The "Carlos Swett affair"
- Thread starter Patricio Elicer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carlos swett
- Status
Guest
Unregistered
G
CONTRADICTIONS
Rwald wants proofs but he always said in the chat that he nerver wants to see the high resolution image with professional equipments, so how Carlos can show something to a blind.
rwald said:
Rwald wants proofs but he always said in the chat that he nerver wants to see the high resolution image with professional equipments, so how Carlos can show something to a blind.
Guest
Unregistered
G
PUT ME IN YOUR LIST
Hi CWL:
Put me on your list.
But since I have answered ALL your questions, including the stupids ones, I must have the patient to see when will JAMES RANDI put my application and the poor answer they gave me, with their sign on it.
How is my english going?
Thank you CWL
Thanks,
S&S
CWL said:
Hi CWL:
Put me on your list.
But since I have answered ALL your questions, including the stupids ones, I must have the patient to see when will JAMES RANDI put my application and the poor answer they gave me, with their sign on it.
How is my english going?
Thank you CWL
Thanks,
S&S
rwald
Unregistered
R
Fair enough a question, latinijral. I generally try to only argue the legal reasons why Carlos is wrong, because those can be done without any special equipment. Here, I'm basically supporting the work of others, who do want to see the actual video. If Carlos could prove to scribble, or CurtC, or Doubt that the video is real, that would satisfy me.
But will he?
But will he?
Guest
Unregistered
G
Guest
Unregistered
G
Guest
Unregistered
G
Guest
Unregistered
G
Guest
Unregistered
G
Guest
Unregistered
G
Charlie in Dayton
Rabid radioactive stargazer and JREF kid
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,086
Oh, come ON, dude!!!
The proponents of this mess have been kvetching and screaming almost from day one that digitized images on the internet aren't the 'proper methods' to analyze this image...and now you're posting FIVE of them to support your side?
If nothing else, you were consistent in your nonsense before, but now you don't even have that! Latin (you don't mind if I call you by the short form of your screen name, do you? And even if you do mind, I'm gonna do it anyway, because of what the rest of it means...), you really do need to take a few steps back and take a deep breath on this one. I can see you descending into the WooWoo Maelstrom at a faster and faster rate, and it's not a pretty sight.
The proponents of this mess have been kvetching and screaming almost from day one that digitized images on the internet aren't the 'proper methods' to analyze this image...and now you're posting FIVE of them to support your side?
If nothing else, you were consistent in your nonsense before, but now you don't even have that! Latin (you don't mind if I call you by the short form of your screen name, do you? And even if you do mind, I'm gonna do it anyway, because of what the rest of it means...), you really do need to take a few steps back and take a deep breath on this one. I can see you descending into the WooWoo Maelstrom at a faster and faster rate, and it's not a pretty sight.
Guest
Unregistered
G
RWALD's RETURNS
Hi Rwald:
Welcome in your third come back. to the thread
Remember I have in my signature a reply thet belongs to you.
That was about the "legal part".
About if the video is real : How come Harter said he studied it "frame by frame" on a COPY available on internet?
Thanks,
S&S
rwald said:
Hi Rwald:
Welcome in your third come back. to the thread
Remember I have in my signature a reply thet belongs to you.
That was about the "legal part".
About if the video is real : How come Harter said he studied it "frame by frame" on a COPY available on internet?
Thanks,
S&S
Guest
Unregistered
G
DON'T YOU LIKE THE METHOD?
Hi Charlie in Dayton:
Welcome again in this thread.
Your reply can be interpretated that YOU also don't agree with the method ANDREW HARTER used to study the tape , so his answer is not the correct.
Yes, I've been telling that also.
Thanks, I need it that.
But those pictures latin posted are similatrs of what you can see in a 3/4 tape at the tv networks, better if you look at a big wide sreen television, and with the correct equipments.
How can you explain Randi's silence? He always talk about ufos in his week's commentaries, but nothing about this "paranormal activity"
Thanks,
S&S
Charlie in Dayton said:
Hi Charlie in Dayton:
Welcome again in this thread.
Your reply can be interpretated that YOU also don't agree with the method ANDREW HARTER used to study the tape , so his answer is not the correct.
Yes, I've been telling that also.
Thanks, I need it that.
But those pictures latin posted are similatrs of what you can see in a 3/4 tape at the tv networks, better if you look at a big wide sreen television, and with the correct equipments.
How can you explain Randi's silence? He always talk about ufos in his week's commentaries, but nothing about this "paranormal activity"
Thanks,
S&S
Blue Monk
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 1,769
S&S,
I have resisted posting on the ridiculous subject to any extent as long as I could but now I'm gonna give my two cents.
For the moment I will ignore the mountains of alternative possibilities concerning that specific tape, concerning misidentified smaller objects nearer to the camera, technical problems with the camera and or film. I'll overlook the fact that this image appears to look like something to you and not point out that just because a cloud looks like a bunny does not mean it is. I'll overlook the fact that as a photography major in college with a brief career as a photographer I have literally boxes filled with photos, slides, 16mm film and videotape just packed with 'paranormal' artifacts that I can't explain. For the moment I'll ignore that.
