The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

JUST IN CASE

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.

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

 

[Wyrd1]

Another question

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

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

 

[Wyrd1]

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

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandiALiar

For more entertaining pics

 

[Guest]

The color of the object is dark.

The smoke is dark.

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

IS NOT 4 , THE ANSWER IS 22

The color of the object is dark.

The smoke is dark.

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

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

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

H
i Whodini :

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

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

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

As you can see is already explained .

Yes Whoudini, try again.

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

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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


He is just too clever that S&S is!

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


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


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

That could be paranormal, right S&S?

 

[Guest]

Nice picture Latin. I may not have mentioned this before

Yes, I know that.

 

[Guest]

WHY RANDI`S POPE???

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

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

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

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

What kind of Skeptic are you?
Why Randi`s Pope?

 

[Blue Monk]

latinijral


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

</A>

 

[Guest]

JUMPING TOWER

latinijral


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

</A>

Hi Blue Monk :

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

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

Thanks,
S&S

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

 

[Blue Monk]

Re: JUMPING TOWER

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

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

</A>
</center>
<hr>

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

</A>



Nice try.



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



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

 

[Guest]

Blue Monk,

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

THE "JUMPING TOWER"

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

</A>
</center>
<hr>

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

</A>



Nice try.



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



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

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

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

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

Keep on trying.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[CurtC]

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

No, Carlos, *we* are waiting on *you*. You claim to have a video showing the thing making its way across the screen without gaps, and you need to post it. Our claim is that the video has gaps, so we don't expect to see the bird just to the right of the hole. You see, the pictures posted so far, all of them, support our point of view. You claim to have more, but you won't post them. Why?

 

[Blue Monk]

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





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.



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

<hr>
<center>




Is this the area in question?

</center>



No I can't produce that image.



It is between frames.



I know that has significance to you but as the CNN clip clearly shows this specific frame is not the only way to disprove your theory.



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



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

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



All I know is he got it right. Your theory is nonsense.



One question...

<center>

</center>


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




Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo.

Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used.

 

[Tesserat]

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

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

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

 

[Hellbound]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Peter S.]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CurtC]

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

Anyone?