The "Carlos Swett affair"
- Thread starter Patricio Elicer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carlos swett
- Status
Guest
Unregistered
G
and this trheat to us lazy ones
what in nuts we will learn about that
what in nuts we will learn about that
CurtC
Illuminator
I think the images at that site were not of two different cameras, but were pulled out of the same camera, and for some reason the digitization process got only every other frame. So they did it again, with the other set, from the same camera. If another set of images exists from this same video camera that Carlos is talking about, it could help him make his point.
I've e-mailed the person who wrote that page, asking for more information. I'll keep you posted.
I've e-mailed the person who wrote that page, asking for more information. I'll keep you posted.
Blue Monk
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 1,769
<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>
Well for me the whole point is that this only relates to Harter’s response and we do not have enough information to judge.
If Carlos would simply provide the evidence that he and he alone has we could decide.
If his tape shows that object cannot be seen at that key location then I would have absolutely no problem in assuming that Harter clearly did not understand Carlos’ application, something I find real easy to believe or he wouldn’t have phrased it the way he did.
But if I saw the clip Harter used and the object was present at that spot then his phrasing makes perfect sense.
Only Carlos has the power to provide proof and he won’t do it. If what he says is true then he should simply provide the proof and we can settle at least this one petty little beef once and for all.
I believe Carlos’ only interest in this angle is to keep people talking about his stupid tape to give the illusion that it could have merit as a paranormal event which the CNN proves beyond all doubt is simply not true.
But the fact remains that when Carlos sent in that tape no one at JREF was under any obligation to follow his and only his procedures or use his and only his standards for testing. Regardless of exactly how Harter came to his conclusions it is clear they were superior to Carlos’ method as he arrived at the truth and Carlos didn’t.
If Carlos believes Harter was incorrect in his reply and if Carlos has the proof then Carlos should show it.
None of that will ever change the fact that Carlos’ theory is false. Harter recognized this and threw his tape in the trash.
<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>
Well for me the whole point is that this only relates to Harter’s response and we do not have enough information to judge.
If Carlos would simply provide the evidence that he and he alone has we could decide.
If his tape shows that object cannot be seen at that key location then I would have absolutely no problem in assuming that Harter clearly did not understand Carlos’ application, something I find real easy to believe or he wouldn’t have phrased it the way he did.
But if I saw the clip Harter used and the object was present at that spot then his phrasing makes perfect sense.
Only Carlos has the power to provide proof and he won’t do it. If what he says is true then he should simply provide the proof and we can settle at least this one petty little beef once and for all.
I believe Carlos’ only interest in this angle is to keep people talking about his stupid tape to give the illusion that it could have merit as a paranormal event which the CNN proves beyond all doubt is simply not true.
But the fact remains that when Carlos sent in that tape no one at JREF was under any obligation to follow his and only his procedures or use his and only his standards for testing. Regardless of exactly how Harter came to his conclusions it is clear they were superior to Carlos’ method as he arrived at the truth and Carlos didn’t.
If Carlos believes Harter was incorrect in his reply and if Carlos has the proof then Carlos should show it.
None of that will ever change the fact that Carlos’ theory is false. Harter recognized this and threw his tape in the trash.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Guest
Unregistered
G
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW , BUT YOUR EFFORTS ARE WELCOME
Hi Blue Monk:
You can put millions of links to your "investigation" , but you still have nothing.
You also "forgot" this : To post the picture of the "probably bird " in font of THE TOWERS (plural) like Harter said in his poor answer.
Are you having troubles with frames?
I alredy told members the way to do a correct analysis, just use proffesional equipments.
You are not only fooling yourself , you are fooling others: Huntsman wrote this:"In any case, I feel confident with Blue Monk's excellent evaluation. The image produced from the seperate frames merged into one clip clearly shows the flapping motion of the wings. I believe the question is settled."
Yes that trick of the white part jumping from right to left or left to right can fool that kind of members , but not me, and you know that.
So you can not produce those 2 images : the "bird" in front of THE TOWERS and the image after "the bird" entered in the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower.
So you have nothing and You don't know nothing.
