• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "Carlos Swett affair"

Status
Not open for further replies.
S&S said:
By S&S

1) Paranormal: something that is out of normal known rules.

2) Birds are free to fly. Not relevant.

3) I just did the observation. I am showing you the evidence..
------------------------------------
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

------------------------------------
Click to expand...


RANDI`S CLOCK UPDATE= 367 DAYS
 
latinijral said:



RANDI`S CLOCK UPDATE= 367 DAYS
Click to expand...
Please don't post that, latin. Have you forgotten the order your boss gave you? Let me remind you:
Please : trata en lo posible de no enojar a mis "admiradores".
Compòrtate como un chico bueno. Tu puedes.
Yo sè que estàs enojado por los insultos vulgares que has recibido, sòlo por estar de acuerdo conmigo en el "affair", pero es hora que les demuestres que tu eres de otra clase. Ellos ya tienen suficientes problemas de personalidad .

Thanks,
S&S
Click to expand...

Since you love clock updates, I have a few for you:
CARLOS'S CLOCK UPDATE= 3 DAYS
LATINIJRAL'S CLOCK UPDATE= 2 DAYS
TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC TIC TAC
 
KelvinG said:
Fair enough S&S. I'm saddened that you are going to deprive the world of this amazing discovery while you waste your time ranting on this board.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Hi KelvinG:

I thought this board was part of the world, and mainly this forum would had the most intelligent people of the world.

Thanks,
S&S
 
S&S said:


I thought this board was part of the world, and mainly this forum would had the most intelligent people of the world.
Click to expand...

This forum DID have the most intelligent people in the world....until you and latin showed up. By posting on this board, you two managed to lower the average IQ of this forum by an astonishing 50 points, to where it is now the dumbest forum on the internet. If you and latin leave, then it will once again become the smartest forum, of course.
 
When the "smart" posters give up, is time for the sock puppets to appear.
Is a rule here.

And Randi is still on silence.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Sorry Blue Monk, nobody trusted your "proposal" (even you!!!).
 
S&S said:
1) Paranormal: something that is out of normal known rules.
Could be, but this is no answer to MY #1 question:

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? A dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment exist; none of them show your object. Why?

2) Birds are free to fly. Not relevant.

Do you not find it relevant that the only other video that confirms your object clearly shows --- a bird???

--- Well, I guess that is a sort of answer. :rolleyes:

3) I just did the observation. I am showing you the evidence..
------------------------------------
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Uhhh, I know your English skills are less than perfect, but that is not the same meaning of "show".
Click to expand...

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:


Hans
Click to expand...

Hi Hans:

1) We must agree with a concept of "paranormal" first.

You are free to select your favorite definition .

2) A bird? are you sure ? That is what you "think" it is. Is not relevant what you "think" it is.
I explained the REASONS, in my notarized application, why is not a bird or an insect flying between the cameraman and the towers.

What do you think? That you are the only one who had that first assumption? No, no .I did it first.Then I studied, in a proper way, the tape

3)Ok, give me your meaning or your interpretation of "show":

------------------------------------
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
------------------------------------

According to your answer , a live tv broadcasting does not constitute a show itself. And then when I showed you the recorded tape I am not showing you nothing.

Thanks,
S&S
 
Carlos....do you remember when Blue Monk said he buy a poor resolution video on teleclip months ago????

He asked weeks ago $ 100,oo per donator to buy the video at teleclip......How Blue Monk can buy something that he bought month ago????

Or he wants the money for himself.

Or maybe he wants to buy Teleclip !!!!!!!!!!!
 
latinijral said:
Carlos....do you remember when Blue Monk said he buy a poor resolution video on teleclip months ago????

He asked weeks ago $ 100,oo per donator to buy the video at teleclip......How Blue Monk can buy something that he bought month ago????

Or he wants the money for himself.

Or maybe he wants to buy Teleclip !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You need to reread the post you idiot. I wasn't asking for money. I was offering to pay the expense if anyone wanted to verify that I didn't fake the clip I posted.

You two are obviously too stupid to do it yourselves.

Now go whine to the moderaters you twit.
 
Blue Monk said:


You need to reread the post you idiot. I wasn't asking for money. I was offering to pay the expense if anyone wanted to verify that I didn't fake the clip I posted.

You two are obviously too stupid to do it yourselves.

Now go whine to the moderaters you twit.
Click to expand...

Blue Monk:

If you like to continue posting in this thread, please try to relax.
I undersatnd your position.

Remember I already did my application to the challenge.
Remember I also received a poor answer based on a poor method by Andrew Harter.
And remember also the silence of James Randi , he refuses to publicate that poor answer (yes , their own words) in his week's commentaries.

Thanks,
 
S&S: If you like to continue posting in this thread, please try to relax.
I undersatnd your position.
Click to expand...
carlos,

I find your recent campaign to pawn yourself off as a model citizen of this forum to be both laughable and nauseating. You, sir, are a TROLL. Have you ever started a thread that you didn't steer full-circle back to your beef with the JREF in some way? Few and far between, if ever. Why are you so concerned with the "concept" of trolls and trolling? It's because you know full well that you fit perfectly into that category. You're trying to see just how far you can push before you get shoved. Everybody's on to you carlos, you read like a cheap novel. Your attemps to claim the moral high ground are insulting, as you are nothing more than a bullsh!tter and a con-man.
 
