The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

WELCOME AGAIN PINKIE

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.
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

Hi PInkie:

Just for the same reason "that specific bird" also doesn't appear in the other shot.

I thought you had access to the 3/4 tape and also did the analysis as you posted before. Well I am just confuse at that point now. Did you realy do it?How and where? , please.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Re: SO NOW YOU ARE NOT SO SURE

So now you are not sure that "is a bird"?

I'm sure that the clip posted by Blue Monk shows it's a bird. But you've been saying over and over that YOUR video shows something different and that the real truth is in YOUR video. So the only way that we can settle things down on this matter is that someone here actually see and analize YOUR video. Blue Monk is willing to do it, so why don't you send YOUR video to him?

He will also digitize it so EVERYONE will be able to see it and make their own judgement.

Unless we can actually see what is in YOUR video, this thread will be an endless and fruitless discussion.

Who is Blue MONK? He doesn't know nothing about videos.He is only trully illing to justify Randi and Harters's mistakes

I think Blue Monk is a skeptic and reasonable person who, like everyone else here, only wants to uncover the truth. If the truth is in your video, why not send it to him? Why not do it?, What do you have to lose if you are so sure of YOUR truth?

Remember what you wrote on that private message you send me before? Yes I agree with you.

You are good at taking quotes out of context. What I said to you in PM was something like:"I agree with you that there is something in that video, but we need to analize independant evidence to rule out other posibilities"That's very different, isn't it?

And now you are asking me to help BLUE MONK. I thought you all were happy beleivers of him."The flapping bird"

No, it's just the opposite, I'm trying to help your cause. Again, if you are so sure of your claim, why not let others see the video? What are you afraid of?

 

[rwald]

Carlos, a bird would be small, and very near the camera which saw it. It's perfectly reasonable that one camera saw a bird, and another did now. Look up the word "parallax" for more information on the phenomenon.

However, a large paranormal object should have been seen by all the cameras. Why wasn't it?

 

[Guest]

IS A BIRD; IS A BIRD.

I'm sure that the clip posted by Blue Monk shows it's a bird. But you've been saying over and over that YOUR video shows something different and that the real truth is in YOUR video. So the only way that we can settle things down on this matter is that someone here actually see and analize YOUR video. Blue Monk is willing to do it, so why don't you send YOUR video to him?


You are good at taking quotes out of context. What I said to you in PM was something like:"I agree with you that there is something in that video, but we need to analize independant evidence to rule out other posibilities"That's very different, isn't it?

No, it's just the opposite, I'm trying to help your cause. Again, if you are so sure of your claim, why not let others see the video? What are you afraid of?

Patricio:

Is not MY VIDEO, is a video broadcasted live to all the world, is the same shot about the pictures posted here.It just a referential video. All the copies are at any tv station of the world.

I never posted any qoute from that private message you send me. You are the first one who did it.

You didn't help me that much, you started this thread without posting my notarized application, that's why it is on page 2, after I forced you to do it.Remember also that I was not at the forum when you started this. I asked Linda if I can defend my point, and I am glad and thankful she posted that I was accepted and gave me the opportunity, and I am still here after so many replies and views, you didn't beat me, no reasonable arguments .

Yes I am sure of what I am claiming, or you forgot that I send the tape to the JREF and I received just a poor answer based on a poor method? I was frontal and they are still on silence.


Thanks,
S&S

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Re: IS A BIRD; IS A BIRD.

Is not MY VIDEO, is a video broadcasted live to all the world, is the same shot about the pictures posted here.It just a referential video. All the copies are at any tv station of the world.

Don't you realize that it's much easier that YOU provide the video in question?. You have it in your hands!.... After all it's you who want to convince us of that "paranormal activity". Many people here have explained that it's not that easy in the US to just step into a TV station and ask for a videotape. I don't think that in my country it's easy either.

Again, if you are so sure of what is in that video, why don't you send it to Blue Monk who really wants to analize it?, Why don't you help to make things easier?

Carlos, it's extremely hard for me to follow your reasonings.

 

[Tesserat]

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.

davidhorman, I agree with you, almost. All the video editors I've worked with have to be told to interlace the odd/even fields, they don't do it automatically. I could film something on a digital camera, and then post a digital video avi that would have all of the information of the original. It'd be huge, but...

