The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

Re: wtc video

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)

Hi Uruk:

Here in this thread , you are not the only one who calims to be an expert in video. Just read my signature. Or read when that topic was discussed.
Remember I did a first research with original 3/4 tapes, proffesional equipments, tv studios and personal qualyfied.
Randi also has that tape.

If you like others interpretations about the subject , just goggle it, and choose your favorite .Are almost 10,300 matches.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wtc+ufo

Yes, and Randi is still on silence.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
I never alluded I am an intelligent person, is supposed that you are the intelligent one.

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Hans:

1)If I asked you to give me a definition of paranormal , just be polite and answer it.
Remember it is a paranormal challenge, so the question is relevant.
And remember also we have Andrew's Harter answer to my challenge , explaining what method he used to "verificate" my claim.

2)"it is a bird" , that is just your assumption , as others members assumptions: missile, bug , blur of the camera ,lens dirty, etc, etc.

I already explained the reasons WHY is not a bird or an insect , crossing between the cameraman and the towers, in my notaryzed application. Is on page 2 of this thread.

3) Show: "To demonstrate by reasoning" as your favorite interpretation of the definition of the word.

I am just doing the observation of the paranormal thing.
I saw it in my tv, in my home , in the tv studios.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[uruk]

wtc ufo

Thanks S&S for your kind reply.

I stand corrected in the matter of the number of people who
claim to have seen the object on the video segment.

But many people can witness an "event" and come away with a
different and possibly incorrect interpretation. This is basic psychology.

3/4 inch video tape is of better quality then those available for home use. But you are still limited by the number of pixels.
Broadcast video is limited to around 540 x 480 pixels for NTSE
and slightly higher for PAL. The playback monitors which are available at TV stations are also similarly limited. Even with
professional equipment, any accurate analysis of video information is difficult at best. The "qualified personnel" who examine video are limited by the low resolution (as compared to film) even with image enhancement software. (which I have a great deal of experiance with)
When you enlarge a video image, all you do is increase the size of the individual pixels, you do not increase the number or resolution of the image. There are some software algorithims
which are used to enlarge small images and increase pixel density but this is done with the information given in the existing pixels, which are basicaly just solid blocks of color. The extrapolation algorithim compares the colors of the surrounding pixels and averages out the colors for the additional pixels which are created to fill in the lost detail.
The system is similar to the anti-aliasing method used in computer graphic renderers. This method is by no means accurate
and the programers clearly state this in the documentation.
( the software is mainly used to enlarge small images for use on billboards and is not indorsed to examine detail in a video image).
There is also software which manipulates color and contrast. But again you are limited by the low resolution of broadcast video.

If you enlarge an area in a video frame and run color and contrast filters you wind up with a mosaic of colors which resemble a blocky "inkblot test" type image.

Inkblot tests are used by psyciatrists to gain insight to a pantient by how they interpret the image. Different people obviously give different interpretations based on thier psychological disposition.

The "qualified personnel" are limited by the resolution of the equipment and are again left to interepret as best they can.

So again I ask, Do you consider the possibilty that your interpretation of the video might be incorrect?

 

[Guest]

Re: wtc ufo

Thanks S&S for your kind reply.

I stand corrected in the matter of the number of people who
claim to have seen the object on the video segment.

But many people can witness an "event" and come away with a
different and possibly incorrect interpretation. This is basic psychology.

3/4 inch video tape is of better quality then those available for home use. But you are still limited by the number of pixels.
Broadcast video is limited to around 540 x 480 pixels for NTSE
and slightly higher for PAL. The playback monitors which are available at TV stations are also similarly limited. Even with
professional equipment, any accurate analysis of video information is difficult at best. The "qualified personnel" who examine video are limited by the low resolution (as compared to film) even with image enhancement software. (which I have a great deal of experiance with)
When you enlarge a video image, all you do is increase the size of the individual pixels, you do not increase the number or resolution of the image. There are some software algorithims
which are used to enlarge small images and increase pixel density but this is done with the information given in the existing pixels, which are basicaly just solid blocks of color. The extrapolation algorithim compares the colors of the surrounding pixels and averages out the colors for the additional pixels which are created to fill in the lost detail.
The system is similar to the anti-aliasing method used in computer graphic renderers. This method is by no means accurate
and the programers clearly state this in the documentation.
( the software is mainly used to enlarge small images for use on billboards and is not indorsed to examine detail in a video image).
There is also software which manipulates color and contrast. But again you are limited by the low resolution of broadcast video.

If you enlarge an area in a video frame and run color and contrast filters you wind up with a mosaic of colors which resemble a blocky "inkblot test" type image.

Inkblot tests are used by psyciatrists to gain insight to a pantient by how they interpret the image. Different people obviously give different interpretations based on thier psychological disposition.

The "qualified personnel" are limited by the resolution of the equipment and are again left to interepret as best they can.

So again I ask, Do you consider the possibilty that your interpretation of the video might be incorrect?

