liar so far? Not many.

The evidence is overwhelming that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

It is clear to all that an internet video only needs to be clear enough to see the object. Once it's clear the object is not doing what these fools think it's doing there is no mystery.

Well, personally I'm enjoying the hell out watching these simpletons try to sidestep volumes of clips that prove them wrong and accuse everyone of lying.

Your average 12 year old has only to look at the clips that show there is nothing passing through a tower and know that they are wrong. But these guys are about the slowest I've ever seen.

Have you ever noticed how you have to answer the same stupid question 40 or 50 times before Carlos finally gets it? That is not this mark of a superior intellect.

Well, I can't wait to get home and post more videos (oh yeah, there's more) showing just how stupid these guys are.

And of course now Carlos' big thing is the difference between the quality of an Internet video and a broadcast video. The fact that he keeps harping on this is proof that he really is too stupid to understand that if you see the object not passing through a tower on an Internet video then there really is no need to get a broadcast version to get an even better look at it not passing through a tower.

I could explain that to my 10 year old nephew in about 2 minutes.

Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take these fools to get it?

Originally posted by rikzilla


Mr. Swett,

I believe that any answers to your questions that I might provide would not only be immaterial to the subject being discussed, but might also be used by you out of context as you have Thanz's quote.

As for the Thanz quote,....I still think you are using it in an out of context kind of way and that if you were indeed a gentleman of high character you would cease to use it if asked to do so by the person in question.

Your continued use of it makes you look bad. If you really wish to convince others of your ideas you should not do things which throw your character into question.

Regards,
-zilla

Hi -Zilla:

So you are refusing to answer my question .
I am posting that again:
I have a question to you about this quote:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Rikzilla, please answer me is that true or not?
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?
Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove Thanz quote from my signature.
You know is a direct question and is part of this context, or you also agree with the quote?
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Thanz:

I told you before the answer to your question is also your another definition of paranormal:

Originally posted by Thanz:
"Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known"

Thanz , I didn't make that definition, so that PARANORMAL object operates outside LAWS considered normal or known.

But yes I made a notarized application to the PARANORMAL challenge of JREF.

And again : Harter made a preety dodgy method ( he did the "study frame by frame" on a link of internet) because there is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape.

That is a fact, so don't worry , you are not lying in my signature.Besides there are more quotes there that almost say the same.

Thanks,
S&S

No, Mr. Swett, you still have not answered my questions. Saying that the object is paranormal does nothing but assert a conclusion, rather than reasons for the conclusion.

I will number them for ease of reference, and I am asking you to answer each question specifically.

1. Why is the object not on any other camera angle?

2. Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it?

3. Is the object somehow invisible?

4. If your theory is that the object is somehow invisible, why does the one camera have it on tape?

5. Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?


I can provide you with my answers to these questions:

1. The object is not on any of the other camera angles because it is nowhere near the towers at the time of the second impact.

2. The object is not paranormal at all.

3. The object is not invisible, it is just not near the towers and therefore not in the field of view of the other cameras.

4. The one camera has it on tape because it is a flying object (likely a bird) which is in between the camera and the towers. The object is blurred because the camera was focused on the towers. The object appears to be going faster than a normal bird because of the change in perspective - the reference in the background is the towers, which are actually quite far away from the object, making it appear to go faster if one believes that the object is at the towers.

5. As answered previously, the object is invisible to the other cameras because it was close to the one camera that caught it, not the towers. Had it been closer to the towers, other cameras would have it on tape as well.


That is my explanation of what is on the tape. Do you have any evidence to dispute this?

Your theory: a paranormal object passed through one of the towers at the time of the second impact. The object was only captured on one camera because it is paranormal. The paranormal nature of the object made it invisible to all of the other cameras recording the event. it also made it visible to the one camera, which I guess had some sort of alien cloaking device filter on it.

My theory: a bird flew somewhere between the one camera and the towers, well in front of the towers as it is not in focus. It did not go through the tower, nor was it anywhere near it. The other cameras don't have it on tape as it was nowhere near the tower.


What makes your theory better than mine? What evidence do you have?


As for the quote, I have told you specifically that I do not believe that Andrew's investigation was shoddy. By continuing to quote me you are simply lying.

Originally posted by PinkRabbit


As for your accusations that Blue Monk tried to manipulate any of those shots, I'd have to disagree. I'm a computer graphics artist, so I downloaded all of the frames and took a close look. I saw no sign of the smudging and smoothing that typically happens when one starts digitally manipulating a video capture.
There is some blurring around the object, but that's motion blur and visible around the object in all of those frames to varying degrees. What Latinjrl insists is digital manipulation is just a product of the rather poor quality that typically comes from screen grabs. Or the fact that I analyzed all of those stills and saw zero sign of any tampering by Blue Monk or anyone else.


Barb

Yes, he manipulated the shot.
I agree with you that Blue Monk`s digitized video has a poor quality.
Motion blur in all the frames?????? NO, only on frame 21 because he try to erase the object.

Frame 21: in negative
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg



Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk try to erase the object
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg

Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg




Frame 17: with filters big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg




POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum [/B]

Originally posted by Thanz




What makes your theory better than mine? What evidence do you have?


As for the quote, I have told you specifically that I do not believe that Andrew's investigation was shoddy. By continuing to quote me you are simply lying.

Hi Thanz:

I am not making theories, I made a notarized application that cleary say the reason why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers. I also received an answer from Harter with the aprooval of James Randi that was based in a study frame by frame on an unknown video of internet.

About your quote and your regrets to that quote, can you please answer me if you agree or not with this part:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanz , please answer me , is that true or not?(now that _Zilla refuses to answer)
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?

Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.
Remember also I DID study the broadcast tape at a tv studio and network(JREF also have in my referential tape that recording session that was transmitted in my nation)

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove YOUR quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between those kind of videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

FRAME 17 IS THIS OBJECT



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.

[PinkRabbit]

Originally posted by latinijral


Yes, he manipulated the shot.
I agree with you that Blue Monk`s digitized video has a poor quality.
Motion blur in all the frames?????? NO, only on frame 21 because he try to erase the object.

[/B]

Look again. There is some degree of blur around the wings of the bird in every shot. It varies considerably, and is more blurred in that shot. The texturing is never altered in the area you're indicating on shot 17. There is no sign of either color added or subtracted from the image.

Meanwhile, your manipulations of the shot prove nothing except that a dark blur becomes light blur when you use the negative filter. That is meaningless information. The fact that you believe this proves something proves you know very little to almost nothing about digital images.

What is important is that the texturing that comes from converting a video signal to a bitmap form is constant and unaltered. I work constantly with video grabs as a graphic artist. I know what I'm looking at. Clearly, you don't.

You've proven nothing.

Moreover, it makes absolutely no sense for him to try and erase the figure in frame 17. There is no argument that the object is there at that point from anyone in this discussion, including Blue Monk. If he were going to do anything to manipulate the image, the logical thing to do if he were desperate enough to cheat to prove his point would actually be to add information on frame 12, where the object is just barely visible in front of the towers. Luckily, he doesn't have to do so. The object is distinctly there, and again the texturing is constant.

In short, you, like Carlostroll, are completely and utterly wrong about absolutely everything.

Barb

Originally posted by PinkRabbit


Look again. There is some degree of blur around the wings of the bird in every shot.



IS THIS A BIRD?????????????

[PinkRabbit]

Originally posted by latinijral




IS THIS A BIRD?????????????

Given that it flies, is constantly visible, moves in a manner consistent with the flapping of wings, and follows a predictable trajectory for a bird, my guess is yes.

A blurry bird, I'll grant, but a bird.

I note you have no logical argument to counter my comments about your attempts to "prove" digital manipulation. Don't actually know enough to argue, do you?

Next question.

Barb

Originally posted by PinkRabbit



Next question.

Barb
Barbarita:

Are you really:::::.???
I mean I don't trust you in that point.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

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.'




Barb or Pink rabbit (I prefer Barb or Barbarita):

Since you work on graphics design and you are arguing about digitized versions with latinijral, why don't you do your OWN study at your equipments about the form of"your bird" on Blue Monk's frame 17 and compare with the one latin is posting?

Carlitos

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rwald



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




Where is the "bird"???????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????
Yes that frame is the reason why I said in my notarized application is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the tower, is the frame after the "object" entered in the hole.

Thanks,
S&S

[Charlie in Dayton]

Enough already with the individual frames. The original claim dealt with the moving image on a video tape, and to cite individual frames with a blurred image on each for the object's identity is wrong. It only demonstrates lack of experience with video imaging. Individual frames can be used to determine where an object may be at any particular time, but to claim that since the blurred image in any particular frame is unrecognizable, the object is paranormal, is just flat wrong. Something plainly recognizable in a moving image may not be recognizable in individual frames because of the method of recording. The video camera's shutter speed has been quoted here by experienced individuals as just under 1/30th of a second. Anything with a faster shutter speed (movie/fast motion video/still cameras) may very well have frozen that object perfectly, leaving no room for alternative explanations of what it may be in a single frame of media.

By the way...
originally posted by S&S from his 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.

Not correct part one. Go here The Referential Tape (http://http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wct_sh2.mpg) and step through it frame by frame. The object may not be particularly recognizable as anything in the individual frames, but its location from frame to frame as an object can be tracked -- and the object most certainly does pass in front of the leftmost tower, just crossing an uppermost corner of the building as it enters the frames from above. The object is moving diagonally across the screen, not horizontally across it. The object passes in front of both towers.

Not correct part two. Claiming this object is paranormal just because it wasn't in a particular EXPECTED place at a particular time is faulty logic. All it means is, the viewer's expectations were incorrect -- and if the viewer goes and looks for the object, it will be found, in a perfectly logical place. It's not over to the left, it's up toward the top.

[Patricio Elicer]

Folks

I would encourage you to stop posting on this thread. I think we have already reached the limits. At this point, the debate has become pointless, fruitless and boring, and I'm afraid it's beginnig to disturb many people.

Thanks

[PinkRabbit]

Carlostroll,

Look more closely at frame 12 and compare it with frames 11 and 13. There is a dark shadow in frame 12 where the object should be during that period in time, that is not present in either 11 or 13. I realize you don't want to see it, but it's there.

Now, you demanded I do my own study of the form. Okay, just for the hell of, I took yet another a look. Motion blur alters the shape somewhat, and I'm not sure of the exact angle of the bird, but if you look closely at the moving version, you can see the motion of the wings. It's subtle, but given the speed the bird is moving, the relatively slow shutter speed of video cameras (for clear shots of birds in flight, one generally wants a shutter speed much higher than 1/60th of a second), the distance, and the relatively low color depth, contrast, and the painfully poor resolution of video cameras, what we see is about what I'd expect to see of a bird moving across the field of the camera's vision.

Now, let's sort of reverse engineer this question, and consider that New York is absolutely lousy with your basic pigeon. They roost everywhere as everyone who's ever been there well knows. They often fly at the faintest disturbance, swooping from point to point in short arcing flights. However, they never go far and typically have a comparatively small territory. I would expect them to fly when the first plane hit, then settle again, then take startled flight again when the second plane hit (they are dumb as rocks, in my experience). So, we see from this, the timing is right. Plane hit, startles bird, bird flies, camera catches it, but since it's focused well past the bird, and the shutter speed is too slow to capture it clearly, plus the fact that something that small only takes up a very few pixels worth of resolution, it's a very blurred image.

Now, let's consider pigeons. I was actually thinking about this the other day and went out watching our local pigeon population. They're not as big as the New York variety, but otherwise much the same. They roost near the end of the runway of the nearby AF base. We just got in these very noisy F-117's that the birds are very unused to and which make much more noise than the A-10's they're used to. When the planes are doing touch and goes, the pigeons take off, quickly settle again, then take off the moment the next one goes by, then quickly settle again. So the pattern of behavior fits.

Now, let's consider something else I noticed during my sojourn of bird watching. Something I really hadn't thought about before, and which I haven't seen mentioned.

Pigeons appear to be very dark when one sees their back and the top of their wings. Almost a purplish color that reads as dark grey from a distance or to anything that isn't sensitive to color (which video cameras are not). But the underside of their wings is white.

In watching them fly, I found that, depending on the angle of attack, they can shift from appearing nearly black to appearing nearly white and back again in an instant.

Guess what color the twin towers are?

Seems highly probably to me that during the brief moment when the bird is seen, but does not appear to be nearly as dark as it does in other frames, that it's tipped so that we're seeing the white underside of its wings, then it turns again and we see the dark again. White on white makes it hard to see, but if you look carefully, it is there.

Can I absolutely prove it's a bird? No. But given a whole myriad of facts, and contrary to your insistence, then, yes, I think it's safe to conclude it's a bird. I do not think it's safe to conclude it's in the least bit paranormal.

The fact that you think it should be a sharp image of a bird merely shows that you, like Latinjrl, know nothing about the subjects you're discussing.

Your ignorance of the subject is actually rather painful to behold. You should quit while you're way behind.

Btw, I have no idea what you don't believe about me. Sorry, not a mindreader.

Oh, and I like my name as is, and don't give a flying f**k what you like.

Barb

P.S. Asterisks my own so they don't do it for me, and can I just say this is one of the few times in my life that I really hate not being able to curse. Damn asterisks really cost the sentiment some impact.

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Folks

I would encourage you to stop posting on this thread. I think we have already reached the limits. At this point, the debate has become pointless, fruitless and boring, and I'm afraid it's beginnig to disturb many people.

Thanks

Specially YOU


Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Carlostroll,

Look more closely at frame 12 and compare it with frames 11 and 13. There is a dark shadow in frame 12 where the object should be during that period in time, that is not present in either 11 or 13. I realize you don't want to see it, but it's there.

Now, you demanded I do my own study of the form.

Oh, and I like my name as is, and don't give a flying f**k what you like.

Barb

P.S. Asterisks my own so they don't do it for me, and can I just say this is one of the few times in my life that I really hate not being able to curse. Damn asterisks really cost the sentiment some impact.

Hi Barb (are you happy now?):

The Famous "frame 12" with "your bird " on it (???) . Hard to see it?
Yes it is the frame after the object entered in the hole and before appears at the other side of the hole giving the false impression that passed behind the tower as I said in my application

Just do the study of the "form" of "your bird" at Blue Monk´s frame !7 and compare with the form Latinijral posted.Ask him for the steps and the program.