You are just full of links with assumptions and mistakes like Harter and Randi.
But your efforts will be always welcome.
Thanks,
S&S
Blue Monk said:<
Is this the area in question?
</center>
No I can't produce that image.
It is between frames.
I have no problem believing Harter was smart enough to know how far to look into your matter. And let's not forget that regardless his method he was
A>.
So the only thing left is your beef with Harters response.
<UL>
<LI>I don't know if he understood your application.
[*]I don't know what clip he is refering to.
<LI>I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.
Hi Blue Monk:
You can put millions of links to your "investigation" , but you still have nothing.
You also "forgot" this : To post the picture of the "probably bird " in font of THE TOWERS (plural) like Harter said in his poor answer.
Are you having troubles with frames?
I alredy told members the way to do a correct analysis, just use proffesional equipments.
You are not only fooling yourself , you are fooling others: Huntsman wrote this:"In any case, I feel confident with Blue Monk's excellent evaluation. The image produced from the seperate frames merged into one clip clearly shows the flapping motion of the wings. I believe the question is settled."
Yes that trick of the white part jumping from right to left or left to right can fool that kind of members , but not me, and you know that.
So you can not produce those 2 images : the "bird" in front of THE TOWERS and the image after "the bird" entered in the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower.
So you have nothing and You don't know nothing.
You are just full of links with assumptions and mistakes like Harter and Randi.
But your efforts will be always welcome.
Thanks,
S&S
Carlos, you wrote
It doesn't matter if you watch a very fancy TV in a recording studio with a 3/4 inch Betacam playback, or on a small black and white TV with a VHS recorder, the frame rate is exactly the same, 29.97 frames per second. It's a built in standard in north america, called NTSC. So you will not see more frames in a studio than you will on a VHS tape taped off of the TV signal. If you convert it to a form that you can post on the internet, it's very easy to keep the same frame rate. All the videos that Blue Monk posted are at the correct frame rate. I checked. So there is nothing missing on them.
At full digital quality, a three second clip would take 10 MB, not too unreasonable for the web.
It doesn't matter if you watch a very fancy TV in a recording studio with a 3/4 inch Betacam playback, or on a small black and white TV with a VHS recorder, the frame rate is exactly the same, 29.97 frames per second. It's a built in standard in north america, called NTSC. So you will not see more frames in a studio than you will on a VHS tape taped off of the TV signal. If you convert it to a form that you can post on the internet, it's very easy to keep the same frame rate. All the videos that Blue Monk posted are at the correct frame rate. I checked. So there is nothing missing on them.
At full digital quality, a three second clip would take 10 MB, not too unreasonable for the web.
Blue Monk
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 1,769
<center>
Proof Carlos' Theory is False
The proof is here.
</center>
<hr>
Not so. I have a video clip that proves your theory false. It does not confuse anyone. Anyone who views the CNN tape can clearly see that there is no large dark object passing through or anywhere near either tower. You're not going to tell me you see the object on the CNN tape are you?
Proof does not rely on the opinion or belief of the observer. It either is or it isn't. In your case it isn't. Anyone can see that your object is not on the CNN tape. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
Your theory is nonsense.
And so onto your petty little beef.
I didn't forget. I don't have it.
The part your talking about is between frames.
I'm not.
You apparantly are having a hard time producing the frames that supposedly support your petty little grip against JREF. I have no way of knowing if those frames even exist.
You say they do and that they support your argument so I guess were just waiting for you to show us.
I won't hold my breath.
But your analysis was obviously not the correct way to do it. You came up with the wrong answer. Harter got it right.
<center>
</center>
Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird.
But if anyone is still unsure they can simply repeat my process themselves. What? You don't know where the stills are. No problem, they're right here. While your there be sure to check out the CNN stills also that prove there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
No, they are between frames. You know, Carlos, that really isn't that hard to understand. If your copy shows this then by all means post it. We'd love to see it.
If you're talking about your beef with JREF then no I don't have anything.
I don't know what clip he used.
I don't know if he understood your application.
I don't know if what he saw matched his description.
If you would post your tape that would shed light on this.
