The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

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

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



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



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

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

Sheesh

Peter S:

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

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have offered no proof of anyone lying to you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No I am providing ALL of the available evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I did and if anyone wants to view it, it can be done from here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet you will no doubt keep asking it.

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

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

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

I just did.

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

No I didn't. I proved that there is nothing going into either tower. The proof is facts.

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

The facts speak for themselves.

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

Want to ignore the facts? Be my guest. But you can bet no one else will. Especially when it is so easy to present the truth by simply saying look proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll make it available.

Carlos' Notarized Application

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

Current links:

Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo is right here
My answers concerning Harter's method is right here

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

 

[Peter S.]

Peter S:

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

Thanks,

S&S

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

 

[Guest]

YOUR EFFORT DESERVES A PRIZE

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

You have offered no proof of anyone lying to you.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

But of course I think his method was proper.

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

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

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


.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

S&S

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

 

[rwald]

Re: YOUR EFFORT DESERVES A PRIZE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What, you want the object in front of both towers at once? Well, anyway, I've already posted pictures of when the object was in front of the right/rear tower here:

so I don't know what you're complaining about. Oh, and the reason why I can't post an image of the object immediately to the right or left of where it is in this image is because when you video a moving object, there are gaps between the frames. You claim that in your higher-quality version, there are no gaps, and yet the object still isn't in front of the tower to the left and right of the smoke cloud. Could you digitize that for us to see? Yes, it would reduce the quality, but surely you could keep the frame rate, which is what matters for this test.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, to paraphrase Blue Monk, "If you agree that the object never disappears, and can be seen in all frames, why do you believe that it passes through the building, instead of in front of it?"

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

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

You're confused over this particular aspect of the skeptical mind. The skeptical mind says, "All the evidence points to a bird, but because the evidence is incomplete, I cannot rule out the possibility of, say, an insect, or a piece of flying debris." The credulous (believer) mind says, "I think it might be a paranormal object, and some inconclusive evidence can be interpreted to support me, so I'm going to deny the possibility that I could in any way be wrong." You see? Just because we're not absoluty certain about everything does not mean we think you might be right; it just means we're making a fairer analysis of the evidence. So stop trying to use this against us.

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

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

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

Supernatural = Paranormal. And I've already discussed image gaps; see that site I mentioned before.

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

What are you complaining about here? Do you want Blue Monk to somehow analyze the tape that you sent to Andrew, even though Blue Monk doesn't have a copy of this tape? And Blue Monk, I, and others have analyzed the second shot at the Triple GIF Compare site. So, could you clarify your complaint here?

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

I've already explained that image gap makes this impossible. See above.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

S&S

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

The investigation didn't fail. We've answered all your claims, even if you deny understanding why we're right. The only thing we've "failed" to do is explain to you why you're wrong. I'm sad to say I do not think we will ever succeed at that. Oh well.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Re: YOUR EFFORT DESERVES A PRIZE

Only the fools with no arguments of this thread are claiming : "IS A BIRD ; IS A BIRD"

I can discern its flapping wings in the last part of the movie. That's an argument, isn't it?

 

[subgenius]

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

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

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

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

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

Notarized Application

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

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

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

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

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


Signed: Carlos Swett Salas

Translation courtesy of http://asksnoop.com/

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

 

[Sauron]

To Twist the Knife

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

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

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

 

[Skeptoid]

Re: To Twist the Knife

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

I don't have photoshop to do this, can you post the most relevant frame(s)?

 

[subgenius]

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

Heh, heh...you said penal....

 

[Patricio Elicer]

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

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

 

[subgenius]

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

TRY AGAIN

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

Hi Sauron:

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

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

Try again. or join the jockers.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Wyrd1]

Sweet B ignoramusin me

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skeptoid]

Yes, is in front of the tower (1) when the object gets in trough the hole of that tower.I already said that.

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

Case closed.

 

[Guest]

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

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

 

[rwald]

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

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

 

[CurtC]

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

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

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

 

[rwald]

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