The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

IN ADVANCE

Remember, this is the same guy I could not get to agree to the meaning of the words "in advance."

There is a chance your clear logic, your reasoned insights, your keen analysis may be wasted.

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack:

Remember you are part of the JREF, you will be a conferencist at the "amazing meeting" and you are not able to help BLUE MONK with the link that Harter used to gave me his poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes to my notarized application.

The JREF also have the referential tape I send with my application.

James Randi is still on silence in his weeks commentaries about my notarized application and his aprooval to Harter's answer and poor method (anlyzing "frame by frame" that shot in a video on internet)

Just help the members , they are asking for the link or the tape.
I am sending this reply "in advance", so you will have not excuses. Or is something wrong with that?

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Thanz]

I don't know why I wading into the fray here, but I'll beat my head against the wall with the rest of you

[snip]


The only thing you "thing" you have as a proof is ANOTHER SHOT, not the shot I send to the JREF.In that shot you have you have can not also see "the probably bird" in the same trajectory, so don't be so confuse.Remember I said in my application the reasons why "the object" is paranormal.

The reason that you said in your application that the object is paranormal is that the object enters one hole made by the plane and exits out another one. Of course, this means nothing in terms of 'paranormal', but let's just accept that.

If there was an object that went into and out of the tower, it could be seen on every shot taken of the towers at that moment. The second plane hit the second tower. All of the cameras pointing at the tower at that point show this.

Not all of the cameras show the 'paranormal object' that you claim went into and out of the first tower. In fact, only one camera recorded this object. As you have admitted, the CNN tape does not show the object. If the object did go into the first tower, why is it not on the CNN tape? Is the other camera a 'magic camera'?

Since the CNN tape does not show the object, the object did not go into or out of the first tower. If the object did not do this, it is not 'paranormal', as that is the reason you are claiming it is paranormal. If it is not paranormal, you have no claim.

Why are you ignoring me Carlos? I must insist that you stop quoting me in your signature, as I do not agree with your position.

Thanz

 

[PinkRabbit]

Well, Carlos, I note you didn't answer my last note. Personally, I think it's because even your ability to misunderstand, obfuscate, equivocate, evade, prevaricate, and completely avoid the truth is starting to get a little strained.

Hey, we all have our little fantasies.

I was going to write a longer commentary, but I think Charlie in Dayton said best, so I'll just quote him.

Why is it that no other camera caught this 'object'?
Why is it that no one there in New York saw this 'object'?
Why is it that no one else watching TV saw this 'object'?
Why aren't there hundreds if not thousands of people claiming to have seen the 'paranormal hat-shaped object', whether in person, in a picture or moving image, or on TV?

Barb

 

[CurtC]

Bidlack, are you really part of the JREF? I guess I didn't have the impression that you are.

Carlos, I don't think you understand Randi's commentaries and their purpose. They are meant to be interesting reading to people who like clear thinking. They're not a log of all the applications Randi gets for the prize. I think that he gets quite a few applications, most of which are kooky. They dispense with these fairly quickly and move on. That's what Mr. Harter did with yours. They are not worthy of more time, nor of being mentioned in the commentary.

A couple of times in the past, Randi has written about a particular applicant, usually just to show what kind of kooks are out there. If he chooses to mention yours, I'm sure that will be the purpose. You claim is just bizarre, like the rantings from an insane person. Were you aware that you sound insane in your posts here? People here have been talking pretty rationally with you, trying to corner your argument to a point where you have to see it's invalid, like any sane person would. So far it hasn't seemed to work.

Anyway, I have no idea whether the JREF still has your tape. If it were me, I would have trashed it. So you are the only here one that has a copy of it. TV stations might have it archived, but they're not going to give it to anyone. It's up to you to get it digitized properly if you would like us to see it.

 

[hal bidlack]

Bidlack, are you really part of the JREF? I guess I didn't have the impression that you are.
...

I'm not an employee of the JREF, but I am proud to call them my good friends. I have worked with JREF on several issue, and my consulting with Mr. Randi while I was working at the State Department was in part responsible for saving the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars.

I am a speaker at the Amazing Meeting (a 'conferencist' in Mr Swett's terms). He feels this makes my judgement as to the words "in advance" questionable.

I will say this: while I think Carlos is truly a strange fellow for his obsession with the goofy tape, I looked at his web site. He's a heck of an artist, very talented. Too bad that doesn't carry over into reason and logic.

 

[Blue Monk]

I have found Carlos' tape!

I've been working on finding it for some time and I've been pretty sure I had it located last Friday but I didn't want to say anything until I was sure.

Whoever said earlier that you can't just walk into a television station and get any of their videos was sure right. I started with all of the local affiliations The same story at all of them. The copyright belongs to the network and they won't make copies for the public.

I've written the networks and have gotten very little response but of course at this point I have no idea who actually owns the tape so I've only asked general questions concerning how one would get a copy but they haven't been very cooperative.

Finally I was able to talk to a guy at the local CBS affiliate and he told me about a local company called Teleclips. They pay a flat royalty fee to all of the networks for the right to archive the network feeds. Then they provide that information for a fee for non-commercial use, mostly research.

I knew then that I could get it if they had it but I couldn't be sure if they did so I spent 3 hours today scanning tons of video to find Carlos' clip which of course I did. It went over the network feeds on ABC that night of September 11, 01. Now that I know a specific time and network it aired I should be able to find out more information about it. I would like to make contact with the photographer and find out where he was standing, what he thinks, etc. I might also be able to get a copy of the whole video (as opposed to the brief clip aired).

In my search today for Carlos' tape I had hoped to get some more shots from other angles while I was at it. There were plenty to be had but these damn things aren't cheap. I did however kick in a few extra bucks to couple more relevant angles off of the ABC feed. It was cheaper that way, hehe, and one is the BBC shot only this is the quality video and so I can make a much better digitized version.

The engineer said they'd have it ready for me tomorrow at noon. I don't go to work until 2 so I can pick it up before.

Since I work in the Computer Lab in the Fine Arts Library at UT we have a video station. I can digitize it there and post it to my site so with any luck and the creeks don't rise I should have a quality digitization of Carlos' tape online by tomorrow evening.

I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice. I'll take it over to the Communications building at the University and use their equipment where I'll have the time to do it properly.

We will, at least, be able to settle (hehe) any questions concerning what frames there are and what is on them. I'll post them as soon as I can but my first concern will be to get a digitized copy on the net so we can all see what all the fuss is about. The clip I'm going to post will no doubt be pretty large even for such a short time frame but it will be necessary to preserve the quality and ensure it matches the resolution of the video. I'll post a more web friendly version for the band-width challenged but the quality clip will be there for anyone's inspection.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Thanks Blue Monk . I can't believe you had the patience to go into such a big trouble. I will eagerly await for your clip and would hope it will help to put an end to this pointless debate.

 

[Guest]

YES YOU ARE ON MY SIGNATURE

I don't know why I wading into the fray here, but I'll beat my head against the wall with the rest of you


Since the CNN tape does not show the object, the object did not go into or out of the first tower. If the object did not do this, it is not 'paranormal', as that is the reason you are claiming it is paranormal. If it is not paranormal, you have no claim.

Why are you ignoring me Carlos? I must insist that you stop quoting me in your signature, as I do not agree with your position.

Thanz

Hi Thanz:

Your "words" are on my signature because I didin't invented, that was just your sincerily reply. Yes I agree with YOUR words before you posted that.
I told Harter (after his poor answer) that the method he used was not the appropiate. You used a different expression that is on my signature but that means almost the same.

Yes the CNN shot also doesn't show "the bird " in the same trajectory, yes is very strange.But don't worry that is not the correct shot, besides now Blue monk has the tape.
So just be patient.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

PLEASE ANSWER BIDLACK???

Bidlack, are you really part of the JREF? I guess I didn't have the impression that you are.

OR PARTNER??????

 

[Guest]

CONGRATULATIONS

I have found Carlos' tape!




Since I work in the Computer Lab in the Fine Arts Library at UT we have a video station. I can digitize it there and post it to my site so with any luck and the creeks don't rise I should have a quality digitization of Carlos' tape online by tomorrow evening.

I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice. I'll take it over to the Communications building at the University and use their equipment where I'll have the time to do it properly.

Hi Blue Monk:

C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S

I always trusted your enthusiasm. I hope that when you digitize the tape you will not have the same problems of frames.
Be sure that is the correct shot and don't forget to see the original tape (3/4 or betacam) in a broadcast equipment (lyke you did in Teleclip) to do the first analysis, then you are able to digitized it.