If you're talking about proving your theory false then sure I do. I have a video clip that shows the exact area in question at the exact moment and anyone who views that clip, no matter what they believe, sees exactly the same thing. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
Your theory is nonsense.
If I've made any mistakes please point them out.
But my links are the answers you insisted I answer. "Why won't you answer my question?", "What are you afraid of?"
We have a bet, remember?
Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo.
Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used.
I'm still working on all of your questions concerning your Application, I've answered some but there are still some I haven't answered.
Proof Carlos' Theory is False
The proof is here.
</center>
<hr>
Not so. I have a video clip that proves your theory false. It does not confuse anyone. Anyone who views the CNN tape can clearly see that there is no large dark object passing through or anywhere near either tower. You're not going to tell me you see the object on the CNN tape are you?
Proof does not rely on the opinion or belief of the observer. It either is or it isn't. In your case it isn't. Anyone can see that your object is not on the CNN tape. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
Your theory is nonsense.
And so onto your petty little beef.
I didn't forget. I don't have it.
The part your talking about is between frames.
I'm not.
You apparantly are having a hard time producing the frames that supposedly support your petty little grip against JREF. I have no way of knowing if those frames even exist.
You say they do and that they support your argument so I guess were just waiting for you to show us.
I won't hold my breath.
But your analysis was obviously not the correct way to do it. You came up with the wrong answer. Harter got it right.
<center>
Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird.
But if anyone is still unsure they can simply repeat my process themselves. What? You don't know where the stills are. No problem, they're right here. While your there be sure to check out the CNN stills also that prove there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
No, they are between frames. You know, Carlos, that really isn't that hard to understand. If your copy shows this then by all means post it. We'd love to see it.
If you're talking about your beef with JREF then no I don't have anything.
I don't know what clip he used.
I don't know if he understood your application.
I don't know if what he saw matched his description.
If you would post your tape that would shed light on this.
If you're talking about proving your theory false then sure I do. I have a video clip that shows the exact area in question at the exact moment and anyone who views that clip, no matter what they believe, sees exactly the same thing. There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.
Your theory is nonsense.
If I've made any mistakes please point them out.
But my links are the answers you insisted I answer. "Why won't you answer my question?", "What are you afraid of?"
We have a bet, remember?
Proof Carlos' theory is doo-doo.
Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used.
I'm still working on all of your questions concerning your Application, I've answered some but there are still some I haven't answered.
I'll ask again, what the heck.
Why doesn't the trajectory change? If the object passed through the tower's hole it would have had to shift at least 500 ft to it's left before leaving the 2nd hole. A change of 500ft given the angle of the video camera would have resulted in a very noticeable change in the flight path of the object. Why can't we see this happen?
You say you answer questions but you don't. Why should Harter or Randi answer your questions when you won't answer ours?
Why doesn't the trajectory change? If the object passed through the tower's hole it would have had to shift at least 500 ft to it's left before leaving the 2nd hole. A change of 500ft given the angle of the video camera would have resulted in a very noticeable change in the flight path of the object. Why can't we see this happen?
You say you answer questions but you don't. Why should Harter or Randi answer your questions when you won't answer ours?
Guest
Unregistered
G
TRICKY BLUE MONK
Hii Blue Monk:
Again nothing new, you have nothing , you don't know nothing.
All your arguments are based in a wrong shot. No Blue monk that shot is not the one I send in my application and is not the shot Harter "studied it frame by frame" to gave me his poor answer full of lies and mistakes.
Yes I saw that CNN tape , I also have that video recorded at home. But also your "probably bird" is not there.Yes there are some others birds there ,but with differents trajectories, not one corresponds to the one of the other shot.
Yes in that CNN video the birds are flapping wings.There are also anothers birds in almost all the views from different angles, even in the single shot that registered the first impact . But birds are free to fly.That doesn't prove nothing.
You made a little trick and you explained that this way: "Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird. "
Yes to fool people that is novice with images, but you know blue Monk that the efect is produced because of the LOOPED image, Why the white sideof the building side and the white side of the last frame are jumping right to left? Just because is a trick so in the union of the looped image you can see a line that reminds you a wing flapping.
