The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

NICE TRY

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

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

Hi Baker:

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

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

I wrote this part also:


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

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

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

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

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

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

 

[Guest]

RWALD; RWALD; RWALD

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

Rwald:

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

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

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

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Peter S.]

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

A while ago I posted this on a Bethke thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for my english, we can still be friends.

Thanks,

Carlos Swett (S&S)

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

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

 

[subgenius]

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

"Say something once, why say it again?"--David Byrne

 

[CurtC]

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

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

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

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

 

[Patricio Elicer]

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

All this technical stuff does not matter in my opinion, since the "paranormal activity" is clearly seen flapping its wings in the last part of the clip

 

[Wyrd1]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tesserat]

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

Who were the people who shot the footage working for?

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

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

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

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

thanks

 

[Purple Tentacle]

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

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

THIS CASE IS CLOSED !!!

 

[subgenius]

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

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

THIS CASE IS CLOSED !!!

Wanna bet it makes no difference to him?
I'll bet a nickel.

 

[subgenius]

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

 

[Blue Monk]

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

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

 

[Blue Monk]

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

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

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





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



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


<hr>



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



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



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



answer: He did exactly what he should have.



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



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



One thing I know for a fact.



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



More answers concerning the method Harter used are here. Proof Carlos' claim is false is here.



More answers are on their way.

 

[Guest]

ANOTHER LOSER

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

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

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





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



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


<hr>



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



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



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



answer: He did exactly what he should have.



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



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



One thing I know for a fact.



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



More answers concerning the method Harter used are here. Proof Carlos' claim is false is here.



More answers are on their way.

Hi Blue Monk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
S&S


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

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

 

[Guest]

What kind of object can ignore the laws of physics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

S&S

 

[rwald]

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

 

[Guest]

WHAT KIND OF PARANORMAL?

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

Hi Rwald:

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

You are curious , that is good.

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

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

Can the "form" also be paranormal?

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Purple Tentacle]

you avoid the real proof carlos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIS CASE IS CLOSED !!!

 

[Peter S.]

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

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

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

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

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

...I prefer the frontals...

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

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

Sheesh