Try to see the video first on a wide screen tv.
Take your time and go on

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

When you said this:"I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice."

What do you mean?
Art still the same doubts?
Or the equipments were not good enough to see the bird?

 

[Guest]

BIG TROUBLE???

Thanks Blue Monk . I can't believe you had the patience to go into such a big trouble. I will eagerly await for your clip and would hope it will help to put an end to this pointless debate.

Se nota que estàs sudando frìo...perro.



Blue Monk:
You are reading this thread now....join the chat now #jref

 

[Guest]

GOOFY?????

I'm not an employee of the JREF, but I am proud to call them my good friends. I have worked with JREF on several issue, and my consulting with Mr. Randi while I was working at the State Department was in part responsible for saving the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars.

I am a speaker at the Amazing Meeting (a 'conferencist' in Mr Swett's terms). He feels this makes my judgement as to the words "in advance" questionable.

I will say this: while I think Carlos is truly a strange fellow for his obsession with the goofy tape, I looked at his web site. He's a heck of an artist, very talented. Too bad that doesn't carry over into reason and logic.

Hi Mr Bidlack:

First I thank you for your opinion of my works in art. I really appreciate your words. Those words are better than money.Thanks.

No that is not my web site, is latinijral site.But he posted some pictures of my works on it.
I don't have a web page, sorry.Maybe in the future, I will ask Blue Monk for help.

About my "goofy" tape: Is not my obsession, you are witness that is an obsession of the members and the guess of this THREAD. They are the ones who want to know which link Harter used to "study frame by frame the shot".

I told you "in Advance" that members want to know the link, but you that are a real "good performer" and close friend to Randi don't help us with the link. WHY?

Reasons and logic?

Yes because I work with visual arts, is because my eyes are trained to be observer enough.

Yes , I know how is a form of a bird, the way they flies, etc.

Yes,I also observed "the object" at the smoke. This part is very difficult, but yes I did it before Harter and Randi.

Yes I also saw that it enterd in the hole and I put the reasons why on my application.Remember the frames that are missing?

Yes I also explained in my application why is not a bird or an insect bettween the cameraman and the towers, that proves you that I already knew about that optical effect.

So Mr. Bidlack, I just did an application to JREF willing(?)that Randi can use better equipments or tecnollogy that I did, but he just saw a video on Internet. Blue Monk is trying to do the work you must did before.

Who is the "goofy" now?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I also saw and read your web page, you are a fine artist, very smart and with a fine irony too.
Congratulations.

 

[hal bidlack]

Re: GOOFY?????

Hi Mr Bidlack:

First I thank you for your opinion of my works in art. I really appreciate your words. Those words are better than money.Thanks.

you are welcome. I mean the compliment sincerely

...

I told you "in Advance" that members want to know the link, but you that are a real "good performer" and close friend to Randi don't help us with the link. WHY?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the above paragraph means

Reasons and logic?

Yes because I work with visual arts, is because my eyes are trained to be observer enough.

Yes , I know how is a form of a bird, the way they flies, etc.

Yes,I also observed "the object" at the smoke. This part is very difficult, but yes I did it before Harter and Randi.

...

er.. ahh. what?

So Mr. Bidlack, I just did an application to JREF willing(?)that Randi can use better equipments or tecnollogy that I did, but he just saw a video on Internet. Blue Monk is trying to do the work you must did before.

since you seem to be briefly talking to me directly, I'll again ask the simple question. Do you agree/understand/have any awareness, that you have to apply for the test BEFORE an event takes place? (why do I doubt an answer is coming)[/i]

Who is the "goofy" now?

well, shucks, shall we let the viewers decide? But thanks for asking

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I also saw and read your web page, you are a fine artist, very smart and with a fine irony too.
thanks, I think, and again, what?

Congratulations.

 

[Pablo]

Re: BIG TROUBLE???

Se nota que estàs sudando frìo...perro.

Magnífica contribución al debate, caballero. Desde luego, con esos insultos va a conseguir que quienes leemos esta sucesión de mensajes cambiemos de opinión y aceptemos que se trata de algo paranormal. Yo ya empiezo a tener mis dudas.

Siga por ese camino, llegará lejos.

 

[davidhorman]

Try to see the video first on a wide screen tv.

Hey S&S - why?

David

 

[Guest]

WHY ON A BIG SCREEN?

Hey S&S - why?