Hi Uruk:

Pixels at 3/4 tapes ? Check it again.
Thanks,
S&S

Edited To add signature

 

[uruk]

me again

One other thought I had when I reread your claim on page two;

I'm reminded of the "Apollo hoaxsters", (the people who claim the moon missions were faked),the majority of thier claims are based on video and photographic materials. The one thing that became clear to me was they were misinterpreting what they were seeing. This was probably due to thier lack of knowledge of how cameras work, the nature of optics and light, the laws of physics,
and the environment in space.

(There is a precedence in history when UFO believers were mistakeing the reflection of the shutter and caustic light anomolies in the lense for UFOs)

I'm going to make some assumption here based on this thread activity.

1. I'm assuming that you are not an expert on video equipment
Since you mentioned that went to the TV station to view the
original tape and confered with "qualified personnel".

2. I'm also assuming that never took classes in physics, optics,
electronics, Digital video systems, etc.

3. I'm assuming too that the extent of the examination was to look at the original 3/4 inch video tape on an editing deck with frame-by-frame advance and a large color calibrated monitor.

If my assumptions are wrong, please inform me as to how the video was examined. was there image enhancement filters used?
If so what kinds were used, was the image enlarged? was any extrapolation software used? What equipment was used? Who were the "qualified personel" what are their credentials? what area of video are they experts in? ( are they just editors and cameramen or do they have experiance in image manipulation and forensic examination?

now according to your claim on page two, you are claiming that
there is a "hat shaped paranormal activity" taking place. This claim is based on the examination of a single video tape from
a single angle.( all the other videos of the same moment presented from diffierent angles show nothing passing through the buildings)

Now with all the information I presented to you in my posts
all of which can be verified in textbooks, manuals,etc..as too the limited veracity of video tape and the scarce video evidence that support your claim. I ask again.

Do you consider the possibilty that your interpretation of the video might be wrong?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: wtc ufo

Hi Uruk:

Sorry I forgot to answer your question:

"Do you consider the possibilty that your interpretation of the video might be incorrect? "

Not in the same way I consider Andrew Harter's incorrect interpretation of an unknown link of internet. And the big mistake of the JREF is that is the official answer to my application.

As I wrote before, I did a different analysis.
I will like you to read my translated application. Is on page 2.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[uruk]

1623
Re: wtc ufo

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Uruk:

Pixels at 3/4 tapes ? Check it again.
Thanks,
S&S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How a video camera works 101.

light reflected off an object enters the through the lens and is focused onto the imaging surface. In the early days of videography this used to be a device called a videotron tube,
now days we use a chip called a carged-coupled device or a CCD chip.. On high quality (broadcast) video cameras three CCD chips are often used not for added resolution but for color separation. ( one chip for each color; red, blue, green or more accurately cyan, magenta, and yellow).

The CCD chip is an array of photo-transistors. A photo-transistors is an electronic component which allows current to flow when exposed to light. How much current flow depends on how much light is recieved by the photo-transistors. The voltage levels coming from each individual photo-transistors makes up what is called a picture element or what is refered to as a PIXEL.

The number of photo-transistors or PIXEL on the array is determined by the video standard of a particular country. To date there are four officialy recognised standards; NTSC=525x480, PAL=624x520, SECAM=624x520, and HDTV=1180x720.

The reason for dividing up the image this way is because the TV screen is divided up into individual phosphorous dots.
an electron beam scans and strikes the dot (actually three beams aimed at three dots per pixel; one for each color) the brightness and color for each dot (pixel) is determined by the intensity (voltage) level of the beam as it is scan across each dot. (pixel)

The image on your TV screen is actually a mosaic of little glowing phosphorus squares.

you can verify this yourself by puting a magnifing glass up to your TV screen and see the individual pixels.

Now if you are using a digital camera (D1) the voltage level coming from each photo-tranistor or pixel is convereted to a digital number by an electronic chip called an ADC or analoge-to digital-converter and stored as as digital information directly on the magnetic medium (digital video tape). or if you have have a S-VHS, Betamax, or 3/4 (analoge) camera. the voltages are encoded into a composite signal stored in analog form on the magnetic medium (video tape) The composite signal contains info about the voltage levels and color of each individual pixel.

So, pixels on 3/4 inch tape? you bet! they're in there!

 

[Blue Monk]

Uruk,

I just wanted to give you some background on how I acquired my information presented on my website here.

The captures of the angle Carlos refers to on this site were captured by me.

I found a company (the address and contact info is on my site) that records the news for archival, educational and research purposes directly from live feeds and I purchased a copy from them.

I work at the University of Texas and was able to view the tape in the Center for the Advance Study of Art and in the Multimedia Department both of which have the most current equipment possible.

I work in the Fine Arts Computer Lab where I made the capture. I used a Mac G4 and Final Cut Pro. I intentionally captured in a large format to maintain the aspect ratio. In a smaller format you can capture all of the pixels but since the aspect ratios are slightly off the resulting image tends to be a bit distorted horizontally. The larger format insures that all of the data is captured and a correct aspect ration is maintained to insure accuracy.

I also took care to capture all 22 frames that the object appears on. I did absolutely nothing to alter the lighting or sharpness or altered the image in any way and the resulting capture is an accurate copy of the clearly raw footage as it was broadcast on the ABC network during the 5 o'clock news the same day of the event.