The other huge discussion we could get into on this is which codec the video is compressed in. Some of them are more "lossy" than others.

And then it depends on what program you use to look at them.
There's one video an Blue Monk's site that Adobe Premier says has lost frames, while VideoEditor says it doesn't.
Video is weird.

However, Bluemonk's posting of the TNN video destroy's Carlos's theory anyway. Unless Carlos posts a link to a video that represents what he's talking about, or sends somebody a copy of the video, his arguments are pointless.

 

[davidhorman]

Carlos:

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.

Don't worry, I understood that it wasn't your link, but you were using it as evidence when I really don't think you should. Scaling a picture up like that and running those filters is just inventing information to fill the gaps between pixels, and shouldn't be trusted. When the FBI enhance pictures, I'm pretty sure they don't use Photoshop.

Tesserat:

I could film something on a digital camera, and then post a digital video avi that would have all of the information of the original.

It's a confusing thing, interlacing... would you be posting a 60 frame per second AVI, or a 30 frame per second AVI with interlaced fields? You'd only be able to view the latter properly with some deinterlacing thing. I do have a proper video capture card, but the stupid thing keeps dropping frames.

You know, it's just occured to me that we might have a copy of the footage at the TV station I work at. I'll look into it.

The other huge discussion we could get into on this is which codec the video is compressed in. Some of them are more "lossy" than others.

Yeah, that's why I don't put much stock into Blue Monk's flapping bird GIF, not offence BM. Hopefully the same effect will be visible in a non-compressed version.

David

 

[Blue Monk]

<center>





The proof is here.
</center>

Yeah, that's why I don't put much stock into Blue Monk's flapping bird GIF, not offence BM. Hopefully the same effect will be visible in a non-compressed version.

No offense taken. I offer that GIF at face value. Whether or not it is actually a bird is of concern only to Carlos.

Carlos would like to believe that if we can't prove it is a bird then we can't prove his theory is wrong which of course is nonsense. The CNN tape and all other clips, and I mean ALL, would have captured the image of a large dark object passing through the tower. Carlos' theory is easily proven false.

If you confront Carlos with this information he simply changes the subject to Harter's response. Soon everyone is discussing his bird and he can enjoy the illusion that not being able to prove that this image is a bird somehow means his theory can't be proven false.

So I offer the GIF as an argument, not against Carlos' theory, but against Carlos' argument that Harter's response that it is 'probably a bird' is unreasonable. For the record, I agree with Harter. It is probably a bird.

Above is a new GIF that includes better images from another source and as you can see there is considerably less flapping effect from a less compressed image.

I leave it to the viewer to decide whether or not this adds any food for thought in the burning issue of whether Harter is a evil and lying man to dare to suggest that this is 'probably a bird.'

So the way I see it, they are two separate issues.

1) The Validity of Carlos' Theory

I contend that the CNN clip and all other clips of the same event at the same time clearly prove Carlos' theory false.

2) Is it probably a bird?
Carlos has repeatedly accused Harter of lying and insisting we all answer his questions.

If you don't answer his questions your 'afraid.'
If you do answer his questions your 'lying.'

He will jump up and down if you answer this question now and scream that you need to analyze his clip to see his side yet he will not post it himself or cooperate in anyway to see that it gets shown.

If someone does view the clip and posts their response then Carlos simply refuses to believe them. How convenient.

So at this point I'd like to ask two questions from anyone who cares to answer.

1) Does the CNN tape prove Carlos' theory that there is a large dark object passing through one of the towers is false?

If you don't believe it proves Carlos' theory is false then please share your reasoning.

2) Is the object on the tape probably a bird?

 

[Guest]

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

</A>

From this link you can see animated gifs, view both clips and see a frame by frame, side by side comparison.

WHERE IS THE IMAGE (FRAME)WHEN THE OBJECT IS IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE????????????????



No I can't produce that image.(Blue Monk)




I know that has significance to you. (Blue Monk)



I don't know if he understood your application.(HARTER)



I don't know what clip he is refering to.(HARTER)



I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.(HARTER)

**************************************************
ANOTHER ANSWERS OF BLUE MONK AND ANOTHER JREF KIDS:
Can you analyzed the form of your "bird"???
NO

Can you used filters??
NO

Can you analyzed a professional image??
NEVER, because it is not important.