David

Hi Davidhorman:

Why? Just because is better to analyze an image in a big screen than in a tiny screen, or you "think" is not?

Remember that tip is only for BlueMonk, now that he has the tape (in another format) he will be able to do that, before he digitize the image for the members.

It's better, I did it that way before I send my application to the JREF, and if Blue Monk is able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on the appropiate equipments as he did at Teleclip , he will have arguments to enforce his reply.

I expected the JREF to did the same Blue Monk is doing(I really appreciate his efforts).
But they only saw an internet video, an unknown link, even Bidlack (close friend of Randi) doesn't know the link or is refused to tell us.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

SMILE

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the above paragraph means

Hi Mr Hal Bidlack:

I will put you again the paragraph:I told you "in Advance" that members want to know the link Harter used, but you that are a real "good performer" and close friend to Randi don't help us with the link. WHY?

It means that Harter said in his answer to my application that he studied the shot "frame by frame" in a video that is available on the Internet.
His answer is based in that method, but he "forgot" to put the link.
So, you that are "close" to the JREF and you are replying here at this thread in their name, maybe you can help the members just asking them what link they used to made the study and the assumptions they gave me in their answer to my application.

Please, just answer that point by yourself and don't try that the smiles speak instead of you.
Yes I know you have a fine irony, but just answer, if you can .

Thanks,
S&S

 

[hal bidlack]

So you are asking which internet site Andrew used to see the bird? I don't know.

I do know that if you type "ufo at world trade center video" into Google, you get 8240 hits. Many of them have your video, as well as the more famous 'ufo by the helo' video. Do you think that one is real too? If so, do you believe you could send it to the JREF to claim the prize?

still, you are a fine artist. When you do the work at the bottom of pools, do you have to use a particular paint to avoid damage from chlorine? Or do you treat the tiles some how?

 

[Guest]

SO YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER? HUM????

So you are asking which internet site Andrew used to see the bird? I don't know.

I do know that if you type "ufo at world trade center video" into Google, you get 8240 hits. Many of them have your video, as well as the more famous 'ufo by the helo' video. Do you think that one is real too? If so, do you believe you could send it to the JREF to claim the prize?

still, you are a fine artist. When you do the work at the bottom of pools, do you have to use a particular paint to avoid damage from chlorine? Or do you treat the tiles some how?

Hi Mr Hal Bidlack:
So You don't know and you didn't ask them. But you are admiting they used that poor method. Maybe you should ask them about the link they used, if you "think" is necessary.

Thanks for your words again about my art works .

In the bottoms of the pools I particullary do more art-decorating stuff than a pure art like in the murals. About your question about a "particular paint" to avoid dammage of chlorine, I am telling you that I don't use paints , I work with the technique of small tiles of mosaics (like in the ancient Rome). This particulars tiles are different from ceramic, and are made to resist that particular dammage because of its composition and thickness.Any particular job at your home is welcome(ha,ha,ha) and you and all the JREF will have an incredible discount.

Sorry to all the members for this little commercial, but Bidlack asked first.I didn't even never post latinijral link where are the pictures of my works. I don't have a particular page of my works.
I guess that link was posted by Beavis and Butthead ( WIERD and IGGY msn skeptics forum)

Thanks again Bidlack, your words are better (at least for me) than a million papers.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
No I do not think others videos are real, I don't "beleive in them, I just send a particular shot that was broadcasted "live" in a particular EVENT.
Remember I trusted and supported Randi's works?

 

[CurtC]

Carlos, you're attaching much importance to exactly which Internet video was used. Bidlack hasn't asked anyone because 1) Andrew Harter would probably not remember which of the thousands of links he had seen, and 2) it doesn't matter. They're all basically the same. They all have what appears to be every other frame of the real video, leaving gaps along the object's flight path. One of those gaps is where the object would have been in front of the wall of the North Tower.

Had Mr. Harter instead looked at your video, what would he have seen? I am looking forward to Blue Monk's posting of the video he has purchased. You claim that the missing frame will show a wall with no bird; I think there will be a bird there. But even if Mr. Harter had used your video, and even if he saw no object in that frame, his answer still would have been "I don't know what effects caused the object not to be visible at that point, but it's clear in the other videos taken at the same moment that there was no large object passing through the North Tower at that instant, and anyway your application for the prize is not valid because it was not submitted in advance."

Now can we move on past the issue of which video clip he used? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.