Just do it , you work in graphic design, don't go with bla bla bla.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

[PinkRabbit]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Barb (are you happy now?):

The Famous "frame 12" with "your bird " on it (???) . Hard to see it?
Yes it is the frame after the object entered in the hole and before appears at the other side of the hole giving the false impression that passed behind the tower as I said in my application

Just do the study of the "form" of "your bird" at Blue Monk´s frame !7 and compare with the form Latinijral posted.Ask him for the steps and the program.

Just do it , you work in graphic design, don't go with bla bla bla.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos, you make zero sense when you say:

Yes it is the frame after the object entered in the hole and before appears at the other side of the hole giving the false impression that passed behind the tower as I said in my application

The English is so bad as to make it almost completely incomprehensible, and I can't tell whether you're denying that the object is there, or confirming it and trying to incorporate that into your crackpot theory.

Just answer this question, if the object is visible in every single frame of the video, how on earth, can it possibly have simultaneously gone through the tower?

Because when you look at it with the proper equipment, it does not appear to go behind the tower. It appears to go in front of the tower, appearing in every single frame of the video.

I have zero intention of asking Latinjrl for any advice when it's painfully obvious that he knows as little about these subjects as you do. He doesn't understand that blowing up an image distorts it, that simply using a negative filter can't prove whether or not a video capture has been altered, that if the information isn't in the original shot, then it cannot be made clearer by a program, or even the most basic facts about how bitmaps act when you work with them.

Neither one of you understands motion blur, shutter speed, resolution, color depth, or the fact that cameras have no depth perception. Meanwhile, you consider no information, opinion or view but your own, despite your woeful ignorance. You simply repeat the exact same claims over and over as though by repitition you can somehow make it true, while accusing anyone who disagrees of lying or being stupid.

Barb

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Thanz:

I am not making theories, I made a notarized application that cleary say the reason why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers. I also received an answer from Harter with the aprooval of James Randi that was based in a study frame by frame on an unknown video of internet.

About your quote and your regrets to that quote, can you please answer me if you agree or not with this part:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanz , please answer me , is that true or not?(now that _Zilla refuses to answer)
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?

Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.
Remember also I DID study the broadcast tape at a tv studio and network(JREF also have in my referential tape that recording session that was transmitted in my nation)

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove YOUR quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between those kind of videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

Mr. Swett, you do have a theory, and your application was based on that theory.

Saying "I made an application" means nothing. So what? Did you think that just making an application means you get the money? Do you think that if you apply for a job you automatically get it? No - the application gets reviewed, and in your case, rejected.

Now, you made an application. That application was based on your theory that the object was paranormal. The theory that is the basis of your application is incorrect. You do not adequately explain why the object is not a bird or an insect. The object is in view the entire time - it does not enter the building. This is confirmed by a review of the tape of the object and by reviewing all other tapes of the event, none of which show an object going through the building.

You have not explained why your theory is correct.

You have not answered any of my five questions.

As to my quote, I ask you again to remove it. I do not think that Andrew's investigation was dodgy. If you really want me to answer your questions, simply answer mine. Once you answer the five questions in my last post I will answer your questions.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi -Zilla:

So you are refusing to answer my question .
I am posting that again:
I have a question to you about this quote:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Rikzilla, please answer me is that true or not?
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?
Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove Thanz quote from my signature.
You know is a direct question and is part of this context, or you also agree with the quote?
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

Mr. Swett,

This is the 3rd post I have made to this thread. It will be my last.
You are obviously a self-deluded victim of "true believer" syndrome. As such there is no one you will listen to and no evidence you will believe if it does not support your wild claims. Therefore it is fruitless for anyone to engage you.

You need to increase your dosage of Zoloft.

Good day,
zilla

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Folks

I would encourage you to stop posting on this thread. I think we have already reached the limits. At this point, the debate has become pointless, fruitless and boring, and I'm afraid it's beginnig to disturb many people.

Thanks

My last post here as well. I realize that this idiotic claim has trivialized a world-changing tragedy. I'm afraid that every time I see a video of the incident from now on I will be reminded of the idiots Carlos (S&S) and latinjral and their paranormal hat, instead of the tragic deaths of thousands of people.

[Supercharts]

Attention Moderators!!!

Please move this entire thread to "The Million Dollar Challenge" where it properly belongs.

[thatguywhojuggles]

I decided to do a little paranormal investigation myself. I had no idea that Photoshop was so capable of bringing out the truth in what we "believe" we see in everyday life. I was truely shocked by the results! I may start a campaign!

I took latinjral's paranormal hat (his favorite image,) and ran some filters over it. I can only assume that what I have uncovered is some kind of weird life form that lives in some alternate universe that parallels ours, and can only be seen by using photoshop on a blurry image of a bird!!!

Do you guys think I should claim the million dollars??

I'm serious!

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I decided to do a little paranormal investigation myself. I had no idea that Photoshop was so capable of bringing out the truth in what we "believe" we see in everyday life. I was truely shocked by the results! I may start a campaign!

I took latinjral's paranormal hat (his favorite image,) and ran some filters over it. I can only assume that what I have uncovered is some kind of weird life form that lives in some alternate universe that parallels ours, and can only be seen by using photoshop on a blurry image of a bird!!!

Do you guys think I should claim the million dollars??

I'm serious!

YES I DO! But don't forget to wear your best dress.
You can put this on your "diary"

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rikzilla


Mr. Swett,

This is the 3rd post I have made to this thread. It will be my last.
You are obviously a self-deluded victim of "true believer" syndrome. As such there is no one you will listen to and no evidence you will believe if it does not support your wild claims. Therefore it is fruitless for anyone to engage you.

You need to increase your dosage of Zoloft.

Good day,
zilla

Hi Rikzilla:

You are amazing , your 3rd post and you are not able to answer a simple question about this quote:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Rikzilla, please answer me is that true or not?
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?
Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove Thanz quote from my signature.
You know is a direct question and is part of this context, or you also agree with the quote?
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

[rwald]

Just for the record, I've decided to repost this shot showing that the bird is visible to the right of the hole in frame 12. The frame without the arrow is frame 11, and frames 12 and 13 follow in that order. In frame 12, you can clearly see a black dot which is not present in frame 11. That dot is the bird, in front of the tower.

One comment: Isn't it interesting how, before Blue Monk's video, Carlos was always arguing that when the missing frames appeared, we'd see that the bird was not in front of the towers? But now that we have the missing frames, and can see the bird in front of the towers, Carlos seems to have forgetten that, and is arguing about frame 21 (which should have no bearing on anything). Curious.

Originally posted by PinkRabbit



Because when you look at it with the proper equipment, it does not appear to go behind the tower. It appears to go in front of the tower, appearing in every single frame of the video.



Barb

Hi Barb,

I will only refer now about Blue Monk's quotes about that specific frame .
About "your work and analysis with professional equipments", I only have "your word", so that is not enough for skeptics, of course I "think" you are a pretty lady and honest enough, but that doesn't count here.

I want this FRAME to be produced:the image after "the bird" entered in the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower.

Blue monk said about this in his FIRST try with some links at internet:
"No I can't produce that image."11/08/02

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

In his SECOND try in his "digitized version"he said:

Blue Monk"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." http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_12.jpg

S&S:Now we can see a red arrow , pointing what ? "your bird"(?????)VERY HARD TO SEE.

Yes that frame is the one I said in my application:"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."

For the skeptics that doubts about this: YES there are 2 holes in that tower.

Now YOU have THE stills and THE FRAMES.
And don't forget that the smoke of the north tower is in front of the towers.

Thanks,
S&S

[PinkRabbit]

Well, Carlos, we also have nothing more than your word here.

The only thing you've produced is the digital text of an application which is completely meaningless.

You haven't produced one picture, one piece of footage, haven't sent your referential tape to anyone here, despite the fact that several folks have asked to see it. You won't even post the digitized version you claim to have. In short, you haven't produced one scintilla of evidence beyond your claims. You simply make a claim, demand others prove it, then when they disprove it, call them liars.

Blue Monk is the only person who's actually produced evidence. Hard, visual evidence. Videos by the ton. Some downloaded from sites that certainly haven't faked anything. Others he duped himself, all of which show zero sign of being faked (do you even know what would go into the kind of trickery you're accusing him of -- clue: it's not nearly as simple as Latinjrl's Photoshop flummery because the video and the stills would have to match perfectly).

And y'know what, not one bit of it supports your claim.

Not one tiny bit.

Look at the video he duped. You can see the object in every single frame . It never appears to go through or behind the towers, but is simply difficult to see at times against a backdrop of smoke, but if you look closely, it's still there. Drag the slider bar and you can track its movement from one frame to the next.

Produce a video that shows something else. I dare you. Maybe you can get Latinjrl to fake something for you, since at this point, he's the only one who appears to have tried to play with the images in a way to distort them (though I tend to think it's more self-delusion than any great attempt to fool anyone) while pretending they're real and have some meaning (I am not counting the clearly and obviously faked king kong shot).

Of course you won't. You never produce anything, just babble on about your meaningless application, changing the subject with raw desperation everytime someone starts to pin you down, and endlessly repeating the same, badly explained claims when you don't have anything else to offer.

And now, I think I'm gonna bail on this thread. My last comments offered what I believe are the last bit of information I had to offer and listening to Carlos' blather is becoming headache inducing. And no, I'm not saying I'm absolutely leaving. If something interesting gets said, I may pop up again, but at this point, it's just gotten useless.

Barb

[Supercharts]

If there was a truely loving and caring GOD HE/She would have killed this thread months ago.

Ed_God - Please kill this thread! I'm begging you! I bow down to you even ahead of Denise. Kill this thread! For the Humanity of it all!!!

[Supercharts]

Say what you want - Nothing beats the thread about the "Carlos Swett Affair".
EVIL in this world is "Carlos" or S&S.
Kill him/her and we will all be back to normal.
"Carlos" & "S&S" interfere with the natural karma of our planet.
Kill them. No need for a license. Just shoot the mother loving person who slept, in the manner of the Greeks, his mother - if you get my drift... If this isn't done then an asteroid will hit earth and destroy us all - a gift from God to put us out of our misery?
Ed_God - PLEASE - move this thread to "Paranormal" or the "Million Dollar Challenge". I'm begging you. Give me "mod" prives for 20 minutes and I'll do it.
Ed_God - you have the power to do this! Bring us back to the Garden. Think of the Children!

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Well, Carlos, we also have nothing more than your word here.

The only thing you've produced is the digital text of an application which is completely meaningless.

You haven't produced one picture, one piece of footage, haven't sent your referential tape to anyone here, despite the fact that several folks have asked to see it. You won't even post the digitized version you claim to have. In short, you haven't produced one scintilla of evidence beyond your claims. You simply make a claim, demand others prove it, then when they disprove it, call them liars.



Barb

Hi Barb;

You are right, but you forgot this: I am not the author of this thread.

I just came here and prove you all that you are not with enough capacity to call yourself "SKEPTICS".

YOU all are Just a bunch of "beleivers" in digitized versions and fanatics of James Randi.

So let me remind what kind of proof I have :

*a NOTARIZED application to the JREF.

*A certify of FEDEX that my application, referential tape and letter to Randi was received at their office

*A poor answer to my application of Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Randi , based on a poor method of studying "frame by frame "an unknown video on internet.There was not a single word that my application was NOT VALID.

*the copy to the letter I send to James Randi

*the copy of the notice (news segment)about the study in tv stations of 3/4 tapes with their own proffesional equipments about of what I claimed. This broadcast tape is also in the JREF.

*The silence about this application and answer that James Randi have. He is refused to WRITE about this.

*The "worries" of Mr.Hal Bidlack (part of JREF) about the "legal procedure" of my application to the challenge".


Those are facts that the JREF will NEVER denied.you can check it all here:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw

At YOUR side you will always have insults or cries to cover your incapacity of debate arguments.

Look at yourself and "your " investigation(??), they beleive in "you", you beleive in Blue Monk, Supercharts beleives in Ed, etc, etc.

I demostrated to all of you ,after many replies and views of this thread, that you all are just need to know more about real life and real persons.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.
You are not even able to answer if you agree with this:"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".
Or are you just afraid to the facts ?
I have a copy of this.

[PinkRabbit]

You have only offered proof that you applied for the prize. You have offered absolutely NO proof of your claims.

Yes, I agree that internet videos are likely to be lower quality, not that they are as a matter of course, lower quality. I have never argued otherwise.

That's why I looked at a videotape copy at a news bureau. That's what my belief is based on. Not a digital copy. I have merely affirmed that Blue Monk's digital dub matches what I saw. You don't seem to understand that, and there is absolutely no way to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in this medium.

Blue Monk's video shows an object in every frame. It shows no sign of being faked. That is evidence that there is no paranormal object, and trumps your claims.

Given that this is a digital medium, that is effectively the only way we can all communicate. If you have a video that shows something other than Blue Monk's, then I would suggest you show it. You have said you have such a video, yet you seem to be afraid to present actual evidence that we can see regarding the paranormal object you claim you saw. You only present your opinion and proof that you made a claim. Making a claim is proof of nothing but that you made a claim.

I repeat, an application is proof of nothing. I can send in an application for any number of things. But it doesn't prove they're true.

And now, I really am leaving. You may have the last word, since I have no doubt you will continue to babble.

Blue Monk, you have my deepest admiration for your efforts. You really have gone above and beyond, and it's been a rather interesting study in just how truly wedded to a lunatic idea one person can become to the point where they cease to see any form of reason but their own.

Barb

[rwald]

Carlos,

Rather than go through your points item-by-item to explain why you're wrong (you'd just ignore my arguments anyway), I'm going to condemn you with the greatest insult I can: I will compare you to a creationist. I'm personally interested in biology and physics, so the absurd claims of creationists are an affront to my psyche. And so are you. Here are some thing you do which remind me of creationists:


You demand that everyone prove that you are wrong, even though you have the burden of proof and it is you who needs to do the proving.

Whenever we prove one of your claims wrong, you don't admit it; rather, you immediately switch to another inane claim, and act as though you were never defeated.

You debate issues with people who have much more experience than you, yet you think that you know more about their field than they do.

You try to attack our theory, even though ours makes much more sense than yours does, and in science you can only disprove one theory by proving another.

You believe that you are a skeptic, when in fact you are blindly believing that your own eyes didn't trick you.

You take people's quotes out of context, and refuse to remove them when asked.

Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you call them liars.

You believe that proving one small part of our theory wrong shows that our entire theory must be incorrect, and that yours therefore must be correct.