I challenge you to put the same 5 frames at normal speed but NOT looped, and everyone can see the same that is on your first or second video , I mean in the shot I send to JREF and that Harter studied.Besides that trick is your only analysis of the shot in question. ?????
Your trick is just for the fools or your beleivers.
Yes , I know you don't have access to do a correct analysis of the shot, but remeber I did it, and it is supposed that JREF with Randi in his head have access to the tv media, to the 3/4 tapes and to the correct equipments.
But not, they(Randi and Harter) prefered the internet to fool you all, but not me.
Keep on with your working in all the questions, I am patient enough, time is on my side.
Now that I know you are really fans of internet , here is a link where your same bird is transformed in a missile, yes is the same shot I send to Randi (by Gamma press)
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
I found more links related but that will be a start.
I am not saying that I agree with that interpretation.
All I been claiming is that must be do the correct analysis of the shot.
I did it and Randi is still refuse to write about my application and their poor answer based in a poor test.
The charlatans are making speculations with that shot, and Randi's job is to say something about the charlatans.Or not?
Thanks,
S&S
Blue Monk said:
Hii Blue Monk:
Again nothing new, you have nothing , you don't know nothing.
All your arguments are based in a wrong shot. No Blue monk that shot is not the one I send in my application and is not the shot Harter "studied it frame by frame" to gave me his poor answer full of lies and mistakes.
Yes I saw that CNN tape , I also have that video recorded at home. But also your "probably bird" is not there.Yes there are some others birds there ,but with differents trajectories, not one corresponds to the one of the other shot.
Yes in that CNN video the birds are flapping wings.There are also anothers birds in almost all the views from different angles, even in the single shot that registered the first impact . But birds are free to fly.That doesn't prove nothing.
You made a little trick and you explained that this way: "Nonsense. That GIF was made from the last 5 frames where the object is visible and it is then looped. What people see is flapping. You know like a bird. "
Yes to fool people that is novice with images, but you know blue Monk that the efect is produced because of the LOOPED image, Why the white sideof the building side and the white side of the last frame are jumping right to left? Just because is a trick so in the union of the looped image you can see a line that reminds you a wing flapping.
I challenge you to put the same 5 frames at normal speed but NOT looped, and everyone can see the same that is on your first or second video , I mean in the shot I send to JREF and that Harter studied.Besides that trick is your only analysis of the shot in question. ?????
Your trick is just for the fools or your beleivers.
Yes , I know you don't have access to do a correct analysis of the shot, but remeber I did it, and it is supposed that JREF with Randi in his head have access to the tv media, to the 3/4 tapes and to the correct equipments.
But not, they(Randi and Harter) prefered the internet to fool you all, but not me.
Keep on with your working in all the questions, I am patient enough, time is on my side.
Now that I know you are really fans of internet , here is a link where your same bird is transformed in a missile, yes is the same shot I send to Randi (by Gamma press)
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
I found more links related but that will be a start.
I am not saying that I agree with that interpretation.
All I been claiming is that must be do the correct analysis of the shot.
I did it and Randi is still refuse to write about my application and their poor answer based in a poor test.
The charlatans are making speculations with that shot, and Randi's job is to say something about the charlatans.Or not?
Thanks,
S&S
Guest
Unregistered
G
ADOBE PHOTOSHOP 5.0
If you want to do an analysis of the image of the "bird or similar" follow the steps that are in this link:http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html
There is the analysis of the image of "the bird or simillar " about its form, just using adobe photoshop 5.0.
You can do the same. Just if you want.
Thanks,
S&S
P.S.
another analysis of the shot , and about the movement of"the object " is here:
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
If you want to do an analysis of the image of the "bird or similar" follow the steps that are in this link:http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html
There is the analysis of the image of "the bird or simillar " about its form, just using adobe photoshop 5.0.
You can do the same. Just if you want.
Thanks,
S&S
P.S.
another analysis of the shot , and about the movement of"the object " is here:
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
davidhorman
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2001
- Messages
- 991
NTSC isn't just made up of 29.97 frames per second, it's made up of twice that number of fields. The odd fields contain the odd lines of the picture, the even fields contain the even lines. When you watch something on a TV your picking up on 60 pictures per second, but your brain is fooled into thinking they are all full resolution.
Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
Assuming the original was recorded on some professional format, you might get more information by viewing it on that original format. However, in this case, since there really is nothing to see, there's not much of an advantage.
I haven't read this thread lately - has anyone told Carlos that monkeying around with an image in Photoshop does not constitute analysis? Doing things like that just introduces more and more artefacts and interpolated (ie made up) information - someone's been watching too much Knight Rider.
David
Blue Monk
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 1,769
<CENTER><H3>Carlos' Theory is False</H3></CENTER>
<center>
The proof is here.
</center>
<hr>
So you actually want to discuss your theory after it's been proven false?
Do you want my opinion or do you want me to reproduce the 'Great PhotoShop Evidence?'
Well, just to be on the safe side I'll do both.
I'm looking over the sites now. I'm going to do my best to translate the PhotoShop part to see if I can get the same results.
There are some much better quality stills than what I have now. There seems to be much less 'flapping' in these. I'll do a GIF like the earlier one and maybe we can find more clues as to what this is.
Of course, we can safely rule out that it is a large dark object passing through or even near either tower. That proof is here.
<center>
The proof is here.
</center>
<hr>
So you actually want to discuss your theory after it's been proven false?
Do you want my opinion or do you want me to reproduce the 'Great PhotoShop Evidence?'
Well, just to be on the safe side I'll do both.
I'm looking over the sites now. I'm going to do my best to translate the PhotoShop part to see if I can get the same results.
There are some much better quality stills than what I have now. There seems to be much less 'flapping' in these. I'll do a GIF like the earlier one and maybe we can find more clues as to what this is.
Of course, we can safely rule out that it is a large dark object passing through or even near either tower. That proof is here.
Blue Monk
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 1,769
davidhorman and all,
Thanks for this information. You and a lot of others have posted some very needed technical information. I haven't had time to respond to everybody but I want you to know that I have been paying attention and you have supplied a lot of stuff I needed to know.
I think I have found a possible source for Carlos' tape. I've been in touch with a company that archives this material (they tape all of the network feeds) and provide that for non-commercial use. I also should be able to find it's history, who took the shot and when and for what news outlet.
Anyway, I have had a lot of questions about how to make a quality digitization so we all could see it and thankfully I believe you have all answered my questions for me, hehe.
Of course I won't know if they have that actual shot until I go and scan what they do have but they felt certain that they do. Of course, unlike our more credulous friends I'll be sure and get copies from all angles.
Thanks for this information. You and a lot of others have posted some very needed technical information. I haven't had time to respond to everybody but I want you to know that I have been paying attention and you have supplied a lot of stuff I needed to know.
I think I have found a possible source for Carlos' tape. I've been in touch with a company that archives this material (they tape all of the network feeds) and provide that for non-commercial use. I also should be able to find it's history, who took the shot and when and for what news outlet.
Anyway, I have had a lot of questions about how to make a quality digitization so we all could see it and thankfully I believe you have all answered my questions for me, hehe.
Of course I won't know if they have that actual shot until I go and scan what they do have but they felt certain that they do. Of course, unlike our more credulous friends I'll be sure and get copies from all angles.
The problem with this picture is that it shows a trajectory for something that's going to crash into the building not the hole. It doesn't answer the question I put to Carlos earlier. The trajectory should be noticeably different but it is not. Why? Why does this object correct to a course that only plays for the camera in one spot? If Swett won't answer our questions why should Randi answer his?
Attachments
Guest
Unregistered
G
THANKS David horman
Hi Davidhorman:
Your post is clear enough, I agree with you in almost all.
Why almost? I am not monkeying around with an image in Photoshop:, it is not MY link, I never posted those images, but I can tell you that is the same image YOU all can see if you do the correct analysis of the video.
At least it correspond the form of "the object", if you still the frames of a 3/4 tape
Yes I always told that the video must be seen in the original format, I already told that to the JREF and to all the members here.I analyzed it at a
But Andrew Harter with Randi's aprooval decided to study the shot"frame by frame" in a video of the internet, yes like Blue Monk and others.That's the reason they are having trobles with missing fields.