If you are interested I'll be glad to post the exact equipment I viewed the tape on and did the capture on if that would help. I would have to do that tomorrow as I'd have to look to see the exact make and manufacturer of the decks and monitors.

If you would like a copy then PM me with and address and I would be more than happy to send you one.

If you wish to order directly from the company then I have provided that info on my site.

I would also like to point out that the 'referential' tape Carlos sent to JREF was him being interviewed and not a tape of the actual event. If Carlos is unhappy that Harter did not view an actual tape then he simply should have provided one and to my knowledge he has not acquired a copy himself to this date and if he has he has refused to post it.

Be that as it may, if you view my clip and compare it to what Harter says in his reply you will see that the clip is exactly as Harter described.

If you are knowledgeable in this area or possibly would like to produce a digital version of this then PM me and I'll send you the original tape I received from Teleclip and keep a copy for myself or you can order it yourself from the information I've provided on my site.

Be forewarned though, if you do produce an accurate version like I did Carlos will simply accuse you of faking it as he has with me.

All of the other videos you have seen I have collected from the internet. There are a couple of links to other versions of Carlos tape (which match mine by the way) that aren't on my site in this thread, Video of the Day. They are near the end of the thread.

If you have any specific questions concerning how I captured that clip then feel free to ask.

Thanks,
Blue Monk

 

[Guest]

Re: me again

1. I'm assuming that you are not an expert on video equipment
Since you mentioned that went to the TV station to view the
original tape and confered with "qualified personnel".

2. I'm also assuming that never took classes in physics, optics,
electronics, Digital video systems, etc.

3. I'm assuming too that the extent of the examination was to look at the original 3/4 inch video tape on an editing deck with frame-by-frame advance and a large color calibrated monitor.

Hi Uruk:

1. I know the basis.I like all that stuff. I am not an expert like you are assuming you are or Harter must be.
I went to different tv stations, not to analyze MY own recorded tape. The analysis were made with the tapes the own stations had. I repeat : their own tapes , their own personal, their own equipments. I told the JREF to do the same, I just send a referential tape , and told them to go to the nearest tv station and analyze their tape with their equipments.They did not.

I assume also that Andrew Harter is not an expert on video equipment and he just saw and "studied" an unknown link on the internet, according to his poor answer to my application.

2. The basis as I told you. I use to work in visual art and have friends and access to proffessional equipments and personal.
Randi is a media man , he also has those recurses. But they preferd the internet.

3. The analysis was did the same way proffesionals of any part of the world should do it. The monitors at tv stations are not too "long" at the editing deck.They are black and white and colored .The numbers of frames are highly superior of most internet tapes. The deck is useful to run and back the tape in every single frame. You can even slow motion the tape and recorded then and start a new study frame by frame.

Check some pictures at latinijral web page.
Compare the hand and the "long" of the monitor.
And the movement of the hand.
Remember those are digital pictures (of course you can tell me they can be faked). But also notice that I also send those referential tapes to the JREF of the sesion of the ananlysis recorded and broadcasted by the tv stations of my country.
And don't forget were just referential tapes. But Andrew (JREF) just "studied" an unknown link of internet.

Of course the 3/4 tapes are also able to be watch in a wide screen television (with no distorsion by pixels) set and also monitored the frames in really slow-slow action.

------
Now Uruk :

3/4 tapes and pixels ? Distorsion if you see it in wide long tv sets? Comon, was not broadcasted from those tv phones (yes pixels) some reporters did it from the war of Iraq.
The crash of the second plane was broadcasted live with the regular cameras .

You just need a regular 29 inch wide television. Or a 14 inch monitor. It doesn't matter. All we need is honesty.

You are the expert according to your words.
Remember the image was broadcasted live and the tape is almost in all the tv stations of the world.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw
Edited to add:
Pixels_square?
Not the tv monitor, and the 3/4 tape?

 

[hal bidlack]

Carlos and Latin

I believe the time has come to bring this to a close. You have had over a year to make your case, and just short of 2000 posts on your two main threads (in addition to quite a few 'additional' threads). In the two main threads alone, you have posted 751 times, and Latin has posted 326 times.

You seem intent on ignoring alternatives (e.g., contacting the media to make your case), but repeat your unique way of posting over and over, and often do so in what I consider to be an uncivil manner (granted, you get back much of that too)

I believe the JREF forum has demonstrated a clear willingness to listen to all points of view on this issue, but that window now is going to close. You and Latin are welcome to continue to post on subjects other than the WTC attack if you like. Should you could to continue to spam the board with this issue, I shall take appropriate actions. It is my judgement, as administrator of this board, that your combined 1000+ posts have met the standard to be called spam. I do not wish to suspend or ban you, and I am loath to take this step to reduce free expression, but I believe firmly that we have given you plenty of time to make a reasoned case.

Should you object to this decision, you may appeal to Linda, and then to Mr Randi, both of whom have the authority to revoke my decision. Short of that, I declare these threads closed. You are, of course, free to contact any of the media outlets I provided for you in my detailed posting of some weeks ago, in order to publically make the case against my actions.

Hal Bidlack
Administrator