You conveniently forget all the evidence opposing your side (I don't know what you would do with evidence supporting your side, since none has ever been found).

And last but not least, you're an idiot, a complete, total, idiot.


Anyway, that made me feel better. I'll probably pay for it later, but for now, it's worth it.

Originally posted by PinkRabbit



And now, I really am leaving. You may have the last word, since I have no doubt you will continue to babble.

Blue Monk, you have my deepest admiration for your efforts. You really have gone above and beyond, and it's been a rather interesting study in just how truly wedded to a lunatic idea one person can become to the point where they cease to see any form of reason but their own.

Barb

Hi Barb.

CLAP; CLAP ,(applause).Another beleiver

Were that for you also? I forgot you did the same.

Thanks,
S&S

Thanks,

S&S

[Ceinwyn]

I very much agree with rwald:

You demand that everyone prove that you are wrong, even though you have the burden of proof and it is you who needs to do the proving.

Whenever we prove one of your claims wrong, you don't admit it; rather, you immediately switch to another inane claim, and act as though you were never defeated.

You debate issues with people who have much more experience than you, yet you think that you know more about their field than they do.

You try to attack our theory, even though ours makes much more sense than yours does, and in science you can only disprove one theory by proving another.

You believe that you are a skeptic, when in fact you are blindly believing that your own eyes didn't trick you.

You take people's quotes out of context, and refuse to remove them when asked.

Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you call them liars.

You believe that proving one small part of our theory wrong shows that our entire theory must be incorrect, and that yours therefore must be correct.

Carlos, you are done. Kindly go away now.

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos,


You conveniently forget all the evidence opposing your side (I don't know what you would do with evidence supporting your side, since none has ever been found).

And last but not least, you're an idiot, a complete, total, idiot.


Anyway, that made me feel better. I'll probably pay for it later, but for now, it's worth it.

Hi Rwald,

Don't worry , I am glad you also have no arguments but the insult, that proved you are a "beleiver "in a digitized versions"or in the "words" of people(?) of more experience (?????)

Check this again:
.
A) the translated notarized application to the challenge, that becomes "the first step". Is a clear claim of what I can demostrate.
It was received at the JREF by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002 also with a VHS tape (as a referential guide) and a letter to Mr. James Randi. There is nothing misterious on this "first step " as you agreed.

B) The answer of Andrew Harter to my notarized application to the challenge. At this point I want to remind everybody at this forum that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid. Mr. Harter said :..."I´ve gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that¨s available on the Internet.", etc, etc." You have no claim.there is nothing supernatural taking place". April 15, 2002.

C) The answer of Mr. James Randi ( April 16, 2002) "Andrew made the right decision with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed"

the "SECOND STEP" :

"The applicant and JREF meet and agree on an OBJECTIVE TEST that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really SHOW what they CLAIM"

THE CLAIM:is in the translated notharized application, the VHS tape (referential guide) contains the complete image of a particular shot :before, when and after the second plane crashed to the second tower of the WTC that tragic day. The tape contains the same shot but broadcast by different tv networks( Spain, Chile, USA, Ecuador, etc. with their logos on it). The tape also contains an interview Telesistema (Ecuador) made me in their own room of files and equipmets , where the tv tecnicians and operators are checking with me the own Telesistema tape also broadcast to the public that fatidic day.

THE OBJECTIVE TEST : The study frame by frame of the complete image (the applicant is claiming) of the particular shot broadcast and transmitted by almost all the tv networks of the world. I
f it was a tv broadcast to millions of persons in the world , the tape is available in almost all tv stations of the world.

THE METHOD USED BY HARTER: The study frame by frame through a copy of the video available on internet.
An incomplete low resolution video, An unknown video, a poor method . Why he didn´t go to the nearest TV station ( I recommended James Randi to go to Telemundo in Florida) and check up with my referential tape their own broadcast tape?

THE METHOD USED BY SWETT: I went to the different local channels and over there,with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes of the complete image , a really very slow frame by frame with profetional tv equipments , verify what I am claiming. Another thing was the fear and the prohibitions the channels had to transmmit that "curious notice" to air. Remember only Telesistema did it , the same week of the tragic succes.


Those are REALLY FACTS.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw

And you said you have "evidence" from your side(????)Poor inocent guy.

YOURS are bla bla bla , and you "beleive in the bla bla" or in "versions". TRUE BELEIVER. Remember when you FIRST posted the KING kONG in front of the towers.

Thanks,
S&S

[Tesserat]

originally blathered by carlos
Hi Tesserat:

Good point. that is why I am asking Mr. James Randi To put my application and the answer they gave me .
So your assumption is that Harter wrote this:"Your claim is not valid" .

I have Harter's originals words :
"You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

Andrew Harter
Researcher
James Randi Educational Foundation

____________

I "forgot also to put paranormal instead of supernatural"?
I "invented" also Harter's study frame by frame on a video(?) at internet?
Ca n it be possible that also I did not make a notarized application to the JREf and I also "invented" that they received my referential tape?
Why I replied him about his answer:"I AM VERY GLAD AND HAPPY THAT YOU FINALLY ANSWERED MY APPLICATION TO THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE. THAT MEANS THAT YOU RECIEVED AND ACCEPTED IT, WITH NO OBJECTIONS AS LANGUAGE, NOTARIZED FORMS, ETC., BUT THE CONCLUSIONS YOU MADE ARE VERY POOR AND DEFICIENT."



Yes, you invented it all, you liar. We have proof of your dishonesty and your lack of honor. You refused to take Thanz's words off of your signature. You said he had to ask again. Then when he asked again, you did not remove his words, you made up some other condition for their removal. You lied when you said that you would remove his words.

You have no honor

Carlos is without honor.

Carlos is not a man who understands the concept of honor.

Carlos is a liar.

A man without honor, like Carlos, has no sense of honesty or dignity.

It is sad that there can exist a "man" who has such a lack of honor that he squirms and whines to find excuses to steal another man's work.




So let me remind what kind of proof I have :

*a NOTARIZED application to the JREF.

*A certify of FEDEX that my application, referential tape and letter to Randi was received at their office

*A poor answer to my application of Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Randi , based on a poor method of studying "frame by frame "an unknown video on internet.There was not a single word that my application was NOT VALID.

*the copy to the letter I send to James Randi

*the copy of the notice (news segment)about the study in tv stations of 3/4 tapes with their own proffesional equipments about of what I claimed. This broadcast tape is also in the JREF.

*The silence about this application and answer that James Randi have. He is refused to WRITE about this.

*The "worries" of Mr.Hal Bidlack (part of JREF) about the "legal procedure" of my application to the challenge".



What is this proof of? If it's supposed to be proof that the only thing lower than your sense of honor is your intelligence, then it could be considered proof.

Do you think that if you send them a notarized copy, it "proves" your theory? Are you really that stupid? I can't believe that a person could be that stupid, and still have enough of a brain stem to control their breathing reflex.

[rwald]

I figured I would have to do this. Well, back to the "proving why each and every one of your points is wrong" routine.

A) the translated notarized application to the challenge, that becomes "the first step". Is a clear claim of what I can demostrate.
It was received at the JREF by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002 also with a VHS tape (as a referential guide) and a letter to Mr. James Randi. There is nothing misterious on this "first step " as you agreed.

B) The answer of Andrew Harter to my notarized application to the challenge. At this point I want to remind everybody at this forum that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid. Mr. Harter said :..."I´ve gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that¨s available on the Internet.", etc, etc." You have no claim.there is nothing supernatural taking place". April 15, 2002.

C) The answer of Mr. James Randi ( April 16, 2002) "Andrew made the right decision with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed"
OK. We all agree that you sent in an application; we know you have the Fed Ex tracking slip. We know you also sent in the video. What we disagree with is "that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid." Remember, most of us are native speakers of English. You are not. Therefore, when it comes to interpreting the exact meaning of a phrase in English, who do you think could do a better job? You, or us? Trust us, "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place." and "What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed." mean "Your application is invalid." I mean, how much clearer can you get than "Your application is closed."? Even if Randi used the word "invalid," you'd probably be here demanding that he used a different word. Trust us, Harter and Randi DID say that your application was invalid.

And even if they didn't explicitly say so, your application broke at least 3 of the rules needed to be a valid application. And don't quote me that line from the introduction. I'll give you an example to prove why that's wrong:

In order to be the President of the United States, you must be 1) a natural-born citizen, 2) 35 years of age, and 3) a resident of the US for the past 14 years. Your claim is as valid as if you said, "I'm 35 years old, so I qualify to be the President of the US. See, it says right there that you must be 35 years old! And I am! Sure, I was born in Ecuador, and I've only spent a total of 6 years in the US throughout my life, but still, I'm 35 years old, so I can be the President of the US!" You must obey all the rules for your claim to be valid, not just the ones you like.

Anyway. On to the second part of your post.

"The applicant and JREF meet and agree on an OBJECTIVE TEST that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really SHOW what they CLAIM"

THE CLAIM:is in the translated notharized application, the VHS tape (referential guide) contains the complete image of a particular shot :before, when and after the second plane crashed to the second tower of the WTC that tragic day. The tape contains the same shot but broadcast by different tv networks( Spain, Chile, USA, Ecuador, etc. with their logos on it). The tape also contains an interview Telesistema (Ecuador) made me in their own room of files and equipmets , where the tv tecnicians and operators are checking with me the own Telesistema tape also broadcast to the public that fatidic day.

THE OBJECTIVE TEST : The study frame by frame of the complete image (the applicant is claiming) of the particular shot broadcast and transmitted by almost all the tv networks of the world. I
f it was a tv broadcast to millions of persons in the world , the tape is available in almost all tv stations of the world.

THE METHOD USED BY HARTER: The study frame by frame through a copy of the video available on internet.
An incomplete low resolution video, An unknown video, a poor method . Why he didn´t go to the nearest TV station ( I recommended James Randi to go to Telemundo in Florida) and check up with my referential tape their own broadcast tape?

THE METHOD USED BY SWETT: I went to the different local channels and over there,with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes of the complete image , a really very slow frame by frame with profetional tv equipments , verify what I am claiming. Another thing was the fear and the prohibitions the channels had to transmmit that "curious notice" to air. Remember only Telesistema did it , the same week of the tragic succes.

OK, you want to quote rules? Here are some of the rules you've broken (bolding is mine, italics are Randi's):

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules."

"Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered."

"EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER."

"Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant. Only complete agreement with these rules will constitute the "applicant" being considered a "claimant." Applicant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies agreement with all of the above rules."

Please explain how you agree to all of these rules. If you can't, than your application is invalid, even without anyone saying that it is. It's that simple.

About the method: Note that "applicant and JREF will agree upon...limits of the proposed demonstration." In other words, both Randi and you needed to agree upon a "proper method" to analyze the video before any method could be considered the "proper method." Since Randi never agreed upon what would constitute a "proper method," you can't act like your method is the only "proper method." And no, the statements from members of this forum don't count for this argument.

Anyway, that's all for now.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by rwald
OK, you want to quote rules? Here are some of the rules you've broken (bolding is mine, italics are Randi's):

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules."

"Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered."

"EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER."

"Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant. Only complete agreement with these rules will constitute the "applicant" being considered a "claimant." Applicant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies agreement with all of the above rules."


Damn, it looks like my application for the Million Dollars would be INVALID according to these rules, even though I TRUELY believe my photoshop doctored image of the blurry bird shows paranormal evidence of life in a parallel universe!

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


Damn, it looks like my application for the Million Dollars would be INVALID according to these rules, even though I TRUELY believe my photoshop doctored image of the blurry bird shows paranormal evidence of life in a parallel universe!

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles 10/28/02

"One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????"


Sorry" thatguy",I "think" YOU ARE MORE STUPID according to your own words.
I guess now are 30 pages of your examples.

Are you copying this at "your diary"?
I hope will help you.

Thanks,
S&S

[-=Vagrant=-]

JESUS FRIGGING CHRIST!

Still goin on? You're better than AForce1.

Originally posted by Tesserat


Yes, you invented it all, you liar. We have proof of your dishonesty and your lack of honor. You refused to take Thanz's words off of your signature.

I can't believe that a person could be that stupid, and still have enough of a brain stem to control their breathing reflex.

Hi Tesserat:

Just relax, or take a cold shower.

If I invented all, Mr. Hal Bidlack (JREF member) would said that before. Remember he is only worried for the words "in advance".

No tesserat, the nortarized application exists and the answer Harter gave to me is real too. He said he studied the video "frame by frame" on an unknown link of Internet .Is not an invention.

About Thanz quote , I guess you will also refuse to answer this direct question (as all of you did): Do YOU agree or not with this quote?:
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Just answer and I will remove it if you say is not a truth and try to give the reasonswhy not is a truth.

If you don't answer I will asume that you have fear to answer or that you agree with that,.
So don't worry about that, just answer and according to your reply I will remove it.
It is supposed that you are an SKEPTIC so just do it.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

originally posted by S&S to 11/15/02

"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."

originally posted by Tesserat 11/15/02

"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."

Do you REGRET also again ? just answer.

[Purple Tentacle]

but carlos, you are afraid to comment on the MANY videos that show NOTHING paranormal happening.

bluemonk has seen the BROADCAST QUALITY videos, so there. you have nothing.

i laugh at you.

ha ha.

Originally posted by rwald
I figured I would have to do this. Well, back to the "proving why each and every one of your points is wrong" routine.


OK. We all agree that you sent in an application; we know you have the Fed Ex tracking slip. We know you also sent in the video. What we disagree with is "that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid." Remember, most of us are native speakers of English. You are not. Therefore, when it comes to interpreting the exact meaning of a phrase in English, who do you think could do a better job? You, or us? Trust us, "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place." and "What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed." mean "Your application is invalid." I mean, how much clearer can you get than "Your application is closed."? Even if Randi used the word "invalid," you'd probably be here demanding that he used a different word. Trust us, Harter and Randi DID say that your application was invalid.




Hi Rwald:

In the first part you said :", when it comes to interpreting the exact meaning of a phrase in English",
That means that you are interpretating?
That is not explicity said so?

Yes I told you all that before, Harter NEVER said that my application was not valid, but you are free to "interpretate" what Harter said so.
The same way you are free to "interpretate " digitized versions.

But is supposed that you are all real skeptics, so just remain to the facts, not the interpretations.

Originally posted by Rwald:
"Swett, while I would agree that your method is closer to "proper observing conditions" than Harter's, who's to say that either are good enough? "

Any interpretation?Or any regret also?