**************************************************

I really analyzed the image on a tv station of my country Chile.....the same as the JREF Kid.

I can confirm the real "form" of the object because i saw it with high resolution and with very slow carmera.

The real form of the object is this.....Where are the flappin winds????

 

[PinkRabbit]

Re: WELCOME AGAIN PINKIE

Hi PInkie:

Just for the same reason "that specific bird" also doesn't appear in the other shot.

I thought you had access to the 3/4 tape and also did the analysis as you posted before. Well I am just confuse at that point now. Did you realy do it?How and where? , please.

Carlos, that explanation makes absolutely no sense.

If an object went through the towers ... where all those cameras were focused ... some of them should have picked it up. You're likening the position of the object to that of the planes. ALL of those cameras saw the plane go through ... though at different angles. Any other objects that went through that building should also have been seen.

A bird a long distance from the towers, and not the focus of the other cameras, would not be likely to be noticed by the other cameras (though, as I recall, one did pick up a lot of birds moving roughly where that one would have had to be). It would unimportant and only seen if it wandered between the camera and the object of its focus.

In short, your answer more or less admits that whatever the object was, it would have to be in the position the rest of us have said -- A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA -- and not where you say it was, going through the building, or it would have been seen by the other cameras.

I did have access to the 3/4 inch tape when my friend had some spare time. Had he not been interested in taking a look, I couldn't have simply walked in and demanded to see it. I had access because I know someone at the station, and used to work there. I would hazard a guess that very few people have that sort of in. You did not accept my word or description, and I simply commented on the reasons why others very likely cannot do what you demand ... including Randi and Harter. They would have to cold call, get through the receptionists who answer the phone, find someone who both had time and cared. It would probably have taken several days of calls back and forth ... assuming they even could find someone willing to help out. Given that they've already dismissed your claim for the ridiculous ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ it is, I see no reason why they would go to the effort of trying to talk a total stranger into spending several hours of their time to find the proper clip and analyze it. Frankly, were my friend not going through a difficult divorce and looking for ways to keep himself busy, I doubt he would have found the time. It's simply not worth the effort to 99% of the people out there.

Barb

 

[Blue Monk]

WHERE IS THE IMAGE (FRAME)WHEN THE OBJECT IS IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE????????????????

No I can't produce that image.(Blue Monk)

Yes that is correct.

I know that has significance to you. (Blue Monk)

Yes, I said that. It does have significance to you. Not to me.

I don't give a damn about yours and Carlos' beef with JREF. Carlos insisted I give him answers so I am.

I don't know if he understood your application.(HARTER)

Yes, again. And the answer will be yes next time you ask.

I don't know what clip he is referring to.(HARTER)

Yes that is exactly correct. Carlos continues to ask what clip Harter used and now for the 1134th time I don't know.

Why is that so hard for you and Carlos to understand. Anytime you or him have asked that of anyone the answer has always been no. No one knows what clip Harter used.

I can't wait to be asked that again so I can once again tell you what everyone here already knows the answer to be but for some reason it is beyond yours and Carlos' ability to grasp.

I do not know what clip Harter view.

I do not know if what he said matches what he saw.(HARTER)

Again, for the umpteenth time that is correct. What part of this are you not understanding. Maybe I'm not understanding you but I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

**************************************************
ANOTHER ANSWERS OF BLUE MONK AND ANOTHER JREF KIDS:
Can you analyzed the form of your "bird"???
NO

What do you mean by analyzed? No I haven't as all I've had was that clip. I would look at the tape if you or Carlos made it available.

I am trying to get a copy so I can look at it. Just for you.

Can you used filters??
NO

No. I don't have the tape. Aren't you paying attention?

Can you analyzed a professional image??
NEVER, because it is not important.

No, Einstein, I don't have the tape. I am not refusing to analyze it.

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to find the tape and it will probably end up costing me a little $$$ but I will find the tape.

But when I do find it, and I will, I will analyze it.

Am I qualified to analyze it? No. Not at all. But after months of screaming at me to analyze your stupid tape as soon as I do you will scream bloody murder as I'm not qualified to.

But am I right in assuming that you aren't qualified either. Or Carlos?