Skeptoid said:

carlos,

I find your recent campaign to pawn yourself off as a model citizen of this forum to be both laughable and nauseating. You, sir, are a TROLL. Have you ever started a thread that you didn't steer full-circle back to your beef with the JREF in some way? Few and far between, if ever. Why are you so concerned with the "concept" of trolls and trolling? It's because you know full well that you fit perfectly into that category. You're trying to see just how far you can push before you get shoved. Everybody's on to you carlos, you read like a cheap novel. Your attemps to claim the moral high ground are insulting, as you are nothing more than a bullsh!tter and a con-man.
Click to expand...

Hi Skeptoid:

If you have an answer for that concept difficult to define, go help the JREF administration. They are the one who have troubles with the concept.

About your others insults: well , since you don't have arguments to debate or real evidences to post, I can understand your misery.

Keep on reading my posts in every thread I do, enjoy it, learn a little or just keep on traumatizing (...) yourself.

Thanks,
S&S

Edited to put my signature.
 
wtc video

Whew, I just got through reading all the threads.

I just have one question for S&S .

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong in your interpretation of the video?

I mean, after all, video is a very poor medium as far capturing detail is concerned. the detail on video is limited by the number of pixels elements on the CCD chip and the image sampling rate.

Add to that the fact that image is two-dimensional and thus
judging distance and size relationship is difficult at best.
The whole cinema special effects industry is based on that fact.

Ive seen alot of shows that have people who use image analyzation software to study digitized photos.
(most of which are variations on Photoshop)
the software is very good at showing contrast and color relationships of the individual pixels. And sometimes you can
ferret out extra details in the process. but also realize that
sometimes the digitizing process can add pixel errors and anomolies.

Considering the object on the video, The speed and amount of blur does seem consistant with an object that is close to the camera and moving across the field of view. the camera is focused
at infinity to get a clear image of the towers. therfore any object
passing close to the camera will be out of focus. Assuming the camera is type that is available at any electronics store (read cheap), the sampling rate is around 30 to 35 frames per second
(this does not take into account any frame dropping in the video
compression process) any object moving with sufficient speed will smear (enlogate). Thus the streched appearance.

Also, distance dilutes motion. So if an the object was at t he distance of the towers, the image of the object would be little more clear. And at that incredable speed would cause some
disturbance of the smoke plume and debrie. ( even a UFO has to follow the laws of phyisics).

The other videos of that moment clearly shows that no object (other than debrie) exits the buildings. Also, if anything that huge passed through the buildings would have been seen by and
reported by many people. (you are the only person that I know of who mentions this thing)
In the video you present as evidence, you can actually see the
object enter the frame in the upper left and pass IN FRONT of the
towers. the object is less noticeable when it flies infront of the building because the camera is focused on the buildings in the distance. Light acts like a wave and has a tendancy to refract or bend around the edges of an object. So the light occludes the object. This is further proof that the object is close to the camera and out of focus. This is an effect of contrast and the light path
through the lense of a camera. This effect is also used for effect by film directors.
( I know this because I teach electronics and digital camera systems)


If you are the intelligent person you allude to be, then you must
,as an intellegent person, admit to the possibility that you might
be wrong.

likewise ,I must admit to the possibilty that I might wrong also.
But considering the evidence presented so far I would have to conclude that you have the weaker position.
 
S&S said:

Hi Hans:

1) We must agree with a concept of "paranormal" first.

You are free to select your favorite definition .


2) A bird? are you sure ? That is what you "think" it is. Is not relevant what you "think" it is.
I explained the REASONS, in my notarized application, why is not a bird or an insect flying between the cameraman and the towers.

What do you think? That you are the only one who had that first assumption? No, no .I did it first.Then I studied, in a proper way, the tape

3)Ok, give me your meaning or your interpretation of "show":

------------------------------------
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
------------------------------------

According to your answer , a live tv broadcasting does not constitute a show itself. And then when I showed you the recorded tape I am not showing you nothing.

Thanks,
S&S
Click to expand...

On question one: Why is the definition of paranormal important? My question is, why is the object not visible on other videos of the same event? Are you trying to say that this proves the object paranormal? That is a dangerous approach, because you are then effectively saying: "That the event cannot be verified by other videos proves that it is paranormal", but this means that your theory becomes unfalsifyable (because you claim lack of verification as a proof) and this certainly makes it void as a JREF challenge.

So you still have not answered the question.

Yes, I "think" it is a bird. But that is not the point. The point is that the ONLY evidence that verifies the object shows a bird. The video I mention is the only other picture source that shows an object in the air that correlates with the object in "your" video. And that object is very clearly a bird.

"Show". You use the meaning: "Bring to attention".

In the JREF challenge, I read "show" as meaning "to demonstrate by reasoning or procedure"

I could cite the dictionary here, but look for yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=show

The word show has a lot of meanings.

My point is: Obviously, you must be violating the rights of the copyright owner by claiming any kind of recognition for that video.

But basically, this whole discussion is moot: The JREF foundation has rejected your challenge. Whether on not they did this in a nice way is really irrelevant. The fact is that you are unable to present any useful proof of your case.

Hans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom