The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

CURIOUS CURTC. Good

OK, I've lurked in this thread for a while. It looks like a bird or insect to me. You can't tell how big or how fast because you don't know how far away it is. Tell me how far away and I'll tell you how big and how fast.

If this was a consumer camcorder, those have pretty small lenses and apertures, so the overall blurry image indicates that it's closer to the camera, indicating it's smaller, like a small bird or big bug. Or maybe it's just blurry because it's moving and it's not a sharp picture anyway.

Carlos, you keep mentioning that the thing goes behind the building, but you don't really elaborate why you think that. In previous images, the dark bird would have been in front of the dark smoke, so you wouldn't be able to see it on a video of this quality. The one photo you seem to think is most important is the one where the bird is closest to the right edge of the tower. I think you're asking why its blur doesn't cover up part of the tower. That's because the bird is not really this elongated shape - what you're seeing is that during one exposure, the bird is moving. The building at that point is pretty bright, so the fraction of the frame when the bird blocked its light was not long enough to keep those pixels from being overexposed anyway, so those pixels look just like the others in the building.

This seems to be to be by far the most likely explanation. Do you have a reason to think that it's not correct?

Hi CurtC:

I aprecciate your interpretations.
Is the kind of studies I was looking for when I challenged JREF.

1 )My answer of how far away it is from the camera is in my application:
"....In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. 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”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode. "


2)The shot was made by a news equipment, transsmitted "live" to all the world.

3)I said : It "seems" to pass behind the building. Read again that part of the application. The reality is that entered the whole and get out from the other side of the building.

4) The photos and the images posted here are from a video of internet.Andrew Harter used that method to gave me his stupid answer.

I did this , as I said in my application:
"...We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it. "

Yes ,we went to different tv stations and with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes (not digitized images)and with their own equipments made the required analisis. JREF also have that document.
With those kinds of proffesional equipments and with the "complete" sequence of the shot , you are able to realize a real study "frame by frame" where the frames are reall shorts enough and don't make jumps. With those proffesional studies "your bird or insect" NEVER cover up that part of the tower.

I know that this poor image show on the internet don't help you analize it a propper way as you wish.It is not my fault. Harter did it that way.

I hope this reply help you in your future analisis, and congratulations for your interest.
Have you analize the form? is the "bird" flying upside down?
Do a dark object can and must be seen against a white one?

Thank you CurtC

Thanks,
S&S

 

[CurtC]

OK, Carlos. I don't care what TV programs this was aired on. It doesn't matter. You keep posting a large amount of extraneous information. But here I think is the key question that you don't understand:

Do a dark object can and must be seen against a white one?

First of all, these images appear to be individual frames from a standard video camera. The jumpiness is not because they're digitized, but because that's how video cameras work. And no, a dark object would not necessarily be seen against a white one in the background. You see, the dark object is not really elongated in shape. It's really a bird that's moving. The sky looks a little darker along its path because for a fraction of that exposure, the bird was blocking light from that part of the sky, and less light means darker.

But with something bright in the image like the building, which is overexposed, blocking the light for a fraction of the time will not result in significant darkening of those pixels, because they were overexposed even with the bird blocking a fraction of the light. So you would see much less of an effect.

It's a bird flying along in front of the camera. Now I repeat my question: Do you have reason to think that this explanation is not correct? If so, please let us know specifically what about it cannot be right.

 

[rwald]

Carlos, I hate to get involved in this again, but...

You say that it must have been far from the camera because it passed through the building. Do you have any evidence that it passed through the building? CurtC has made his points about camera exposure. A fast-moving, blurry object might not make a white background that much darker. I've analyzed the picture you posted on page 12 (yes, I know, not the "proper method," but I'm not going to go to a TV station for this), and it looks like the "paranormal object" darkens the tower to the same degree it darkens the sky. For the record, a pixel of the object had a color code (red, green, blue) of 92, 97, 111 compared to the sky's 113, 115, 126; a sample of where the object passed in front of the tower had a color code of 202, 202, 204 compared to the building's normal color of 216, 214, 207. So, the object did pass in front of the tower.

Not that this will convince you.

 

[Guest]

FOLLOW CARLOS`S STEPS

Hi CurtC:

I aprecciate your interpretations.
Is the kind of studies I was looking for when I challenged JREF.

1 )My answer of how far away it is from the camera is in my application:
"....In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. 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”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode. "


2)The shot was made by a news equipment, transsmitted "live" to all the world.

3)I said : It "seems" to pass behind the building. Read again that part of the application. The reality is that entered the whole and get out from the other side of the building.

4) The photos and the images posted here are from a video of internet.Andrew Harter used that method to gave me his stupid answer.

I did this , as I said in my application:
"...We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it. "

Yes ,we went to different tv stations and with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes (not digitized images)and with their own equipments made the required analisis. JREF also have that document.
With those kinds of proffesional equipments and with the "complete" sequence of the shot , you are able to realize a real study "frame by frame" where the frames are reall shorts enough and don't make jumps. With those proffesional studies "your bird or insect" NEVER cover up that part of the tower.

I know that this poor image show on the internet don't help you analize it a propper way as you wish.It is not my fault. Harter did it that way.

I hope this reply help you in your future analisis, and congratulations for your interest.
Have you analize the form? is the "bird" flying upside down?
Do a dark object can and must be seen against a white one?

Thank you CurtC

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

PIXELS?

OK, Carlos. I don't care what TV programs this was aired on. It doesn't matter. You keep posting a large amount of extraneous information. But here I think is the key question that you don't understand:First of all, these images appear to be individual frames from a standard video camera. The jumpiness is not because they're digitized, but because that's how video cameras work. And no, a dark object would not necessarily be seen against a white one in the background. You see, the dark object is not really elongated in shape. It's really a bird that's moving. The sky looks a little darker along its path because for a fraction of that exposure, the bird was blocking light from that part of the sky, and less light means darker.

But with something bright in the image like the building, which is overexposed, blocking the light for a fraction of the time will not result in significant darkening of those pixels, because they were overexposed even with the bird blocking a fraction of the light. So you would see much less of an effect.

It's a bird flying along in front of the camera. Now I repeat my question: Do you have reason to think that this explanation is not correct? If so, please let us know specifically what about it cannot be right.

Hi Curt C :
Many reasons:

ARe you talking about PIXELS?, Only in digitized Images.

Not in 3/4 images.

Is your fault and JREF that keep analizing unknown, incompleted internet images.

That is not the correct method.

Was a "LIVE" transmission of a tragic EVENT.

If you want to "think" that a DARK "object" can not be seen in front of a WHITE building , is YOUR appreciation.

What about the form of your and Harter's "bird"?

Is the "bird flying upside down?

Thank you CurtC
Thanks.
S&S

 

[Guest]

ANOTHER" PIWEL" ANALISIS. Check this link

Here is a link I found abouth "other analisis " of the PIXELS of the digitized image.

What I said the first week of the tragic Event and denunciate and studied in the TV channels stations with their own equipments correspond basically in the form and details to the same exposed in this page :

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


Is your choise.Now we know the "image" of "the bird" can be studied.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. Yes I know that a digitized image can be tricked , like Rwald did it, but YOU ALL (including JREF) are the fans of internet images.
I always recommended the correct method. All Tv stations have that shot in their files.Randi is a media man. The tv is open to him.
But he prefered the internet. Give me a break JAMES RANDI

 

[CurtC]

Carlos, you're right that the term "pixel" refers to digitized images. However, the same idea works for any TV picture. How about "that little spot on the picture"?

I posted reasons why a brief interruption of light from a bright source might not be that noticeable, because of saturation effects. rwald posted that he measured the pixel values, and found them to be slightly darker. It was a bird.

Again, I ask: do you have a reason that this explanation cannot be right? This is the third time I've asked it, so please take notice.

And I'm not sure what the point of latinjral's post was. You just repeated stuff that we already have said does not matter. Who cares about the timeline and what networks the show was aired on? No one here.

 

[CurtC]

Carlos, I looked at that site (the correct link is http://www.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html ). Any object recorded on a video camera will be blurred by half the distance it travels each frame. Your site claims to extract a hat-shaped object, but it seems to be clearly recorded each frame, which can't happen if it's moving. So was it moving or not?

If it was moving, then the object must be some other shape. It also is changing shapes as it goes. If it had the same shape always, it would look like a smooth blur with no lumps. But this one has lumps, like, I don't know, WINGS FLAPPING? Since you're obviously unfamiliar with the concept, please study the images at http://www.roswellrods.com to understand why their pictures are mostly of blurred flying insects.

 

[Guest]

MORE PIXELS?

Carlos, you're right that the term "pixel" refers to digitized images. However, the same idea works for any TV picture. How about "that little spot on the picture"?

I posted reasons why a brief interruption of light from a bright source might not be that noticeable, because of saturation effects. rwald posted that he measured the pixel values, and found them to be slightly darker. It was a bird.

Again, I ask: do you have a reason that this explanation cannot be right? This is the third time I've asked it, so please take notice.

And I'm not sure what the point of latinjral's post was. You just repeated stuff that we already have said does not matter. Who cares about the timeline and what networks the show was aired on? No one here.

CurtC, hi again
YOu want more reasons?

Rwald only cares about the legal procedure of the challenge.He is refused to see and analize the tape. Just gallows humour.

The "little spot" is the other side of the building (the lateral): where the paranormal activity left the hole,

Just a brief interruption of the "bird's" traveling? That's my point.

Have you studied "your bird" in pixels?

Have you enlarged?

Have you see this in a wide big screen?

Are you the one who mentioned pixeles?

Are you the one like Harter who studied in the internet?

Check this again:

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

But remember is a digitized image.
COMPLETE different in format and sequence from the one tv stations have, those correspond to what YOU and everybody around the world saw andreceived that tragic day.

Thanks.
S&S

 

[Purple Tentacle]

when the 2nd plane hit, there were cameras from every direction filming the WTC, yet none of them saw ANYTHING fly out of or around or near the WTC. this is the only one ?!?!

 

[CurtC]

So let me see if I understand your points.

1. The image on the tape is much different from anything on the Internet. Any analysis we do of Internet images does not apply.

2. I should study the images at the site you link to. However, these are digitized images, so they're not what's on the tape. I'm not sure why I should study them.

3. Since I don't have access to the tape, anything I say about the images doesn't matter.

However, even without seeing the tape, I can still refute the idea of a hat-shaped object, because I know how video cameras work. Please see my previous post about how images are blurred. If you have a reason why this analysis doesn't apply, please state it.

 

[hal bidlack]

Don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer a specific question. I posed mine on Sept 3rd, and he has yet to reply.

I'll recap:

-can I claim the prize since I saw your tape too?

-can ... oh, the heck with it, he's been asked so often, and responded so poorly, forget it...

 

[Guest]

ANOTHER STUPID QUESTION

Don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer a specific question. I posed mine on Sept 3rd, and he has yet to reply.

I'll recap:

-can I claim the prize since I saw your tape too?

-can ... oh, the heck with it, he's been asked so often, and responded so poorly, forget it...

Hi Bid lack:

If you "think" that STUPIDS questions like yours deserves an answer from me, then here is :

NO

You just saw the tape the regular way, you was looking at the plane crashes. I saw a paranormal activity in that tragic event, I made the application to the challenge first, and Randi is still on silence.

NO, you can't , is too late.
Ask Randi if you have more doubts.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

You see, Carlos is special because he sent in a notarized application.

Even though that application broke every one of the application rules, and doesn't even count as an application.

Wait...

 

[Guest]

JUST BECAUSE

So let me see if I understand your points.

1. The image on the tape is much different from anything on the Internet. Any analysis we do of Internet images does not apply.

2. I should study the images at the site you link to. However, these are digitized images, so they're not what's on the tape. I'm not sure why I should study them.

3. Since I don't have access to the tape, anything I say about the images doesn't matter.

However, even without seeing the tape, I can still refute the idea of a hat-shaped object, because I know how video cameras work. Please see my previous post about how images are blurred. If you have a reason why this analysis doesn't apply, please state it.

Hi CurtC:

Your analysis doesn't apply just because you have not see the tape, and refuses to make an analysis of the "blur" or "bird" (I'm not sure with one ), and mainly because you "beleive" that a black dark object is invisible in front of a white wall.

I know about cameras too, and professional people that works with it at a tv station also knows about them. I studied the own 3/4 and betacam tape of the tv networks , with professional men, and all of them knows that is something "paranormal" going on.
I have digitized the image myself, and made other analisis like the link you looked.

I only can tell you, try to do the same or clean your cammera for the next family's vacation , I don't want a blur or the dust ruin your film.

Are you not curious about Randi's silence.?

If you have a reason why this analysis doesn't apply, PLEASE ask JAMES RANDI for help.

Thanks.
S&S

 

[Doubt]

Re: ANOTHER STUPID QUESTION

Hi Bid lack:

If you "think" that STUPIDS questions like yours deserves an answer from me, then here is :

NO

You just saw the tape the regular way, you was looking at the plane crashes. I saw a paranormal activity in that tragic event, I made the application to the challenge first, and Randi is still on silence.

NO, you can't , is too late.
Ask Randi if you have more doubts.

Thanks,
S&S

Ah Swett,

Not only do you ignore the rules of the challenge you do not like, you are starting to make up new ones.

Prove you were the first to observe "paranormal activity" on that tape. Being the first to send in an application does not mean that you were the first to see it. Never mind that the tape itself does not prove anything.

Your failed attempt to enter the challenge is not like a patent application. You have no exclusive rights here, especially since you don't have the property rights to the tape in question. (No lawyer needed to figure that one out.)

While we are at it, what supporting evidence do you have to back up the footage on the tape. There were many cameras trained on the towers after the planes hit. Do any other videos or still photos taken from other locations show your would be paranormal event? Without a second perspective, the position of the object cannot be triangulated. All you are left with is the apparent and unreliable 2 dimensional image.

Since you are an artist, I assume you are familiar with the concepts of perspective and scale. There is also a concept called forced perspective that is used in photography and film that can be applied here. Once you learn about forced perspective you will understand why people think your paranormal event could be a bird closer to the camera than where you think it is.

I tried looking for a good link to explain forced perspective, but I could not find any that offered a simple explanation. Using a search engine will provide you with lots of links for the Lord Of The Rings movies, which use it extensively to make several of the actors look smaller than they really are. It is much simpler to used forced perspective than digital reduction techniques.

 

[Guest]

FORCED PERSPECTIVE?

Ah Swett,

Not only do you ignore the rules of the challenge you do not like, you are starting to make up new ones.

Prove you were the first to observe "paranormal activity" on that tape. Being the first to send in an application does not mean that you were the first to see it. Never mind that the tape itself does not prove anything.

Your failed attempt to enter the challenge is not like a patent application. You have no exclusive rights here, especially since you don't have the property rights to the tape in question. (No lawyer needed to figure that one out.)

While we are at it, what supporting evidence do you have to back up the footage on the tape. There were many cameras trained on the towers after the planes hit. Do any other videos or still photos taken from other locations show your would be paranormal event? Without a second perspective, the position of the object cannot be triangulated. All you are left with is the apparent and unreliable 2 dimensional image.

Since you are an artist, I assume you are familiar with the concepts of perspective and scale. There is also a concept called forced perspective that is used in photography and film that can be applied here. Once you learn about forced perspective you will understand why people think your paranormal event could be a bird closer to the camera than where you think it is.

I tried looking for a good link to explain forced perspective, but I could not find any that offered a simple explanation. Using a search engine will provide you with lots of links for the Lord Of The Rings movies, which use it extensively to make several of the actors look smaller than they really are. It is much simpler to used forced perspective than digital reduction techniques.

HI Doubt:
Well I made the obseravation the same week of the tragic EVENT, is documented also in the tape I send to the JREF.

What I told BIDLACK (read again) is that I was THE FIRST that challenged Randi or JREF ,claiming that was a paranormal activity taking place in that fatidic 9/11/01 in New York.
I have the guide of FEDEX that proves JREF received my notharized application, a referential tape and a letter to Mr.James Randi.
In that application(is posted at the thread page 2) I refer why it can not be an insect or a bird in first crossing between the cameraman and the tower. YES , I thought about a forced perspective first and before you, but since are factors that I already explained , is why I send to JREF the challenge , willing they can give me an answer based in real technical methods and consulting the tapes the broadcasts have in his country.NO, they just studied it on the internet.

Of course I know about forced perspective, I use it in my art works, also I am degree in ARCHITECTURE.
If you want check these pictures of some of my works at this link:

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/carlosswett.msnw?albumlist=2

Don't loose your time, let the rules for Randi's lawyers, perhaps they recomendated Randi to be in silence, and to not write about it with his sign on it. Who knows?

Thank you Doubt

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

That link can be interpretate as a "commercial" , or that I am looking for some attention. Sorry , but after many posts and views is time to let people know what my real job is.
My fight here is for my honor. I don't care if James Randi is a God for you: He lied and insulted me , and I deserve at least his excuses. The rest nobody knows.

 

[rwald]

It can't be forced perspective, because the object passed through the tower...

But what proof is there that the object must have passed through the tower?

 

[CurtC]

Carlos, I have described why a dark object moving in front of a bright background might not be very visible, especially since the bright part of the building was a very small section. I'll ask yet again: do you have a reason that this can't be correct?

Have you looked at the images of bugs flying in front of video cameras at at http://www.roswellrods.com ? This is very similar to what I see in the Internet images.

 

[scribble]

Re: ANOTHER STUPID QUESTION

Hi Bid lack:

If you "think" that STUPIDS questions like yours deserves an answer from me, then here is :

NO

You just saw the tape the regular way, you was looking at the plane crashes. I saw a paranormal activity in that tragic event, I made the application to the challenge first, and Randi is still on silence.

NO, you can't , is too late.
Ask Randi if you have more doubts.

Thanks,
S&S

A) The challenge is for you to demonstrate a paranormal ability. What ability are you claiming -- the ability to see ◊◊◊◊ that isn't there? that's hardly paranormal; I do it all the time.

B) The proof must be SELF-EVIDENT. Do you know what that merans? You admit right here that some people will look at this tape and see something perfectly normal, but it's YOU who looked at it and saw something paranormal.

Do you knwo what self-evident means?

YEven if this were a valid claim, which it isn't, since you're not claiming to be able to do anything, you'd still lose, because it's defacto not self-evident.

PLease shut up and go away now.

-Chris