What I will do is provide you or Carlos with a copy and if it is so important for you to have it analyzed you can take it to someone you trust and who is qualified and have them analyze it.

But you have both insisted that I analyze it and I will.

I really analyzed the image on a tv station of my country Chile.....the same as the JREF Kid.

I believe you.

It's just that you seem to be willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary and base your belief that this object is paranormal simply on the fact that it looks strange.

I can assure you that I can start with a perfectly ordinary image and run it through filters and make it look very strange. It proves nothing.

But if you insist, when I get a good digitization of the tape I will run it through filters. I will do my best to follow the procedure in the link Carlos gave but it wasn't very precise and I had to translate it.

But of course I will do it on all the frames and show all of the frames.

I can confirm the real "form" of the object because i saw it with high resolution and with very slow carmera.

Again I believe you.

But the question everyone wants to know is, 'Is the form constant or does it change.'

I can't help but notice that this process has been performed on only one frame. I would like to see all the frames.

The real form of the object is this.....Where are the flappin winds????

You can't tell from a single frame. Post them all.

And of course, as always, one aspect of this we can rule out. No matter what is on that tape it is clearly not an object passing through one of the towers. All other clips confirm that fact.

Proof Carlos' theory is false.

Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used.

 

[Guest]

THE LOOPED RULES WITH ENTHUSIASM

<center>





The proof is here.
</center>



No offense taken. I offer that GIF at face value. Whether or not it is actually a bird is of concern only to Carlos.


2) Is the object on the tape probably a bird?

Hi Blue Monk:

Is That all you got? A looped tricky version of a jumping white side of the tower? Very supernatural, tricks to Randi or to your followers or to the fools, you still are in the same place: with nothing, only enthusiasm.

Yes Randi and Harter already did the same (studied that shot from internet as you did, with less frames per second), but THEY said:"the object is clearly seen in front of THE TOWERS(2).

And you Blue Monk are not able to produce and put the pictures of :"the object" after it entered in the hole, and the picture of the "object " in front of the towers.
You are not even care of the tape in another format.
You don't answer, you don't have nothing, you are just full of links.
You are just full of enthusiasm to defend Harter and Randi's lies and/or mistakes (based in a poor method) in their answer to my notarized application to the JREF CHALLENGE .

Yes they have the tape., ask them.
And remember the frames are not an excuse, just do a better method, like I did, Randi knows also that.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Some links for your collection of interpretations:

http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html

http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

 

[Tesserat]

originally posted by s&s

Yes they have the tape., ask them.

Carlos, i think I can understand your frustration, but if Blue Monk gets the tape from Harter, there's no way for us to know if it's the same tape. You have accesss to some people with technical knowledge, why don't you post a clip of the tape that you sent to Harter?

We would not use that clip to analyse the tape, but simply as a reference to find the correct tape to analyse.

That way, we can do the analysis that you demand. At the moment, I have to agree with Blue Monk. The CNN tape destoys your theory, especially since you can't say why the object is not seen on the CNN tape.

You have not given us new information to use, you've just been posting the same things over and over. If you could give us some more information, it would help a lot.

 

[Guest]

"THINK" "THINK" THINK"

Carlos, i think I can understand your frustration, but if Blue Monk gets the tape from Harter, there's no way for us to know if it's the same tape. You have accesss to some people with technical knowledge, why don't you post a clip of the tape that you sent to Harter?

We would not use that clip to analyse the tape, but simply as a reference to find the correct tape to analyse.

That way, we can do the analysis that you demand. At the moment, I have to agree with Blue Monk. The CNN tape destoys your theory, especially since you can't say why the object is not seen on the CNN tape.

You have not given us new information to use, you've just been posting the same things over and over. If you could give us some more information, it would help a lot.

Hi Tesserat:

I understand YOUR frustration, and I will remind you ALL again: I just send a reterential tape (with my notarized application)to the JREF with the complete sequence of the same shot taped and broadcasted from different networks of the world.The LOGOS of the tv channels are on the shots. In the SAME referential tape was an interview that was brodcasted in a local TV NEWS that shows how in the same tv station were made the analysis of that shot with their own 3/4 tape and with their own equipments.
So all tv stations of the world have that shot, just ask for it if you can. Remember Randi is a media man (with access to tv stations) but Harter and he prefered to study "frame by frame" the same shot in a link of internet. Then they gave me that poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes.

Yes I also congratulated Blue monk for his enthusiasm, but he has troubles with the missing frames of an internet image.It is not my fault.I already wrote about the CNN tape.Here are another 2 new links for Blue monk collection. Are newbies.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC_UFO.html

http://www.tvbn.org/indexwbv.html

I did not send a link to the JREF, I send a referential tape so they would be able to find the same shot but with better resolutions and at their own local networks, so there will be no cheating.

So again, it is not MY TAPE the one to be analyze , is THE SHOT but using the correct format and the correct equipments , just like I did.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. The links I posted here it are not mine, are just more interpretations of the same subject and of the same shot, and RANDI is still on silence about my application. ???
Yes Blue Monk have the same shot but he is not able to post the pictures that I told him, he only is tricking with the looped version.He has some troubles with the missing frames, but the shot is the correct one, so no excuses.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

This post replaces one that had errors in fact. That post has been deleted. The errors have been corrected here. All photos used in the first post have been reposted here.

Acutely it does show up on the right tower you can track it from the left of the screen.
Starting in the smoke until it go’s off the screen just viewing the video over and over again it becomes clear it’s that it’s much closer to the screen.

All have to go with the bird theory.
If you look at the video closely you can see it on the right tower it will slightly darken in the area marked.

originally posted by S&S
"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”."

There is only one hole left by the first plane. It never went through the building and broke out the other side as the plane did on the second tower. Yes, windows were broken and fires started, and smoke was pouring out fo all four sides of the tower, but there is no big hole where the plane came out again.

Additionally, let's orient ourselves with the pictures above. The leftmost tower is the south tower (hit second, collapsed first), and the
rightmost is the north tower (hit first, collapsed second). We are facing west. The tower faces are roughly parallel -- we're looking at the east walls. Since we're not quite square to the towers, we can look across the north walls of both towers, and are looking at the east walls of both towers.

The first plane flew into the north wall of the north tower. Therefore, if the 'object' flew into the hole left by the first plane, and gets out the
other side as S&S says, the object's flight path would be from our right to our left -- and that is not the case. The flight path is from our
left to our right.

Another point...there were thousands upon thousands of people there in New York at the time, watching from the street, and through
their windows. There were dozens of cameras, both still and moving image, film and tape, pointed at those buildings within minutes of the
first impact, and long before the second impact (which is when we see the 'object'). There were uncounted millions of people worldwide
watching on TV live as this tragedy unfolded.

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?

 

[Tesserat]

HELLO!!! Carlos!! anybody home???

I understand YOUR frustration, and I will remind you ALL again: I just send a reterential tape (with my notarized application)to the JREF with the complete sequence of the same shot taped and broadcasted from different networks of the world.The LOGOS of the tv channels are on the shots. In the SAME referential tape was an interview that was brodcasted in a local TV NEWS that shows how in the same tv station were made the analysis of that shot with their own 3/4 tape and with their own equipments.

I think it's just peachy that you sent a tape to JREF, but my question was, what is the clip that you want me to look at. I'm not going to fly to florida to ask Harter to give me the tape you sent him. I could find it easily, but first, I to know what it is.

Charlie from Dayton just posted a series of photos taken from a video. Are these from the video that you're talking about? I understand that there may be frames missing, I just want to know if it's the right video. If not, is there anything that's been posted on this thread that will enable me to find the right clip without going to florida.

Oh, and I'd love to hear your answers to Charlie in Dayton's questions.

 

[Thanz]

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.

[snip]

Thanks,
S&S

This is quite possibly the worst explanation I have ever seen.

The fact that the 'probably bird' is not on the CNN tape is the entire point. If there was a paranormal, hat-shaped object that passed through the tower, as you claim, it would be on the CNN tape. The only reason it was not on the CNN tape is because it was a bird or other object, much closer to the other camera than the towers, which was blurred and seemed fast due to its closeness to the camera.

The CNN tape shows that nothing passes through the tower. It proves that the object that is on your tape does not pass through the tower.

Please stop quoting me in your signature. After having seen the investigation efforts in this thread, and the images linked to by Blue Monk, I do not believe that Andrew Harter's investigation was dodgy. On the other hand, I do think that your claims are dodgy, your answers ridiculous, and you are either stupid, wilfully blind to the truth, or you somehow think that it is fun to pull people's chains in this forum.

Thanz

 

[hal bidlack]

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.

 

[Blue Monk]

Is That all you got? A looped tricky version of a jumping white side of the tower? Very supernatural, tricks to Randi or to your followers or to the fools, you still are in the same place: with nothing, only enthusiasm.

What are you talking about? Are you talking about your petty beef with JREF or your stupid theory?

If your talking about your petty beef with JREF then yes, right now that’s about it. I’ve told you repeatedly that.

I don’t know what clip Harter viewed.
I don’t know if he understood your application.
I don’t know if what he saw matches what he said.

Is there something about this that you are having difficulty in understanding?

I have told you this from the beginning.

It behaves like a bird and when I focus on the object such as I have with the animated GIF it appears to change shape and those specific changes, whatever they may be, are completely consistent with a bird flapping it’s wings.

I suspect this has a great deal to do with why those of you that think you have seen something paranormal only post that single frame. It would be nice to see them all but the fact that only one is ever shown makes me suspect that the others aren’t quite as impressive in regard to your personal little delusion.

But that’s your beef with JREF.

If you talking about your stupid theory then that has been shot out of the water a long time ago thanks to the CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle. Of course if you don’t like that tape disproving your theory then you can watch the BBC tape instead.

<CENTER>

Proof Carlos’ Theory Is False
</CENTER>

Originally posted by S&S
Yes Randi and Harter already did the same (studied that shot from internet as you did, with less frames per second), but THEY said:"the object is clearly seen in front of THE TOWERS(2).

Now Carlos, let’s be honest now. You don’t know what clip they used.

You don’t know what clip they used so you can’t possibly know how many frames per second it was.

Originally posted by S&S
And you Blue Monk are not able to produce and put the pictures of :"the object" after it entered in the hole, and the picture of the "object " in front of the towers.

Again, YES! Geez, how many times does one have to answer the same question over and over before it sinks in?

The shots you are talking about are between the frames. We’ve been over this already. Why are such simple things so hard for you to understand?

All the evidence we have suggests a bird. Those frames, according to you, support your claim and yet you seem very happy that they aren’t available.

So you are correct. We have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. I am glad you enjoy that so much. If those frames exist, and if they support your claim, and if you can produce them, then do so.

You’re the only person I’ve ever met who seems to think that the fact that they can’t produce the evidence to support their claim is somehow proof that their claim is valid.

But keep asking it.

Originally posted by S&S
You are not even care of the tape in another format.

No, I don’t have the tape. How many times to I have to tell you that before you understand? 200? 300?

You have the tape but you refuse to show us your evidence. Whose fault is that?

Concerning the matter of your stupid theory then no, I don’t care what format I view your tape in as the CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves you theory false.

But concerning your petty little beef with JREF it is you who claim there are more frames. It is you who claim it contains more evidence than we can see with what we have. It is you who refuses to produce this evidence. What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by S&S
You don't answer, you don't have nothing, you are just full of links.

I don’t have answer? To what question?

Is it a bird? No I don’t have that answer and may never be able to prove it is a bird. That is only relevant to your petty little beef with JREF and concerning that I don’t have to prove it is a bird, only prove that Harter was reasonable in proclaiming that it was ‘probably a bird.’ I agree. It was probably a bird.

Originally posted by S&S
You are just full of enthusiasm to defend Harter and Randi's lies and/or mistakes (based in a poor method) in their answer to my notarized application to the JREF CHALLENGE .

I don’t give a damn what you suspect my motivation to be.

If I don’t answer your question I’m ‘afraid.’
If I do answer your questions then I’m protecting some sort of imagined self-interest.

But therein lies the beauty of facts. They either are or they aren’t. They don’t depend on the opinion of anyone. Whether you love Randi or hate him or just don’t give a damn either way the CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Originally posted by S&S
Yes they have the tape., ask them.

I believe you. Of course they may not still have the tape. I don’t know if they save stuff like that or just throw it in the trash.

Originally posted by S&S
And remember the frames are not an excuse, just do a better method, like I did, Randi knows also that.

And just how do you expect me to do that? You have the tape and you won’t share it.

So let me try a new experiment. I want to see if you are capable of learning anything.

I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.

Do you understand?

I don’t give a damn about the frames. If you think they prove you have a legitimate gripe with JREF and these frames supports that then produce them. It’s that easy.

So let me make sure I’m clear on this.

You claim those frames contain important information that supports your claim. You are the only one that can produce those frames. But you won’t.

Hey Carlos, what’s wrong with this picture?

And of course, as always, while we may debate for years, nay decades, about what that is on your tape one theory can be tossed in the trash.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Carlos’ links:
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

Blue Monk links:
Proof Carlos' theory is false.
Answers to Carlos' questions concerning the method used.

 

[Guest]

YES , BLUE MONK DOESN'T HAVE THE TAPE BUT HAS THE SHOT ON INTERNET

If your talking about your petty beef with JREF then yes, right now that’s about it. I’ve told you repeatedly that.

I don’t know what clip Harter viewed.
I don’t know if he understood your application.
I don’t know if what he saw matches what he said.


But that’s your beef with JREF.


You don’t know what clip they used so you can’t possibly know how many frames per second it was.

The shots you are talking about are between the frames. We’ve been over this already. Why are such simple things so hard for you to understand?

All the evidence we have suggests a bird. Those frames, according to you, support your claim and yet you seem very happy that they aren’t available.

So you are correct. We have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. I am glad you enjoy that so much. If those frames exist, and if they support your claim, and if you can produce them, then do so.

You’re the only person I’ve ever met who seems to think that the fact that they can’t produce the evidence to support their claim is somehow proof that their claim is valid.

But keep asking it.

No, I don’t have the tape. How many times to I have to tell you that before you understand? 200? 300?

You have the tape but you refuse to show us your evidence. Whose fault is that?


I don’t have answer? To what question?

Is it a bird? No I don’t have that answer and may never be able to prove it is a bird. That is only relevant to your petty little beef with JREF and concerning that I don’t have to prove it is a bird, only prove that Harter was reasonable in proclaiming that it was ‘probably a bird.’ I agree. It was probably a bird.

I don’t give a damn what you suspect my motivation to be.

If I don’t answer your question I’m ‘afraid.’
If I do answer your questions then I’m protecting some sort of imagined self-interest.


I believe you. Of course they may not still have the tape. I don’t know if they save stuff like that or just throw it in the trash.

And just how do you expect me to do that? You have the tape and you won’t share it.

So let me try a new experiment. I want to see if you are capable of learning anything.

I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.
I don’t have the tape.

Do you understand?

I don’t give a damn about the frames. If you think they prove you have a legitimate gripe with JREF and these frames supports that then produce them. It’s that easy.

So let me make sure I’m clear on this.

You claim those frames contain important information that supports your claim. You are the only one that can produce those frames. But you won’t.


Carlos’ links:
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/GNNWTCUFO.html
http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html


.[/URL]

Hi BlueMonk:
Don't worry ,I understand you can't do a correct analysis, the reason: YOU ARE USING THE SAME POOR METHOD HARTER USED.

Did you understand? On internet tapes or videos are missing frames, so you are not able to produce the pictures I asked too,
so if you can't you didn't prove nothing and Harter also didn't prove nothing. Is that simple.

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.

But we have my application, we have Harter's answer full of mistakes and /or lies, we have the referential shot on internet(only with missing frames but with the complete sequence).

Now is time for you to relax and with the same enthusiasm try to ask JREF about the tape or the link. or go with the referential shot you have to a tv station and analyse with them their 3/4 tape or just stay as you are right now : with nothing that can prove that I am wrong in my claim.
Maybe you can join Charlie of Dayton in his investigation and find "his tv friend" together or private Pink Rabbit and ask her about the 3/4 tape they analyzed(?) or just private me for instructions.

You are free to do whatever you want.
Until you decide what to do,please don't give up with your enthusiasm and try to be just an impartial observer in the "case" and focus in the correct method like I did before I send my notarized application to the challenge of the JREF.

You are good, so I am sure you will find the way .

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Did you understand that I only send a referntial tape to the JREF.
Was only for a help to them to find the correct method and the best tape on their tv channels of their city. I did the same in Ecuador, but JREF (Harter and Randi) prefered to study "that shot" on internet , just the same way you did.