Thanks,
S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles 10/28/02

"One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????"


Sorry" thatguy",I "think" YOU ARE MORE STUPID according to your own words.
I guess now are 30 pages of your examples.




Carlos, I would agree with you that I am more stupid IF I were actually trying to convince you that you are wrong. But I know that you have sawdust for brains, so instead I am just here to poke you with a stick, and make fun of you!

[Tesserat]

original blah blah blah by carlos

Hi Tesserat:

Just relax, or take a cold shower.

If I invented all, Mr. Hal Bidlack (JREF member) would said that before. Remember he is only worried for the words "in advance".

No tesserat, the nortarized application exists and the answer Harter gave to me is real too. He said he studied the video "frame by frame" on an unknown link of Internet .Is not an invention.

About Thanz quote , I guess you will also refuse to answer this direct question (as all of you did): Do YOU agree or not with this quote?:
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Just answer and I will remove it if you say is not a truth and try to give the reasonswhy not is a truth.

If you don't answer I will asume that you have fear to answer or that you agree with that,.
So don't worry about that, just answer and according to your reply I will remove it.
It is supposed that you are an SKEPTIC so just do it.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

originally posted by S&S to 11/15/02

"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."

originally posted by Tesserat 11/15/02

"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."

Do you REGRET also again ? just answer



Uhmmm... nope, no regrets. Actually, I don't think that you really understand the use of the english word "regret", but I get the idea of what you're trying to say. (Unlike, of course, your inability to understand simple, clear words like "You have no claim"

We have only your word that Harter said what you claim he wrote. And because you have proven yourself a liar, I think it makes more sense to believe that you’re lying about that as well.


Now everybody, watch Carlos revealed as the dishonorable liar that he is:
About Thanz quote , I guess you will also refuse to answer this direct question (as all of you did): Do YOU agree or not with this quote?:
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Just answer and I will remove it if you say is not a truth and try to give the reasonswhy not is a truth.


The two conditions that you have given are:
1. I must state that it is not the truth
2. I must give a reason

(side note here: Carlos has already proved himself to be dishonorable by not removing Thanz's words when Thanz asked him to. He will now prove himself a liar as well)

I do not believe that the quote "We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality" is true.

My reason: There are 3,231 members of the JREF forums as of the time of this writing. Many of them have only a very small knowledge of what broadcast quality means, how video is produced for the internet, and what is the exact loss of quality for different formats. There are even people who post here that are so stupid that they think that they can take one frame out of a video, reduce it’s quality by running it through filters, and then post it as evidence of a paranormal event. Therefore to say that “ALL know” is obviously false.

I have completed the two requirements that you asked for Carlos. I answered your question, and I gave my reason. So now do as your written word has promised, and remove Thanz’s words from your signature, or put your tail between your legs and slink off on your belly like the dishonorable liar that you’ve proven yourself to be up to this point.

Of course, if you prove that you have a shred of honor and do as you have promised, I will retract those words.

[Purple Tentacle]

oh BOO HOO carlos, you are a big SOOK

BLAH BLAH broadcast quality BLAH BLAH missing frames BLAH BLAH

LOOK at the evidence, LOOK at ALL the angles, you have no case.

the internet videos are MORE than enough to show that what you claim never took place. plus most of us were watching the telly when it happened anyway.

if you really wanted to defend your honour you would take it like a man and not be such a SOOK. What you are doing here isnt making you seem noble or honourable, you are pissing on any shed of dignity you may of once had.

stop clutching at straws and admit defeat.

[rwald]

Carlos,

For 90% of the people on the planet, the words on the rules page are clear, and require no interpretation. But you're not in that 90%, since you seem to not understand phrases like, "Your application is closed," or "You have no claim." So, for one such as yourself, I must paraphrase the rules into simpler terms that you can comprehend. If that's what you consider "interpretation," than so be it.

Also, remember that I was looking at the official rules, and not at Harter's response. If your application is invalid according to the official rules, it doesn't matter what Harter said. Your application is invalid

Originally posted by PinkRabbit

As for your accusations that Blue Monk tried to manipulate any of those shots, I'd have to disagree. I'm a computer graphics artist, so I downloaded all of the frames and took a close look. I saw no sign of the smudging and smoothing that typically happens when one starts digitally manipulating a video capture. With video captures, there's always texturing from the translation from the tv signal to standard bitmap form. That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand, and it's easy to spot it when someone has started airbrushing over it because it smooths things out. Same with using an eraser tool. In the shots I looked at, nothing breaks that pattern.

Barb

TO THE COMPUTER GRAPHICS INSTITUTE: PLEASE SEND BACK THE MONEY TO BARBARITA

That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand : Pinkrabbit


I ask a friend about your point and he send me back the frame with an example about how Bkue Monk can use the eraser tool on frame 21. My friend erase the TV logo and the paranormal object.

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.

Originally posted by latinijral

rwald> I'd rather talk about the rules, but you people won't
pay attention.
latinijral> fine randall
latinijral> your rules???
rwald> Randi's rules.
rwald> Not the introduction to Randi's rules; Randi's rules
themselves.
latinijral> and what is the opinion of randi and harter about
their rules??????
rwald> I assume that Randi respects his rules.
latinijral> assume??????
rwald> "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural going
on here."
latinijral> so...he didn`t find something supernatural?????
rwald> Andrew did not find anything supernatural. That is
correct.




rwald> I assume that Randi respects his rules.

[PinkRabbit]

Sigh, I really wasn't going to do this, but what the hell. Latinjrltroll's confusion on what I was discussing is, I suppose predictable, since both of these ... er ... individuals only see any points that agree with their opinion and they're so painfully ignorant that seeing only what they want becomes almost too easy for them.

Yes, completely removing the shape is easily done with the clone tool (I note you had to have someone else do it despite your vaunted skills -- snort). However, in looking at in in Photoshop, the edges aren't terribly difficult to detect, and the breaks in pattern as well as misplaced repitition are readily visible to anyone who knows what they're looking at (which you clearly don't). It's a subtle thing and likely to fool someone without any experience (like you), but, yes, I can spot the seam lines of the cloned area. Plus on the more obvious side, I note that he had to remove the station logo at the same time (I'm guessing he couldn't get it to blend with the sharper edges of the logo), shrink the image, change it to a jpg (which inserts additional noise into the equation) and massively alter the brightness and contrast in an effort hide his work (unsuccessfully). Lotsa changes, running from the highly noticeable to the more subtle. Somehow, I think I'd notice those if Blue Monk tried it.

Could the object be totally removed in a way that's not detectable? Maybe yes, maybe no. Your friend wasn't good enough, but I could probably do it with a little time. Depends on who was trying to catch me and how good they were at noticing subtle details (unlike your friend's attempts at tomfoolery, which were just painfully obvious -- that it impressed you is a pretty good indicator of your level of expertise --yawn). I've searched through those shots and seen zero sign of any tricking. What you have screatched about shows no signs of being an attempt at tricking anything, just more of the texturing. It's just that simple. It's just the regular texturing of the video signal and the blur of the object. Hell, you're so ignorant, you think that using a negative filter somehow proves something.

However, there's no question that the object wasn't removed, there are no signs of the telltale marks that would indicate anything had been done, and it still synchs up with the CNN video.

Soooooo, in consideration of that, I don't have any reason to believe it's altered. See, it's a multi-step, thought process (it's probably the thought part that's confusing you).

Now that said, why would Blue Monk remove it when its being there actually proves his point and when it would be painfully obvious? He would have to be a moron to do so (to our faithful readers, insert your own joke here).

As I said before, the real trick would be to put the bird in and/or enhance it in the frames where it's harder to see, and that is a very tricky thing to do. You can't just paint it in and expect it not to show, plus there's the whole problem of working in video. Contrary to yours and Carlos' belief there's a world of difference between making a tacky gif that's a few frames long and makes no pretense at reality, and successfully altering a moving video dubbed from an analog tape without it being obvious. Those two processes are just a world apart, like it or not. There's no sign of anything like that, no matter how much you wish there was. It's just not there.

And, while you may not be able to tell the difference between faked shots and real, there are people who can in this world.

Oh, and it's Barb. You don't like me, and I certainly don't like you. There is zero respect here, and cutsie nicknames are just annoying, so like Carlos, you can get your own "affectionate" little addition to your name till you get it right.

Buh bye, Latinjrltroll,

Barb

Originally posted by Tesserat



Uhmmm... nope, no regrets
I do not believe that the quote "We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality" is true.

My reason: There are 3,231 members of the JREF forums as of the time of this writing. Many of them have only a very small knowledge of what broadcast quality means, how video is produced for the internet, and what is the exact loss of quality for different formats. There are even people who post here that are so stupid that they think that they can take one frame out of a video, reduce it’s quality by running it through filters, and then post it as evidence of a paranormal event. Therefore to say that “ALL know” is obviously false.


. [/B]

Hi Tesserat :

Nice try, but you forgot this : NOW all you know that is true since the members that know about this subject explained to all the ignorants members about this subject, even you accepted before in your reply when you were one of those ignorants.

originally posted by S&S to Tesserat11/15/02

"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."

originally posted by Tesserat 11/15/02

"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."


So YOU accepted in 11/15/02 that the quote about the differnce about an internetvideo and a broadcast tape.

AND ALL OF YOU know that TRUTH NOW.

A TRUTH is not a matter if some ignorants members don't know about it, a truth is a truth, so waht Thanz posted is a BIG TRUTH , no matter your intentions to defend Harter poor dodgy method.

Go with your poor interpretations to your followers.
A ccording to your "logic" , now I have an explanation why are members that STILL beleive in digitized versions.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Sigh, I really wasn't going to do this, but what the hell. Latinjrltroll's confusion on what I was discussing is, I suppose predictable, since both of these ... er ... individuals only see any points that agree with their opinion and they're so painfully ignorant that seeing only what they want becomes almost too easy for them.

Yes, completely removing the shape is easily done with the clone tool (I note you had to have someone else do it despite your vaunted skills -- snort). However, in looking at in in Photoshop, the edges aren't terribly difficult to detect, and the breaks in pattern as well as misplaced repitition are readily visible to anyone who knows what they're looking at (which you clearly don't). It's a subtle thing and likely to fool someone without any experience (like you), but, yes, I can spot the seam lines of the cloned area. Plus on the more obvious side, I note that he had to remove the station logo at the same time (I'm guessing he couldn't get it to blend with the sharper edges of the logo), shrink the image, change it to a jpg (which inserts additional noise into the equation) and massively alter the brightness and contrast in an effort hide his work (unsuccessfully). Lotsa changes, running from the highly noticeable to the more subtle. Somehow, I think I'd notice those if Blue Monk tried it.

Could the object be totally removed in a way that's not detectable? Maybe yes, maybe no. Your friend wasn't good enough, but I could probably do it with a little time. Depends on who was trying to catch me and how good they were at noticing subtle details (unlike your friend's attempts at tomfoolery, which were just painfully obvious -- that it impressed you is a pretty good indicator of your level of expertise --yawn). I've searched through those shots and seen zero sign of any tricking. What you have screatched about shows no signs of being an attempt at tricking anything, just more of the texturing. It's just that simple. It's just the regular texturing of the video signal and the blur of the object. Hell, you're so ignorant, you think that using a negative filter somehow proves something.

However, there's no question that the object wasn't removed, there are no signs of the telltale marks that would indicate anything had been done, and it still synchs up with the CNN video.

Soooooo, in consideration of that, I don't have any reason to believe it's altered. See, it's a multi-step, thought process (it's probably the thought part that's confusing you).

Now that said, why would Blue Monk remove it when its being there actually proves his point and when it would be painfully obvious? He would have to be a moron to do so (to our faithful readers, insert your own joke here).

As I said before, the real trick would be to put the bird in and/or enhance it in the frames where it's harder to see, and that is a very tricky thing to do. You can't just paint it in and expect it not to show, plus there's the whole problem of working in video. Contrary to yours and Carlos' belief there's a world of difference between making a tacky gif that's a few frames long and makes no pretense at reality, and successfully altering a moving video dubbed from an analog tape without it being obvious. Those two processes are just a world apart, like it or not. There's no sign of anything like that, no matter how much you wish there was. It's just not there.

And, while you may not be able to tell the difference between faked shots and real, there are people who can in this world.

Oh, and it's Barb. You don't like me, and I certainly don't like you. There is zero respect here, and cutsie nicknames are just annoying, so like Carlos, you can get your own "affectionate" little addition to your name till you get it right.

Buh bye, Latinjrltroll,

Barb

Hi Barb:

Remember I do like your name and your person. I know you were quoting to latinijral and you was forced to give him an explanation of how and why (?) that"Blue monk's famous frame 21" was "manipulated " by latin.

He was only giiving YOU a lesson that any frame can be manipulated. He also thought , like me, that YOU all were "skeptics" and not easily a kind of "beleivers " in digitized versions.

Well , don't be worried about that, besides WE all know that there is a difference in the correct methods to analyze a video.
Just relax.

Thanks,

S&S.

[PinkRabbit]

Once again, Carlos, I do not believe blindly in digital versions.

I've seen the analog tape. I believe what I saw on the analog tape. Namely that the object is visible in every single frame and never goes through either of the towers.

Further, I believe is that Blue Monk faithfully dubbed that tape without attempting to doctor it in any way.

I believe this because the digital video and stills he has posted match what I saw, because I have the knowledge to analyze stills and video and make a solid assessment (nothing is 100%) about whether or not something has been altered, and because what he posted matches the CNN video (small though it was).

There would have to be too many people in on the conspiracy for the images he's posted to be faked. And it would too easily proven.

And while digital images can be manipulated, it's not quite as simple and easy to do undetected as you believe ... and Latinjrltroll helped prove, though I realize that wasn't his intention.

Now, you can go back to your condescending lectures and obnoxious behavior, inferring I'm a liar or whatever.

I think everyone here can see who the liar here is.

Clue: that would be you and Latinjrltroll.

Barb

[Tesserat]

originally spewed forth by carlos


A TRUTH is not a matter if some ignorants members don't know about it, a truth is a truth, so waht Thanz posted is a BIG TRUTH , no matter your intentions to defend Harter poor dodgy method.


Thanks for proving my point, and proving once again that you are a liar. Your pathetic attempts to defend your ridiculous theory grow weaker and weaker. You see, if as you say, some members don't know about it, your statement that "ALL" know is obviously false.