I didn't have that kind of troubles, I had acces to the own 3/4 tapes of the tv stations and with their own equipments and personal were made the analysis watching all of them in a big wide screen tv set. I expected that JREF did the same , but they didn't, they just study an unknown link of internet.Besides JREF have the tape of an interview at the tv station where is the process of the analysis. No it was not an UFO program, was for the NEWS the same week of that tragic day of New York.
I also agree with you in the point that must be another way to analyze that shot, some members are trying to get access to recorded tapes at tv stations, yes in another format with more frames per second and with the correct equipments to run the tape, (back and forward, really slow motion, etc.).
I am not pretending that you beleive in me, I am just pointing you how the studies were made .I hope you have time to read and the desires to read this long thread, in page 2 is my application to the challenge and in the first post of this thread (by Patricio Elicer) is the e.mails I received from the JREF, it is there also Harter's poor answer to my application.
Thanks,
S&S
P.S.
In my notarized application send to JREF I explained the reasons why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers.
I am sure also that members like Blue Monk are having trouble to get access to tv stations tapes, but RANDI is a media man.
So no excuses.
davidhorman said:
Hi Davidhorman:
Your post is clear enough, I agree with you in almost all.
Why almost? I am not monkeying around with an image in Photoshop:, it is not MY link, I never posted those images, but I can tell you that is the same image YOU all can see if you do the correct analysis of the video.
At least it correspond the form of "the object", if you still the frames of a 3/4 tape
Yes I always told that the video must be seen in the original format, I already told that to the JREF and to all the members here.I analyzed it at a
But Andrew Harter with Randi's aprooval decided to study the shot"frame by frame" in a video of the internet, yes like Blue Monk and others.That's the reason they are having trobles with missing fields.
I didn't have that kind of troubles, I had acces to the own 3/4 tapes of the tv stations and with their own equipments and personal were made the analysis watching all of them in a big wide screen tv set. I expected that JREF did the same , but they didn't, they just study an unknown link of internet.Besides JREF have the tape of an interview at the tv station where is the process of the analysis. No it was not an UFO program, was for the NEWS the same week of that tragic day of New York.
I also agree with you in the point that must be another way to analyze that shot, some members are trying to get access to recorded tapes at tv stations, yes in another format with more frames per second and with the correct equipments to run the tape, (back and forward, really slow motion, etc.).
I am not pretending that you beleive in me, I am just pointing you how the studies were made .I hope you have time to read and the desires to read this long thread, in page 2 is my application to the challenge and in the first post of this thread (by Patricio Elicer) is the e.mails I received from the JREF, it is there also Harter's poor answer to my application.
Thanks,
S&S
P.S.
In my notarized application send to JREF I explained the reasons why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers.
I am sure also that members like Blue Monk are having trouble to get access to tv stations tapes, but RANDI is a media man.
So no excuses.
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
Carlos, why don't you send a copy of your video to Blue Monk?, for all I see he's truly willing to analize it. He also said he would digitize the video and post it here, so everyone could see it and give their opinions on the very same video you've long been talking about.
You could save him a lot of trouble, and it would help to settle the matter once and for all.
Blue Monk, I appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm.
You could save him a lot of trouble, and it would help to settle the matter once and for all.
Blue Monk, I appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm.
Guest
Unregistered
G
SO NOW YOU ARE NOT SO SURE
Patricio:
So now you are not sure that "is a bird"?
Who is Blue MONK? He doesn't know nothing about videos.He is only trully illing to justify Randi and Harters's mistakes
Why don't you go to your own country tv stations?
Remember I already send my referntial tape to the JREF . They gave me that poor answer with lies and /or mistakes based on that poor method of analyzing a tape on internet.
Remember what you wrote on that private message you send me before? Yes I agree with you.
And now you are asking me to help BLUE MONK. I thought you all were happy beleivers of him."The flapping bird"
I already wrote that I really appreciate his effort and enthusiasm, but that's all: " enthusiasm".
If somebody wants to do a correct analysis, must just read the thread, my quotes, or just private me for details.