Poor deluded Carlos, so in love with Thanz that you cannot bear to have his words gone from your quote.

You said that if Thanz asked again for you to remove his words from his quote, you would do so. (you never did explain why he would have to ask again. Is your memory so bad?)
Thanz did ask again, and you did not remove his words.

You are a dishonorable liar. You can't deny that you said that you'd remove his words if he asked again. You can't deny that he asked again. All you can do is to hide behind your feeble excuses. Can you prove that you are a man of your word? Can you prove that you have integrity? A man is only as good as his word, and Carlos, you have proven that you are worthless.

Poor Carlos. A life without honor, day after day. All you can survive on now is the pity of others.

Originally posted by Tesserat


Thanks for proving my point, and proving once again that you are a liar. Your pathetic attempts to defend your ridiculous theory grow weaker and weaker. You see, if as you say, some members don't know about it, your statement that "ALL" know is obviously false.




Hi Tesserat:
Proving what point? That you are an ignorant?

A truth is not a matter of ignorants , a truth is a truth. Don't you remember you also said (IN YOUR IGNORANCE) that there is NOT a difference between broadcast tapes and a video of internet?
Of course then you REGRET and confirmed you were wrong.

originally posted by S&S to Tesserat11/15/02

"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."

originally posted by Tesserat 11/15/02

"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."

So now you have another chance to look on what YOU beleive and CHANGE your beleifs.Problems with your ego?

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Once again, Carlos, I do not believe blindly in digital versions.

I've seen the analog tape. I believe what I saw on the analog tape. Namely that the object is visible in every single frame and never goes through either of the towers.


And while digital images can be manipulated, it's not quite as simple and easy to do undetected as you believe ... and Latinjrltroll helped prove, though I realize that wasn't his intention.



Barb

Hi PinkRabbit (Barb):

So You saw an analog tape and you studied it frame by frame and saw the object in every single frame?

I will remind you what you said before:

Originally posted by PinkRabbit 10/30/02

"Er, as I wrote, I did look at it on 3/4 inch tape, and I could see the object all the way across the building. It was very faded due to motion and out of focus blur, but it was there. Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there."
"I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy."

...................................

So Barb I am not telling you a liar, just a confused person("still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame")("the object is visible in every single frame" ) .

It doesn't matter if that came from a "beleiver" in digitized versions; or are you the mother of Tarzan?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

That's why I am here ," beleivers ". Try to be rationalist .

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


[snip]

So Barb I am not telling you a liar, just a confused person("still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame")("the object is visible in every single frame" ) .

It doesn't matter if that came from a "beleiver" in digitized versions; or are you the mother of Tarzan?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

That's why I am here ," beleivers ". Try to be rationalist .

Carlos -

If you read the entire sentence from Barb that you posted above, you will see that there is no confusion. Here it is again, highlighted so that you can understand:

"Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there."

So, she is saying that it is hard to see when run through frame by frame, but it is there in every frame nonetheless. So when she says that she saw it in every single frame, she is entirely consistent with what she posted before.

As for you, Mr. Swett, you still have not answered my 5 simple questions. Are you unable to? Or do you simply have no honour?

Here they are again:

I will number them for ease of reference, and I am asking you to answer each question specifically.

1. Why is the object not on any other camera angle?

2. Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it?

3. Is the object somehow invisible?

4. If your theory is that the object is somehow invisible, why does the one camera have it on tape?

5. Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

If you are rational, Mr. Swett, why can't you answer these questions?

[PinkRabbit]

Well, Carlos, once again, you misunderstood what someone said, whether deliberately or not.

I said it is distinctly there, and adjusting brightness and contrast make it easier to see. Just looking at a single still makes it harder to see because it is a very small spot against a very busy background. Tracking it from frame to frame makes it easier to see because it has a distinct pattern of movement, and your eye follows along, allowing one to spot a very small dark spot against a background of rolling smoke.

Now, that said, I actually had a chance to take a second look this weekend, on a better monitor, and the object was much more distinct. A touch of contrast adjustment made it even moreso.

It's there in every frame, blurred, but very visible. You can distinctly see that the smoke rolls behind the dark object, and the movement of the smoke and the object are separate.

It is visible against both the smoke and the lighter colored building.

It flaps its wings.

It follows a near straight trajectory that does not correspond with the holes in the towers (it would have to enter on a much higher floor than it left).

No digital image involved. I looked at the station's copy of the tape. No, I didn't digitize because A) You wouldn't believe it anyway and would promptly accuse me of lying, faking, etc, without a twitch of proof (though I'm sure Latinjrltroll would try to cook some up), and B) posting a digitized station tape would risk my friend's job.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else, simply saying what I saw and what I believe. Others are free to compare our relative trustworthiness, honesty, honor, intelligence, understanding of such things and make their own decisions. Personally, I'm more than happy with that arrangement.

Personally, I'd say you're the one who's been fooled, whether by your own wishes or bad equipment, I don't know.

It's not paranormal.

Just a bird.

Barb

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Well, Carlos, once again, you misunderstood what someone said, whether deliberately or not.

I said it is distinctly there, and adjusting brightness and contrast make it easier to see. Just looking at a single still makes it harder to see because it is a very small spot against a very busy background. Tracking it from frame to frame makes it easier to see because it has a distinct pattern of movement, and your eye follows along, allowing one to spot a very small dark spot against a background of rolling smoke.

Now, that said, I actually had a chance to take a second look this weekend, on a better monitor, and the object was much more distinct. A touch of contrast adjustment made it even moreso.

It's there in every frame, blurred, but very visible. You can distinctly see that the smoke rolls behind the dark object, and the movement of the smoke and the object are separate.

It is visible against both the smoke and the lighter colored building.



Barb

Hi Barb:

So now members have to beleive you that you saw it in a better monitor.But you forgot this :

Originally posted by PinkRabbit:10/30/02
"I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy."

What about the equipments? You didn't have the "chance to did STILLS? Or are you going to say now that you saw it "this weekend" in a better equipment?

And what about this contradiction you already wrote before?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PinkRabbit 10/31/02
"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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Barb , I understand your position and the position of all the members. You are full of contradictions and regrets, first you said "no stills" then you said "It does not disappear in the stills".
Give me a break.

Someday you will post you did the investigation with Andrew Harter and Blue Monk together.

Go review your studies in graphic design and about tricks in digitized versions. You can ask Rwald how he put King Kong dancing in front of the towers.
. You are just an inocent woman (and that's good), but don't worry you have your followers and beleivers.

This qoute is also for your defender Thanz.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by Thanz


Carlos -

If you read the entire sentence from Barb that you posted above, you will see that there is no confusion. Here it is again, highlighted so that you can understand:


As for you, Mr. Swett, you still have not answered my 5 simple questions. Are you unable to? Or do you simply have no honour?


If you are rational, Mr. Swett, why can't you answer these questions?


Hi Thanz:

I already answered Pink Rabbits fantasy and contradictions, just check it up. But you have the right to beleive in her.

About your "famous 5 questions" you are making an assumption that I am unable too. The answer is easy but perhaps you didn't read the answer.I just wanted you to answer 1 question.

But you with a singular question have troubles , is only one question and is nothing about PARANORMAL stuff, is simple:

Do you agree that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality ?

If you want help , ask somebody, or read my signature (not your quote).

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by PinkRabbit

As for your accusations that Blue Monk tried to manipulate any of those shots, I'd have to disagree. I'm a computer graphics artist, so I downloaded all of the frames and took a close look. I saw no sign of the smudging and smoothing that typically happens when one starts digitally manipulating a video capture. With video captures, there's always texturing from the translation from the tv signal to standard bitmap form. That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand, and it's easy to spot it when someone has started airbrushing over it because it smooths things out. Same with using an eraser tool. In the shots I looked at, nothing breaks that pattern.

Barb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TO THE COMPUTER GRAPHICS INSTITUTE: PLEASE SEND BACK THE MONEY TO BARBARITA

That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand : Pinkrabbit


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

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Sigh, I really wasn't going to do this, but what the hell.

Yes, completely removing the shape is easily done with the clone tool (I note you had to have someone else do it despite your vaunted skills -- snort).

Lotsa changes, running from the highly noticeable to the more subtle. Somehow, I think I'd notice those if Blue Monk tried it.

Could the object be totally removed in a way that's not detectable? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Hell, you're so ignorant, you think that using a negative filter somehow proves something.


Now that said, why would Blue Monk remove it when its being there actually proves his point and when it would be painfully obvious?


Barb



Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg




Frame 17: with filters big picture


http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39

http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40

http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg

Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41

http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/29.jpg

quod erat demonstrandum [/B]
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39

[PinkRabbit]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Barb:

So now members have to beleive you that you saw it in a better monitor.But you forgot this :

Originally posted by PinkRabbit:10/30/02
"I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy."

What about the equipments? You didn't have the "chance to did STILLS? Or are you going to say now that you saw it "this weekend" in a better equipment?

And what about this contradiction you already wrote before?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PinkRabbit 10/31/02
"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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Barb , I understand your position and the position of all the members. You are full of contradictions and regrets, first you said "no stills" then you said "It does not disappear in the stills".
Give me a break.

Someday you will post you did the investigation with Andrew Harter and Blue Monk together.

Go review your studies in graphic design and about tricks in digitized versions. You can ask Rwald how he put King Kong dancing in front of the towers.
. You are just an inocent woman (and that's good), but don't worry you have your followers and beleivers.

This qoute is also for your defender Thanz.

Thanks,

S&S

No contradiction at all, actually, and if you understood English or read more carefully you would understand that. I could not make digitized stills to post. I could look at single frames (also known as stills) on the video They are two different meanings for the word, and everyone else understood that.

Yes, I saw it Sunday on better equipment. I had promised Charlie in Dayton that I would try to do so before answering his questionnaire. I did not have a chance to do so sooner, since my friend could not book space due to overwork at his station (a triple murder on campus, and football coaching blues had everyone on overtime). I could have made digitized stills as well as video on the equipment we used Sunday, but as it could imperil my friend's job, and would only elicit more accusations from you, frankly, I didn't bother to even consider it.

Once again, putting King Kong in front of the towers in a gif that's clearly and obviously been tampered with is a far cry from successfully tampering with an mp4 video and stills in a way that can't be detected. That you do not understand that basic fact proves how utterly ignorant of the technology you are. And before you totally misunderstand me again, I've never said those things are impossible. I've said they're very difficult to do, and very easily caught by simply coming up with the right video.

Something you've shown yourself loathe to do, despite claims that you have it. You won't even send someone a copy of your tape. What are you afraid of people seeing, Carlos? You've offered no proof of anything except your word, and the fact that you made a claim. Yawn. That's not proof. That's just words.

The only person who's offered any proof is Blue Monk. I don't know the guy, btw. Never met any of these people, and I'm not even one who believes that the paranormal is impossible. I just don't believe you've shown anything paranormal.

A notarized claim is not proof. I can write up a claim that I saw my grandmother's ghost, have it notarized, send it to Randi, and make as much of a claim as you have.

I am not full of contradictions, nor any regrets. You simply and consistently ... and very probably intentionally ... misunderstand everything.

And now, I repeat, the others are welcome to gauge your honesty, integrity, intelligence, knowedge, etc, vs mine.

Past that, I have no idea why you're so obsessed with my gender.

Damn, you're weird.

Barb

[PinkRabbit]

Latinjrltroll, once again, a negative filter proves nothing.

You know nothing about graphics. Please quit trying to pretend you do. Your friend's incompetent efforts to prove your point actually proved the opposite because it was painfully obvious the still you posted had been tampered with.

It's just not as easy and simple to fool most people as it is to fool you and Carlos.

I pity you both because of this fact, but that's how it is.

Barb

Originally posted by PinkRabbit


No contradiction at all, actually, and if you understood English or read more carefully you would understand that. I could not make digitized stills to post. I could look at single frames (also known as stills) on the video They are two different meanings for the word, and everyone else understood that.

Yes, I saw it Sunday on better equipment. I had promised Charlie in Dayton that I would try to do so before answering his questionnaire. I did not have a chance to do so sooner, since my friend could not book space due to overwork at his station (a triple murder on campus, and football coaching blues had everyone on overtime). I could have made digitized stills as well as video on the equipment we used Sunday, but as it could imperil my friend's job, and would only elicit more accusations from you, frankly, I didn't bother to even consider it.



The only person who's offered any proof is Blue Monk. I don't know the guy, btw. Never met any of these people, and I'm not even one who believes that the paranormal is impossible. I just don't believe you've shown anything paranormal.

A notarized claim is not proof. I can write up a claim that I saw my grandmother's ghost, have it notarized, send it to Randi, and make as much of a claim as you can.

I am not full of contradictions, nor any regrets. You simply and consistently ... and very probably intentionally ... misunderstand everything I say.

And now, I repeat, the others are welcome to gauge your honesty, integrity, intelligence, knowedge, etc, vs mine.

Past that, I have no idea why you're so obsessed with my gender.

Damn, you're weird.

Barb

Hi Barb:

I give you my support about your honesty, integrity, intelligence, knowedge, etc. , and also for your beauty.

Of course that you beleive in Blue Monks' "proof" ,For your confort almost all the members "beleives" in his digitized version.

Remember I told you you probably "forgot" to tell us that you looked at better equipments. Now you did it. I just was helping you. And I think you finally learned the lesson. You are really smart.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I forgot Charlie of Dayton is using "his scientific method" to analyze the "tape".

Good luck for skeptics (what a contradiction)

Thanz:

I already answered Pink Rabbit's reply and contradictions , just check it up. But you have the right to beleive in her.

About your "famous 5 questions" you are making an assumption that I am unable too. The answer is easy but perhaps you didn't read the answer.
I just wanted YOU to answer 1 question.

But I know that you with a singular question have troubles ,think about it, is only one question and is nothing about PARANORMAL stuff, is simple:

Do you agree that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality ?

If you want help , ask somebody, or read my signature (not your quote).

Thanks,

S&S [/B][/QUOTE]

[Tesserat]

Poor Carlos

Unable to admit how utterly hopeless his theories are, he's forced to pretend to misunderstand the posts of others in order to protect his frail ego.

Devoid of honour, his lies becoming more and more transparent even to himself, he is forced to admit his complete ignorance of video technology.

Carlos is becoming repetitive, twisting the words of other posters, stealing their words like the liar and thief that he is.