I don't work with anonimous guys or nicks.
Or just ask for Randi's help, and don't forget to read the post by davidhorman about videos on internet.It is on page 22.
Thanks,
S&S
Patricio Elicer said:
Patricio:
So now you are not sure that "is a bird"?
Who is Blue MONK? He doesn't know nothing about videos.He is only trully illing to justify Randi and Harters's mistakes
Why don't you go to your own country tv stations?
Remember I already send my referntial tape to the JREF . They gave me that poor answer with lies and /or mistakes based on that poor method of analyzing a tape on internet.
Remember what you wrote on that private message you send me before? Yes I agree with you.
And now you are asking me to help BLUE MONK. I thought you all were happy beleivers of him."The flapping bird"
I already wrote that I really appreciate his effort and enthusiasm, but that's all: " enthusiasm".
If somebody wants to do a correct analysis, must just read the thread, my quotes, or just private me for details.
I don't work with anonimous guys or nicks.
Or just ask for Randi's help, and don't forget to read the post by davidhorman about videos on internet.It is on page 22.
Thanks,
S&S
PinkRabbit
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2002
- Messages
- 438
Sheez, go away on business, come back to find this ridiculousness is still going on.
Carlos,
The average person (or even the above average one) cannot simply walk into a news division and demand to see bits and pieces of footage at will. I doubt Randi or Andrew Harter could do so. These are extremely busy businesses, and they don't have time to go running around because someone somewhere claims something perfectly normal is paranormal. Finding file footage takes time. Time is money, and they aren't interested. I only managed to get a look at the tape because a friend got interested (I suspect he was hoping for a personal interest story -- though your claims were so plainly ridiculous he wasn't interested), so just repeating over and over that these people have to do as you demand is silly. They couldn't even if they wanted to.
Now a question. A very simple one really. And if you can't answer it, you really ought to go away. And by answer it, I don't just mean reposting your poorly written, barely comprehensible application (I sincerely hope it makes more sense in Spanish, because in English, it's next to hopeless). I mean actually answering the question asked and not screaming about Andrew Harter.
If your paranormal hat was so huge and so fast moving, and went through the second tower ...
WHY DIDN'T ANY OTHER CAMERA PICK IT UP?
There's nothing even remotely similar on any other view, so why not?
C'mon, Carlos, avail us of your wisdom.
And if you can't, maybe just maybe you ought to start considering the notion that your senses fooled you and it's exactly what folks have said ... an out of focus bird.
Barb
Carlos,
The average person (or even the above average one) cannot simply walk into a news division and demand to see bits and pieces of footage at will. I doubt Randi or Andrew Harter could do so. These are extremely busy businesses, and they don't have time to go running around because someone somewhere claims something perfectly normal is paranormal. Finding file footage takes time. Time is money, and they aren't interested. I only managed to get a look at the tape because a friend got interested (I suspect he was hoping for a personal interest story -- though your claims were so plainly ridiculous he wasn't interested), so just repeating over and over that these people have to do as you demand is silly. They couldn't even if they wanted to.
Now a question. A very simple one really. And if you can't answer it, you really ought to go away. And by answer it, I don't just mean reposting your poorly written, barely comprehensible application (I sincerely hope it makes more sense in Spanish, because in English, it's next to hopeless). I mean actually answering the question asked and not screaming about Andrew Harter.
If your paranormal hat was so huge and so fast moving, and went through the second tower ...
WHY DIDN'T ANY OTHER CAMERA PICK IT UP?
There's nothing even remotely similar on any other view, so why not?
C'mon, Carlos, avail us of your wisdom.
And if you can't, maybe just maybe you ought to start considering the notion that your senses fooled you and it's exactly what folks have said ... an out of focus bird.
Barb
rwald
Unregistered
R
Carlos, you aren't one to talk about understanding videos. In the chat the other night, you said that paranormal objects could appear to be the same size even if they were moving away from the viewer, as well as that such objects could appear to be not moving even if they were traveling very fast and the camera's exposure time was 1/60 of a second. I would much sooned trust Blue Monk's video knowledge than yours.
- Status