Carlos cannot even provide a copy of the tape he claims to have seen. Why? Because he was too stupid to make a backup copy.

Carlos, You have no honour, no manhood. But you do have one thing.

You have my pity.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
Thanz:

I already answered Pink Rabbit's reply and contradictions , just check it up. But you have the right to beleive in her.

About your "famous 5 questions" you are making an assumption that I am unable too. The answer is easy but perhaps you didn't read the answer.
I just wanted YOU to answer 1 question.

But I know that you with a singular question have troubles ,think about it, is only one question and is nothing about PARANORMAL stuff, is simple:

Do you agree that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality ?

If you want help , ask somebody, or read my signature (not your quote).

Thanks,

S&S

Mr. Swett, I do not think that you are able to answer my questions. All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer them. I have already asked them 4 times (3 times on page 29, once on page 30) and you have not answered them. The last time on page 29 I explicitly stated that I would answer any of your questions after you answered mine. Yet you still aks the same question as if it had anything to do with the 5 I have asked.

Well, to remove any excuse you may have, I will answer your question.

Is a video on the internet likely to be of broadcast quality? No, I don't think it is. Does this end the matter of Andrew's investigation? No, it does not. As I have said, based on what I have seen on the internet, there is nothing paranormal about your tape. The videos provided clearly show that the object DOES NOT enter the building AT ANY TIME. The other videos do not show the object at all. Having a broadcast quality tape would only reinforce that the object does not enter the building.

So, Mr. Swett, I do not think that the investigation was dodgy. I ask you to remove that quote from your signature.

At the end of the 1993 World Series in baseball, Joe Carter hit a home run to win game 6 (and the Series) for the Toronto Blue Jays. I can see a video of this on the internet. Is the internet video of broadcast quality? No, it is not. But is it of a sufficient quality to see that Joe Carter hit a home run? Yes it is.

Therefore, what I am saying Mr. Swett is that the videos of the events of September 11 that are on the internet are not likely to be of broadcast quality. They are, however, of sufficient quality to prove that you have no claim and that nothing paranormal is going on in the clip you have referenced.

I have given a complete and detailed answer to your question. I look forward to a complete and detailed answer to my 5 questions.

Originally posted by Thanz



Well, to remove any excuse you may have, I will answer your question.

Is a video on the internet likely to be of broadcast quality? No, I don't think it is.


Hi Thanz:

Your answer reminds me the replies of Pink Rabbit. I don't care what you "think". A truth is not a matter of what you think.

I saw and study a 3/4 brodcast tape on proffesional equipments on a tv station with proffesional technicians.

Andrew Harter studied "frame by frame" a video available on an unknown link of internet.

His method was "pretty dodgy" no matter if you regret now, or that you "think" now different.

Your regret is also based in a preety dodgy method. Poor method of an skeptic .


Is just a fact.

Now your "famous" questions:

1. Why is the object not on any other camera angle?

How do you know? Do you have ALL of them?

2. Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it?

Well according to another post you send here (or you have also more regrets?)
Originally posted by Thanz:
"Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known"

Yes, the PARANORMAL object operated outside those laws considered normal or known.

3. Is the object somehow invisible?

Only in one frame at broadcast tapes and internet tapes(not digitized versions), After it entered in the hole.Not necesarilly invisible, just dissapears in that frame.

4. If your theory is that the object is somehow invisible, why does the one camera have it on tape?

Is on tape, just dissapears after it entered in the hole of the north tower.

5. Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

You can apply your quote of question 2 and my answer in question1.

THANZ:"If you are rational, Mr. Swett, why can't you answer these questions?"

Are already answered. And not regrets from me, are according to my application and are according to your preety dodgy method or to the beleivers in digitized versions or in "words" of the members.

Any more questions?

Thanks,
S&S

P S .

PARANORMAL: OBSERVED PHENOMENA

JREF "PARANORMAL" CHALLENGE.

Originally posted by Tesserat
Poor Carlos


Carlos cannot even provide a copy of the tape he claims to have seen. Why? Because he was too stupid to make a backup copy.



You have my pity.

Hi Tesserat:

You are also another member that refuses to answer a simple question:Is a video on the internet likely to be of broadcast quality?

How do you know I don't have a copy?I have more than you supposed I have,

The copies are all around the world, inocent member.Just visit any network or local station as I told James Randi.

Why I never provided a copy of the tape to the forum?
Because I "thought" you were rationalistics, so if I posted some digitized version of the tape you will said to me : NO, we don't trust digitized versions.

Remember I already told to Mr. James Randi (letter with the notarized application) about digitized versions . read the post data.
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13

You have my sorrow.

Thanks,
S&S

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

Hi Thanz:

Your answer reminds me the replies of Pink Rabbit. I don't care what you "think". A truth is not a matter of what you think.

I saw and study a 3/4 brodcast tape on proffesional equipments on a tv station with proffesional technicians.

Andrew Harter studied "frame by frame" a video available on an unknown link of internet.

His method was "pretty dodgy" no matter if you regret now, or that you "think" now different.

Your regret is also based in a preety dodgy method. Poor method of an skeptic .

If you don't care what I "think" then remove my quote from your signature. What I said then was based on what I thought at the time, and what I had seen at the time. I no longer have the same opinion. You are dishonest to say that my opinion is correct on one day and incorrect on another, based solely on your opinion. I do not think that Andrew's investigation was dodgy. Remove the quote, please.


Now your "famous" questions:

1. Why is the object not on any other camera angle?

How do you know? Do you have ALL of them?

Fine. Produce one other camera angle or shot that shows the object in question. Just one. Blue Monk has provided several that do not.

Why is the object not on any of the other camera angles that have been linked to?

2. Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it?

Well according to another post you send here (or you have also more regrets?)
Originally posted by Thanz:
"Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known"

Yes, the PARANORMAL object operated outside those laws considered normal or known.

I'll take this as a yes. Your theory is that the object's paranormal nature somehow made it so no other camera could see it. Is that a fair interpretation of your answer?

3. Is the object somehow invisible?

Only in one frame at broadcast tapes and internet tapes(not digitized versions), After it entered in the hole.Not necesarilly invisible, just dissapears in that frame.

Is the object somehow invisible to the other cameras recording the event? Not when you claim it is in the hole, but the entire time? It is not on the other tapes. Where is it?

4. If your theory is that the object is somehow invisible, why does the one camera have it on tape?

Is on tape, just dissapears after it entered in the hole of the north tower.

This doesn't answer the question. Why is it on the one tape, but not the others? What is it about the one camera that allowed it to capture the object on tape when the others could not?

5. Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

You can apply your quote of question 2 and my answer in question1.

This is not an answer, this is a conclusion. You have concluded that it is paranormal, and therefore it can do anything you want it to? It doesn't work that way. Either it is invisible to cameras, or it isn't. Unless you can come up with some theory as to why the one camera could get it on tape while others could not, despite being focused on the same area at the same time, your application and answers are ridiculous. Is the camera paranormal too?

THANZ:"If you are rational, Mr. Swett, why can't you answer these questions?"

Are already answered. And not regrets from me, are according to my application and are according to your preety dodgy method or to the beleivers in digitized versions or in "words" of the members.

They are not answered. If I told you that my grandmother is haunting my house, would you believe me? You can't see her because she is paranormal. You can't hear her because shee is paranormal. But, I swear in my NOTARIZED application that she is there. Should I get the million?

Any more questions?

Obviously I do have more questions. See above.

[hal bidlack]

this remains a fascinating thread. Carlos is a text book case of non-falsifyable asininity and inanity. You can watch folks come to the thread, no doubt wondering what could generate 30+ pages, and are pulled in. They think "well, hey, he's clearly making some simple mistakes, and I'll just point out his error." I did that about page 7. But then they are pulled into the labyrinthine reasoning of Carlos.

Each section of this thread begins the same, I think, with each new participant offering reason. Carlos then replies with simple questions, but prevaricates endlessly in response to questions aimed at him. He kind of replies, but not quite enough to be useful, and not quite enough to be off-putting. This goes on for a while, then comes raised tones and name calling.

From time to time an outside voice of reason pops in. Blue Monk is the most dramatic example of this. He took the video and did exactly what Carlos claimed was necessary to prove his point. When the analysis clearly showed Carlos was wrong, he of course could not retreat, he had far too much invested in the thread. So he grabbed at straws to attack Blue Monk. But BM's evidence was so solid, so compelling, as to be truly damning.

This thread continues for only one reason: Carlos insists he is defending his honor somehow. A rational person would, I think, realize by now that to tergiversate would be wise, yet he does not. I can't help wondering if the same drive to create that makes Carlos such a wonderful artist also pushes him to create performance art here. I am somehow reminded of Asimov's mule.

Just my psychobabble about an interesting rara avis. Plus, he called me "Randi's Pope" and I love that. My irony meter is still gesticulating wildly.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Tergiversate?

Ah...second cousin to obfuscate.

Carry on.

Originally posted by bidlack

BM's evidence was so solid, so compelling, as to be truly damning.

Plus, he called me "Randi's Pope" and I love that.


Frame 17: in negative big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38

http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/26.jpg



Frame 17: with filters big picture
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=39

http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40

http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/28.jpg


Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/framesorframes.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41





quod erat demonstrandum [/B]
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/71/80/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/6/27.jpg


POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"



Why Randi`s Pope?

[rwald]

What part of "the negative filter does not prove anything" do you not understand?

Oh, the whole "proof" thing. I should have known you'd be weak on that concept.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by bidlack
....A rational person would, I think, realize by now that to tergiversate would be wise, yet he does not.

I learned a new word today........

[Tesserat]

originally etc. by Carlos

Hi Tesserat:

You are also another member that refuses to answer a simple question:Is a video on the internet likely to be of broadcast quality?


This is so feeble it's embarassing. I did answer your question. And in far more detail, and more precisely than you've been answering other people's question. Go back and read it. If this is the quality of your research, no wonder you can't put together a decent claim.

Or do you mean I didn't provide an answer that you liked? Poor Carlos, life only gives babies what they want.



How do you know I don't have a copy?I have more than you supposed I have,


Because you haven't provided any proof that you have a copy. Once again carlos, no matter how much you whine about having proof, you actually have to provide it to be considered a funtional adult. Just saying "it's there, I saw it" puts you in the same catagory as any two year old.




Why I never provided a copy of the tape to the forum?
Because I "thought" you were rationalistics, so if I posted some digitized version of the tape you will said to me : NO, we don't trust digitized versions.


How would you know? You assumed that people would believe that you changed the image. But Carlos, in the 3000+ people who come to this forum, there are many people who could tell if you had faked an image or not, because, let's face it, you're not very good.

You didn't reply to Thanz's last request to remove his words from your signature. Once again, you have proved that you have no honor. I've tried to avoid asking you questions, because I can see that you avoid answering, but here's two questions that I would very seriously like an answer to.

They are hard questions, so if you pretend to ignore them, I will understand.

Carlos, do you think you are an honorable person?

Why?


I know that it's probably hopeless to try to help you, but even though you lack honor, you are still a human being, so you do have my pity.

Originally posted by bidlack
this remains a fascinating thread. Carlos is a text book case of non-falsifyable asininity and inanity. You can watch folks come to the thread, no doubt wondering what could generate 30+ pages, and are pulled in. They think "well, hey, he's clearly making some simple mistakes, and I'll just point out his error." I did that about page 7. But then they are pulled into the labyrinthine reasoning of Carlos.

Each section of this thread begins the same, I think, with each new participant offering reason. Carlos then replies with simple questions, but prevaricates endlessly in response to questions aimed at him. He kind of replies, but not quite enough to be useful, and not quite enough to be off-putting. This goes on for a while, then comes raised tones and name calling.

From time to time an outside voice of reason pops in. Blue Monk is the most dramatic example of this. He took the video and did exactly what Carlos claimed was necessary to prove his point. When the analysis clearly showed Carlos was wrong, he of course could not retreat, he had far too much invested in the thread. So he grabbed at straws to attack Blue Monk. But BM's evidence was so solid, so compelling, as to be truly damning.

This thread continues for only one reason: Carlos insists he is defending his honor somehow. A rational person would, I think, realize by now that to tergiversate would be wise, yet he does not. I can't help wondering if the same drive to create that makes Carlos such a wonderful artist also pushes him to create performance art here. I am somehow reminded of Asimov's mule.

Just my psychobabble about an interesting rara avis. Plus, he called me "Randi's Pope" and I love that. My irony meter is still gesticulating wildly.

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack:

I am going to start this reply explaining to members why I called you Randi's Pope ( well, to some menbers ignorants about it).

According to catholic religion, the Pope is the representant of God in earth, but his merits is that the Pope "NEVER" makes a mistake when he is talking about God.

Since Mr. James Randi is "The God" to his fans here, you Mr. Bidlack are his representant here at the forum (remember you are part of the JREF) , so you are the one who will "never" make a mistake when you are defending your God.

If this is a fascinating thread for you, why are YOU so worried for LOCK this thread? Or you forgot your poll with YOUR tricky question with my NAME on it? Are you still afraid of my simple proofs: my notarized application and the poor answer Mr. Harter gave to me after he "studied frame by frame " an unknown link on internet?

Should I worried if YOU all skeptics "beleive " on a digitized tricked version of Blue Monk? NO , because I told YOU JREF in my application and in the letter I send to Randi to do the best method: to go to the nearest tv station and analyze a BROADCAST TAPE , not my referential tape.Randi is a media man so noproblems with his access to a tv station.

Should I worried because members in this thread are forced to reply my arguments? No, because are their faults , are their regrets, are their words.
All this thread is already recorded and is another proof I have.

The documents are here:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw

The letter I send to Mr.James Randi is here(page 1):

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=14

Page 2 (letter to Mr.James Randi):

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13

So Mr. Hal Bidlack my proofs are very simple, this thread only helped me to discover how a bunch of beleivers and defenders of your God are not even ashamed to trust digitized versions or are some kind of lawyers in the application.
But James Randi is still on silence.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Thanz



. If I told you that my grandmother is haunting my house, would you believe me? You can't see her because she is paranormal. You can't hear her because shee is paranormal. But, I swear in my NOTARIZED application that she is there. Should I get the million?

[B]


Hi Thanz:

If Blue Monk told you he didn't tricked his digitized version, and PinkRabbit swear that she saw the brodcast tape at CBS network, would you beleive them?

"Think" about it.

Thanks,
S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

I would like to point out that both Carlos and his side-kick latinjral (though mostly latinjral) are violating the third rule of posting on this forum. Remember kids, posting on JREF forum is a privalege. Follow the rules!!


From: http://www.randi.org/forum/rules.html

The default position of the JREF Forum is that any post is allowed as long as it does not violate one of the conditions below:

...


3. The post contains commercial advertisements or spam.

--Note: this does not mean that people cannot reference commercial ideas, but merely that one may not use the Forum as a literal market place to sell for-profit items.
--Spamming is the multiple posting of items just to annoy or attract attention. It is not the same as cross-posting to a relevant thread.



So my question is this: How many more times does latinjral have to post those useless images and even more useless comments before the moderators take action. This thread has 31 pages. How many pages less would it be if we eliminated the spam?

Carlos, you are a troll. Take your side-kick with you, and go jump in a lake, you stupid moron!

[PinkRabbit]

Carlos,

If you wish a webpage, I'd suggest you ask your worshipper, Latinjrltroll. We are not friends, and this weird effort you've made to call me a liar in public, while trying to buddy up or ... whatever ... via PM is just creepy.

As for your personal questions, none of your business.

Do not PM me again.

Barb

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I would like to point out that both Carlos and his side-kick latinjral (though mostly latinjral) are violating the third rule of posting on this forum. Remember kids, posting on JREF forum is a privalege. Follow the rules!!



So my question is this: How many more times does latinjral have to post those useless images and even more useless comments before the moderators take action. This thread has 31 pages. How many pages less would it be if we eliminated the spam?

Carlos, you are a troll. Take your side-kick with you, and go jump in a lake, you stupid moron!

Thatguy:

Just stop posting here, you are a liar , you said severals times you will never post here.

Or are you just feeding your diary?Or are you proud of being stupid as you said before?

Thanks,
S&S

[hal bidlack]

QED again.

Carlos demonstrates a compulsion to discuss his "application" but somehow can't see the words "in advance." :)

and it's Dr Hal Bidlack, if you must use the full appelation. ;)

Oh, Randi is not quite error-free. We got seriously lost trying to find a magic convention. I'm not quite sure what that means though.

And the windmill continues to turn, while a few poor saps ready their steeds, sadly including me. :cool:

Carlos, here is something for your sig block:
"Carlos is an excellent artist, a very creative person"

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Thanz:

If Blue Monk told you he didn't tricked his digitized version, and PinkRabbit swear that she saw the brodcast tape at CBS network, would you beleive them?

"Think" about it.

Thanks,
S&S

Mr. Swett,

Well, I have no reason not to believe them. But what does that have to do with anything? If you are claiming that Blue Monk altered the video, post your version and show us all where he tricked it.

While I believe that Barb saw the broadcast tape on professional equipment and reported what she saw, it doesn't really make a difference. It is YOU, Mr. Swett, who has to convince people. And you have done quite a poor job of it.

I notice that you have ignored my other questions. Please answer them, as you asked me if I had any more.

Also, despite you telling me that you do not care what I think, my quote still appears in your signature. Please remove it. At this point, I can only conclude that it is there to annoy or spite me. Are you really that petty?

Keeping the thread needlessly alive,
Thanz

[rwald]

Originally posted by S&S
Are you still afraid of my simple proofs: my notarized application and the poor answer Mr. Harter gave to me after he "studied frame by frame " an unknown link on internet?

Carlos, this is not proof. If you want to prove that the object passed through the tower, you need to use the video as proof. No amount of words can ever be considered "proof" of your claim. If you want to post a video to prove your claim, be our guest. But know that absolutely no amount of words can ever prove your claim.

Originally posted by bidlack
QED again.

Carlos demonstrates a compulsion to discuss his "application" but somehow can't see the words "in advance." :)

and it's Dr Hal Bidlack, if you must use the full appelation. ;)

Oh, Randi is not quite error-free. We got seriously lost trying to find a magic convention. I'm not quite sure what that means though.

And the windmill continues to turn, while a few poor saps ready their steeds, sadly including me. :cool:

Carlos, here is something for your sig block:
"Carlos is an excellent artist, a very creative person"

Hi Dr. Hal Bidlack:

Sorry, I "thought " you liked "Randi's Pope"

Your reply and comments about the words "in advance" must help members be sure that I really did make a notarized application and that the answer I received by e-mail by Harter and Randi are the ones that are posted here at the thread(page 1 ,first post by Patricio Elicer).

I am thankful to you in that matter, you NEVER denied I made a notarized application, that I send a referential tape, that I received that answer from Harter (no edition on it) and that I also send a personal letter to Mr.James Randi.

I also thanks your words to my sig block , but I am not that kind of vain, remember I never said nothing about my works at the beginning and that web page you saw in this last pages of this thread was only to clarify what I said to James Randi about digitized versions.

Maybe I can help you in YOUR magic convention , (who knows?), just ask.

About my "compulsion" to discuss my application and the answer I received from Mr. Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Mr. Randi, I find some others quotes from Patricio Elicer 09/05/02

a)"Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the event .Comment: according to his e-mail response this is true."
b)" Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer.But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies"


Maybe I will change my sig block with those 2 quotes that almost tell the same that Thanz wrote, but will help Thanz to cure him from his trauma. Or maybe Patricio will say that are "out" of context or that now he also regrets.

Dr. Bidlack , the problem is simple : the method YOU used as JREF was pretty dodgy.
That doesn't mean that YOU ALL did not do a great job sometimes.

Is there a possibility that we can be friends? we can have differents points of view in this specific "case" but maybe there are more points that we can share.

My respects to you.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rwald


Carlos, this is not proof. If you want to prove that the object passed through the tower, you need to use the video as proof. No amount of words can ever be considered "proof" of your claim. If you want to post a video to prove your claim, be our guest. But know that absolutely no amount of words can ever prove your claim.

Hi Rwald:

PROOFS:

Remember I send my referential tape to the JREF in the same package with my notarized application and the letter to James Randi.

The challenge was to the JREF.

Andrew Harter gave me an answer based in his study "frame by frame " on an unknown link on internet.

You already saw some links of the shot where you can not produce the frame of "the bird or whatever" at the right side of the hole of the north tower.

You have the word of Pink Rabbit that she "saw " a broadcast tape.

You have a "digitized tricky version " of Blue Monk.

And you have your own quotes written on this thread.

WHAT ELSE do you want?
I know that everybody wants James Randi to write about my application and the answer they gave me.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by Thanz


Mr. Swett,

Well, I have no reason not to believe them. But what does that have to do with anything? If you are claiming that Blue Monk altered the video, post your version and show us all where he tricked it.


Thanz

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bidlack

BM's evidence was so solid, so compelling, as to be truly damning.


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

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.


I agree with you Thanz !!!!!

Originally posted by Thanz


Mr. Swett,

Well, I have no reason not to believe them. But what does that have to do with anything? If you are claiming that Blue Monk altered the video, post your version and show us all where he tricked it.

While I believe that Barb saw the broadcast tape on professional equipment and reported what she saw, it doesn't really make a difference. It is YOU, Mr. Swett, who has to convince people. And you have done quite a poor job of it.

I notice that you have ignored my other questions. Please answer them, as you asked me if I had any more.

Also, despite you telling me that you do not care what I think, my quote still appears in your signature. Please remove it. At this point, I can only conclude that it is there to annoy or spite me. Are you really that petty?

Keeping the thread needlessly alive,
Thanz

Hi Thanz:

What kind of trauma you have with that quote you wrote?

Look to this quotes by Patricio Elicer( maybe was inspired in yours) :

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer 09/05/02

a)"Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the event .Comment: according to his e-mail response this is true."

b)" Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer.But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies"

Those are almost your same words, but I will remove your quote when you are man enough(or woman enough) to agree that is a truth this quote:
" a video on the internet IS NOT likely to be of broadcast quality? "

The corrsect answer is NO; IT IS NOT.

Don't put me what "you THINK" .When you posted the quote in my sig you were SURE.

Didn't I already answer YOUR 5 questions?
Post them again, I AM SURE I already answered.

Thanks,
S&S

[CurtC]

S&S wrote:
Remember I send my referential tape to the JREF in the same package with my notarized application and the letter to James Randi.
The challenge was to the JREF.Every once in a while, we're able to chip away at Carlos's facade of idiocy. Here's another opportunity.

Carlos, it is not up to the JREF to disprove your claim. Do you understand that? It is up to you to prove it, and if you're not able to prove it, then you don't get the money. You have sent a video tape of something moving, but it's blurred. We have shown that the something is entirely consistent with its being a bird. We, or the JREF, don't have to prove that it's a bird. You have to prove that the something is paranormal. Further, to win the million dollars, you would have to show that your application meets the requirements of the JREF challenge.

Originally posted by CurtC
Every once in a while, we're able to chip away at Carlos's facade of idiocy. Here's another opportunity.

Carlos, it is not up to the JREF to disprove your claim. Do you understand that? It is up to you to prove it, and if you're not able to prove it, then you don't get the money. You have sent a video tape of something moving, but it's blurred. We have shown that the something is entirely consistent with its being a bird. We, or the JREF, don't have to prove that it's a bird. You have to prove that the something is paranormal. Further, to win the million dollars, you would have to show that your application meets the requirements of the JREF challenge.

Hi curtC:

Welcome again.

The reasons are at my notarized application. That's why Harter studied the video frame by frame at internet.Not the way I did it.

I have also some words in some quotes from you, I remeber now you said was another "expert" in videos.

Just wait , you will find your regrets too.I want to change my sig.

Thanks,

S&S

[rwald]

Originally posted by S&S
Remember I send my referential tape to the JREF in the same package with my notarized application and the letter to James Randi.

Hmm. Maybe I should have been a little more general. You see, while it is true that no amount of text will ever constitute proof, it is also true that one video will never constitute proof. Period. Under no circumstances does one video constitute proof. In science, if you are trying to support your burden of proof, one video alone will not suffice. If you had a second video suggesting that your claim was real, then maybe more of us would actually go and look at the video. But as it is, one video does not constitute proof of anything.

S&S: But rwald, you're all believers in Blue Monk's video!!! You never proved it was a bird!!! (note: I'm not saying this is a quote from Carlos. I'm saying this is what Carlos's response to this post will be.)

You see, Blue Monk doesn't need to prove anything. You have the burden of proof. You need to do the proving. All Blue Monk has done has been trying to maybe, make you see the errors of your way. Or maybe he just wants to make sure no one else is fooled by your inane theory. In any event, Blue Monk doesn't need to prove anything. You do.

Originally posted by S&S
You already saw some links of the shot where you can not produce the frame of "the bird or whatever" at the right side of the hole of the north tower.

*yawn* The bird is visible to the right of the tower. I posted a picture of the bird to the right of the tower. If you want, I'll re-post the picture.

And don't say, "But so-and-so said that it's hard to see!" Yes, if you look only at the still, it can be somewhat hard to see. But if you look at the video, or at an animated GIF, it's plain to see. That's what my picture is: An animated GIF. And it's plain to see.

And I specifically forbid you from quoting any part of that paragraph without quoting the whole thing. If you only quote, "Yes, if you look only at the still, it can be somewhat hard to see," then you are officially taking my quote out of context. You will no longer be able to deny that fact.

Anyway, that's all for now. I'm sure I'll be responding to you soon.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Thanz:

What kind of trauma you have with that quote you wrote?

Look to this quotes by Patricio Elicer( maybe was inspired in yours) :

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer 09/05/02

a)"Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the event .Comment: according to his e-mail response this is true."

b)" Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer.But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies"

Those are almost your same words, but I will remove your quote when you are man enough(or woman enough) to agree that is a truth this quote:
" a video on the internet IS NOT likely to be of broadcast quality? "

The corrsect answer is NO; IT IS NOT.

Don't put me what "you THINK" .When you posted the quote in my sig you were SURE.

Didn't I already answer YOUR 5 questions?
Post them again, I AM SURE I already answered.

Thanks,
S&S

Mr. Swett,

I assure you, I am undergoing no "trauma". I asked you to remove the quote because I do not agree with your position, and I don't want people to be misled into thinking that I do by reading your posts.

Why do you think I was "sure" at the time I made my first post to this thread? If anything, I was less sure of what the truth of your situatiion is. But, you don't seem to understand that, so here goes. I am sure of the following things. I hope this clears things up for you:

I am sure that videos on the internet are not likely to be of broadcast quality.

I am sure that internet videos can be of a sufficient quality for certain purposes.

I am sure that the video posted by Blue Monk on the Internet shows that the object is in every frame, and does not enter the building as you claim.

I am sure that a video on the internet that shows the object in every frame is sufficient to disprove your claim.

I am sure that Andrew's investigation was not "pretty dodgy".

I am sure that no other video I have seen of the events of September 11 shows the object that you claim enters the tower.

I am sure that you are not entitled to win the JREF challenge.

I am sure that there is nothing paranormal about the tape you presented to the JREF.



As to the questions, you did not provide an adequate answer to them. Look at my second post on page 31 for my response to what you call 'answers' and my questions that respond to them. I would appreciate an answer to those questions, and please remove any quotes from me in your signature.

I am sure that videos on the internet are not likely to be of broadcast quality.

I am sure that internet videos can be of a sufficient quality for certain purposes



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.

Originally posted by rwald

Hmm. Maybe I should have been a little more general. You see, while it is true that no amount of text will ever constitute proof, it is also true that one video will never constitute proof. Period. Under no circumstances does one video constitute proof. In science, if you are trying to support your burden of proof, one video alone will not suffice. If you had a second video suggesting that your claim was real, then maybe more of us would actually go and look at the video. But as it is, one video does not constitute proof of anything.

S&S: But rwald, you're all believers in Blue Monk's video!!! You never proved it was a bird!!! (note: I'm not saying this is a quote from Carlos. I'm saying this is what Carlos's response to this post will be.)

You see, Blue Monk doesn't need to prove anything. You have the burden of proof. You need to do the proving. All Blue Monk has done has been trying to maybe, make you see the errors of your way. Or maybe he just wants to make sure no one else is fooled by your inane theory. In any event, Blue Monk doesn't need to prove anything. You do.


*yawn* The bird is visible to the right of the tower. I posted a picture of the bird to the right of the tower. If you want, I'll re-post the picture.

And don't say, "But so-and-so said that it's hard to see!" Yes, if you look only at the still, it can be somewhat hard to see. But if you look at the video, or at an animated GIF, it's plain to see. That's what my picture is: An animated GIF. And it's plain to see.

And I specifically forbid you from quoting any part of that paragraph without quoting the whole thing. If you only quote, "Yes, if you look only at the still, it can be somewhat hard to see," then you are officially taking my quote out of context. You will no longer be able to deny that fact.

Anyway, that's all for now. I'm sure I'll be responding to you soon.

Hi Rwald,

Yes the animated GIF you are refering is the Blue Monk's digitized version, I mean the one he produced.That means that YOU beleive in that version.

But remember in all the GIFS you had before was impossible to ALL of YOU to be so sure, you were not able to produce the frames that are the reason of my explanation of why is not a bird or an insect.(is on my notarized application)

If you think you have powers to predict my words , go challenge Randi.

If you beleive that is a bird is just your poor opinion,I don't care, my point is that you beleive in Blue Monk's digitized version.

My point is that Andrew Harter studied an unknown video on internet to give me his poor answer based in that poor method (dodgy) .
And He with the aprooval of James Randi were representing the JREF.

You can see also that Dr. Hal Bidlack (closer friend of them and his representant in this thread) never said that my application was not true and received, also he never said that the e.mails I received from Harter and Randi are tricked or edited.That's all I have.

Anyway it was a live transmission, focused in another tragic incident.

Does this kind of special video live EVENT constitutes a proof? why not?

Thanks,

S&S

[rwald]

Originally predicted by rwald
But rwald, you're all believers in Blue Monk's video!!!
Originally posted by S&S
That means that YOU beleive in that version.
Wow! Maybe I should send an application in to Randi! Of course, he would probably tell me that he's made hundreds of similar predictions himself, and does not believe that my powers are paranormal. Oh well. I'll have to make a million dollars some other way.

Originally posted by S&S
But remember in all the GIFS you had before was impossible to ALL of YOU to be so sure, you were not able to produce the frames that are the reason of my explanation of why is not a bird or an insect.(is on my notarized application)

Hmm. That's odd. First of all, the bird is clearly visible in all of the GIFs. You claimed that there were missing frames, and that the bird was not visible in the missing frames. Eventually, we agreed that there were missing frames, and then Blue Monk went out and found them. And as soon as we found the frames, we saw that the bird is visible in all the frames, including the ones absent from the GIF. So what does Carlos do? He accuses Blue Monk of faking the missing frames.

Carlos, for the nth time, you can't just say, "It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence." All videos are assumed to be un-doctored until it has been proven otherwise. Until you prove that Blue Monk faked his shots, you can't assume that they were faked. The only way for you to prove this is to show us the real shots, and the show us how Blue Monk's are different from them. Just saying, "They're faked!!!" isn't proof.

And the negative filter proves nothing. As anyone with a brain could tell.

[Regnad Kcin]

Wow. Imagine this fella talking about the Zapruder film!

:eek:

Originally posted by rwald



Carlos, for the nth time, you can't just say, "It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence." All videos are assumed to be un-doctored until it has been proven otherwise. Until you prove that Blue Monk faked his shots, you can't assume that they were faked. The only way for you to prove this is to show us the real shots, and the show us how Blue Monk's are different from them. Just saying, "They're faked!!!" isn't proof.

And the negative filter proves nothing. As anyone with a brain could tell.

Hi Rwald.


Now you are beginning to understand (and think as an skeptic)when you posted this >"It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence."

But if you do what I told JREF or what I did , you will be SURE as I am.

thanks,
S&S

[davidhorman]

Now you are beginning to understand (and think as an skeptic)when you posted this >"It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence."

Does context mean nothing to you Carlos? This is sheer misrepresentation and dishonesty. What he said was:

you can't just say, "It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence."

BlueMonk's frames stand as evidence until you can provide evidence that they are faked. Which, I suspect, you can't.

David

[Dr. Imago]

PLEASE... LET... THIS... DIE!

Originally posted by davidhorman


Does context mean nothing to you Carlos? This is sheer misrepresentation and dishonesty. What he said was:



BlueMonk's frames stand as evidence until you can provide evidence that they are faked. Which, I suspect, you can't.

David

Hi David:

I don't say :"It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence.". Those are words put by Rwald.

I say it is his digitized tricky version. I say that is not the correct method to analyze the tape..

And you know that, you are the technician that also helped those members before about the difference between internet videos and broadcast tapes.

If you beleive in Blue Monk's version is your fault , not mine.
You are the skeptic. I am just skeptic of skeptics.
I did the analysis also of Blue Monks version, you can do it if you want.

Thanks,
S&S

[davidhorman]

I don't say :"It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence.". Those are words put by Rwald.

Perhaps it's because English is not your first language, but I think you're just being deliberately obtuse here.

While pedantically speaking rwald did use that words in a post of his, his meaning was entirely different. This is only clear if you quote the text with it's original context, in this case:

you can't just say, "It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence."

Do you really not the see the difference? It's a question of context. If you had said, at some time in your life:

"I disagree that the people who lost their lives on 9/11 deserved to die."

and then I came along and quoted you as saying:

"The people who lost their lives on 9/11 deserved to die."

..I think you'd be quite upset with me, and rightly so.

To quote rwald like that is either dishonest, idiotic, or both.

David

[rwald]

Wait. Carlos, you're posting my words as though I originally meant them seriously? I don't care if English isn't your first language, anyone could tell from the sentence:Carlos, for the nth time, you can't just say, "It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence." All videos are assumed to be un-doctored until it has been proven otherwise.that I do not think saying "It's possible, so we can't use it at all" is correct. Carlos, all videos are assumed to be not doctored until proven otherwise. You must prove that Blue Monk faked his videos. If you actually believe that I believe otherwise, you're a bigger fool than I thought (and that's saying something).

Originally posted by rwald
Wait. Carlos, you're posting my words as though I originally meant them seriously? I don't care if English isn't your first language, anyone could tell from the sentence:that I do not think saying "It's possible, so we can't use it at all" is correct. Carlos, all videos are assumed to be not doctored until proven otherwise. You must prove that Blue Monk faked his videos. If you actually believe that I believe otherwise, you're a bigger fool than I thought (and that's saying something).

Hi Rwald:

Now you can see what missunderstandings can you cause when you try to put or asume quotes I will or I never said . Even you are confused.

I always said that you saw a Blue Monk's digitized version with some arrangements to fool you all. You are in your right to beleive in that version , I am clear enough of what I did before, JREF have in tape what method I did, you have the e-mails that JREF gave me as the answer where they explained how they analyzed some other (?) video on internet. I am clear enough.
Just try to act as a really skeptic , or you are a beleiver?

No regrets like you.
Or maybe your king kong is still dancing in front of the towers.

Thanks,
S&S

[alfaniner]

Now you're joking about a national tragedy where thousands of people died.

Drop this, you sick fu ck!

Originally posted by alfaniner
Now you're joking about a national tragedy where thousands of people died.

Drop this, you sick fu ck!

ALFANINER:

I was just refering to Rwald´s stupidity.(another video version)

Why YOU or anybody here didn't say nothing when this "stupid" member posted this?:Originally posted by Rwald 09/15/02

"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."
And here is the video of that "joke":
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

--------------------------------------------------
After that stupid "joke " I WAS the ONLY member who protested.

Originally posted by S&S 09/15/02

Hi rwald:
I am a little dissapointed of you. All your questions or interpretations you made me before are already answered and solved, but this thing you are posting here puts you in the same category of the brainless clowns that are before you, lyke thatguy and the scotch.

If you don't have more arguments lyke the rest of clowns to defeat the reality of my true notarized application to the challenge and a poor answer from the JREF, please stay in silence, too. It is better.

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.

I protest myself in name of the more of 30 ecuadorians that were working in the towers and died , and I protest in name of all the victims of the stupidity (past , present and future) . Please don`t put yourself in that side. I hope you were a little "high" when you did it.

It is time , as I said before, to open your mouth "Amazing Randi and Amazing Harter", besides only I know that those e-mails between us are true. The rest of the members and guess of this thread have the right to think the e-mails are edited.

Your members of this forum , Mr. Randi, want your help, they can`t defeat me , have no more reasons, and are transforming the JREF forum in a circus. Fire the clowns.
_______________________________________________

So ALFANINER the joke about king kong is not mine , I was just refering to Rwald about another tricked video

Thanks.
S&S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rwald
I would like to know what I could do to be less of a clown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brown in Rwald's poll and like an answer to his question:
"For starters, stop wearing those red size-22 shoes. And get some pants that fit, for God's sake.

Just trying to help."


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

There are more "skeptic members" that used my name to create their "special polls". Poor members , hit by the boomerang.
Also Dr. Hal Bidlack didn't resist the "temptation".

Thanks,
S&S

Is time to change my signature.

Thanz , I was thinking on you on this Thanksgiving Day, so I will remove your quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rwald

"It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence."
And the negative filter proves nothing. As anyone with a brain could tell.

Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rwald

"It's possible that Blue Monk's videos are faked, therefore we can't use them as evidence."
And the negative filter proves nothing. As anyone with a brain could tell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now that in this thread positions are clear enough :

A) The beleivers in Blue Monk's digitized version of the video that "clearly" (?) shows that is a "bird". I must respect those kind of beleivers.

B) My position (supported by latinijral) that I made an application to the challenge of JREF and received a poor answer by Andrew Harter (with the aprooval of James Randi) based in the dodgy method of analyzing an unknown video of the internet instead of a broadcast tape (like I did and they have the tape of my analysis).

I am just waiting for the "results" of another "scientific method" to view the video at the thread : "The Swett Video Survey" by Charlie of Dayton.
Since it has be a "rule" in this forum to create polls or threads with my name on it, I am just pointing now that I never (I am not sureif latin did) párticipated on those "dishonest" polls with my vote. I am just an observer of the results .
But I "think" Charlie of Dayton must put the names of the participants on his "survey" . He posted this :"The results we have when I check in tomorrow afternoon will be collated and posted (no names) by the end of the week."

Why should that be anonimous? Maybe he is afraid that in that list appears the same "smart members"?
Charlie at least put if latin or I participated.
Or think about what Whodini "predicted"( like Sylvia Browne) :

Originally posted by Whodini at the "swett video survey"11/12/02

"Prediction:

The survey will be anti- Swett's findings.

My opinion - Swett could possibly put forth the theory that there is some JREF conspiracy against his earth shattering findings.

We'll see. "


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

What's the matter with you members of an SKEPTIC FORUM ?
Are you all bad pupils of your master teacher?

Latinijral , what do you "think" about this?

Thanks,
S&S

P. S.

In the others polls (even Dr. Bidlack ) the results were "amazing" since I didn't vote.

Dr.Bidlack :"Lock threads that have become, in the opinion of the moderators, stale and unproductive (e.g., the 29 page Swett thread)" Result: position #4 even that was the only "idea" with a name on it.
Lock thread ? Very suspicious, or afraid?

Also "that guy"and Rwald had their own polls. There were just anothers losers. I will coment about them in the future.

Originally posted by S&amp;S



P. S.

In the others polls (even Dr. Bidlack ) the results were "amazing" since I didn't vote.

Dr.Bidlack :"Lock threads that have become, in the opinion of the moderators, stale and unproductive (e.g., the 29 page Swett thread)" Result: position #4 even that was the only "idea" with a name on it.
Lock thread ? Very suspicious, or afraid?

Also "that guy"and Rwald had their own polls. There were just anothers losers. I will coment about them in the future.

It only past 10 minutes. I saw Dr. Hal Bidlack in "who's on line"

Hey Dr. Hal Bidlack : Bumping your poll now after my last quote? Your poll was death at 11/23/02.

Now you want the supports of the clowns?

Be honest enough, Why do you want to lock it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andalyn


Why? I'm not a big fan of the "Carlos Swett Affair" thread, but why lock people from posting on it?

Two things come to mind here:

1. Automatically locking threads will just make people create new threads. More threads will be dedicated to the same topic.

2. Threads such as the "Swett Affair" do not seem to be cause for concern when it comes to schools, librarys, etc.

Why lock the thread? What harm is it or others causing, just by their length?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by
RichardR
I agree 100%


__________________-----------------------------------



Why don't you just tell your close friend James Randi to write about it : my application and the answer they gave me.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Now that in this thread positions are clear enough :

A) The beleivers in Blue Monk's digitized version of the video that "clearly" (?) shows that is a "bird". I must respect those kind of beleivers.

B) My position (supported by latinijral) that I made an application to the challenge of JREF and received a poor answer by Andrew Harter (with the aprooval of James Randi) based in the dodgy method of analyzing an unknown video of the internet instead of a broadcast tape (like I did and they have the tape of my analysis).

I am just waiting for the "results" of another "scientific method" to view the video at the thread : "The Swett Video Survey" by Charlie of Dayton.
Since it has be a "rule" in this forum to create polls or threads with my name on it, I am just pointing now that I never (I am not sureif latin did) párticipated on those "dishonest" polls with my vote. I am just an observer of the results .
But I "think" Charlie of Dayton must put the names of the participants on his "survey" . He posted this :"The results we have when I check in tomorrow afternoon will be collated and posted (no names) by the end of the week."

Why should that be anonimous? Maybe he is afraid that in that list appears the same "smart members"?
Charlie at least put if latin or I participated.
Or think about what Whodini "predicted"( like Sylvia Browne) :

Originally posted by Whodini at the "swett video survey"11/12/02

"Prediction:

The survey will be anti- Swett's findings.

My opinion - Swett could possibly put forth the theory that there is some JREF conspiracy against his earth shattering findings.

We'll see. "


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

What's the matter with you members of an SKEPTIC FORUM ?
Are you all bad pupils of your master teacher?

Latinijral , what do you "think" about this?

Thanks,
S&S

P. S.

In the others polls (even Dr. Bidlack ) the results were "amazing" since I didn't vote.

Dr.Bidlack :"Lock threads that have become, in the opinion of the moderators, stale and unproductive (e.g., the 29 page Swett thread)" Result: position #4 even that was the only "idea" with a name on it.
Lock thread ? Very suspicious, or afraid?

Also "that guy"and Rwald had their own polls. There were just anothers losers. I will coment about them in the future.

Latinijral , what do you "think" about this?

Well Carlos, about your question I am sure that all this members of the forum are almost only fans of James Randi.
They are not really skeptics, as we inicially thought.
They are only a bunch of believers and liars. Even Randi`s voice (Bid Lack ) is full of contradictions.....poor skeptic.


Carlos, do you remember "Beavis and Butthead" at msn skeptics forum???