I'll ignore the fact that even if another tape is produced showing the same event to rule out technical flaws in this particular taping there is still no human on earth that can understand all of the physical laws being pushed to the extreme that day and there is no way that anyone can know the exact conditions at that moment. No one knows exactly what was on the planes or inside the buildings. The pressures on those buildings under ideal conditions push man's knowledge to the limit and no one could accurately predict in precise details what may or may not occur when they are slammed into by large commercial airliners. The forces placed on those buildings in ways to which they were not designed must have been phenomenal. I could easily believe that a piece of masonry, glass or steel at the focal point of gathering energy could fly off as if shot from a cannon and even if the resulting image closely resembled Elvis I would be unimpressed. But for now I'll ignore that.
And even if a blue-ribbon panel was assembled to study this tape, calling in leading experts from around the globe and they studied it for years and in the end were unable to identify the source of this pathetic little streak do you know what that would prove?
Nothing!
People once couldn't explain lightning so it must be Zeus. They were wrong. It's a discharge of electro-static energy.
People once thought volcanoes meant the Gods were angry. They were wrong. It's the natural result of the movements of the Earth's crust and plumes.
Planes crash all the time and it is remarkable how well the investigators can sift through the debris, analyze all of the evidence and determine a cause but guess what? Sometimes they can't. No one would ever consider the lack of an explanation as proof of something paranormal.
Not being able to explain something will never be proof of the paranormal no more than any mysterious bumps I hear tonight while I am in bed that I can't identify is proof that ghosts are holding a rave in my living room.
But as to your claims considering the challenge I have a very hard time seeing how you feel your tape even remotely meets the requirements. Remember, these rules were in place long before this tape ever surfaced. Let me refresh everyone's memory by posting the opening paragraph and the first condition to be met.
I have no idea exactly what psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability you plan to demonstrate or under what conditions you plan to do so as clearly indicated by the rules. If you can't meet the basic rules of the challenge then as far as I'm concerned, case closed.
I am sure you believe this is a paranormal event but that notwithstanding I think it's a shame you have let it affect your ethical judgment to the point you are willing to slander others for not addressing this issue when it quite clearly can not meet the most minimal requirement of being demonstrable under satisfactory observing conditions.
You have a tape that, though many plausible explanations have been put forth, no one, including you, has yet to definitivly explain.
When does the proof that this is paranormal begin?
I have resisted posting on the ridiculous subject to any extent as long as I could but now I'm gonna give my two cents.
For the moment I will ignore the mountains of alternative possibilities concerning that specific tape, concerning misidentified smaller objects nearer to the camera, technical problems with the camera and or film. I'll overlook the fact that this image appears to look like something to you and not point out that just because a cloud looks like a bunny does not mean it is. I'll overlook the fact that as a photography major in college with a brief career as a photographer I have literally boxes filled with photos, slides, 16mm film and videotape just packed with 'paranormal' artifacts that I can't explain. For the moment I'll ignore that.
I'll ignore the fact that even if another tape is produced showing the same event to rule out technical flaws in this particular taping there is still no human on earth that can understand all of the physical laws being pushed to the extreme that day and there is no way that anyone can know the exact conditions at that moment. No one knows exactly what was on the planes or inside the buildings. The pressures on those buildings under ideal conditions push man's knowledge to the limit and no one could accurately predict in precise details what may or may not occur when they are slammed into by large commercial airliners. The forces placed on those buildings in ways to which they were not designed must have been phenomenal. I could easily believe that a piece of masonry, glass or steel at the focal point of gathering energy could fly off as if shot from a cannon and even if the resulting image closely resembled Elvis I would be unimpressed. But for now I'll ignore that.
And even if a blue-ribbon panel was assembled to study this tape, calling in leading experts from around the globe and they studied it for years and in the end were unable to identify the source of this pathetic little streak do you know what that would prove?
Nothing!
People once couldn't explain lightning so it must be Zeus. They were wrong. It's a discharge of electro-static energy.
People once thought volcanoes meant the Gods were angry. They were wrong. It's the natural result of the movements of the Earth's crust and plumes.
Planes crash all the time and it is remarkable how well the investigators can sift through the debris, analyze all of the evidence and determine a cause but guess what? Sometimes they can't. No one would ever consider the lack of an explanation as proof of something paranormal.
Not being able to explain something will never be proof of the paranormal no more than any mysterious bumps I hear tonight while I am in bed that I can't identify is proof that ghosts are holding a rave in my living room.
But as to your claims considering the challenge I have a very hard time seeing how you feel your tape even remotely meets the requirements. Remember, these rules were in place long before this tape ever surfaced. Let me refresh everyone's memory by posting the opening paragraph and the first condition to be met.
I have no idea exactly what psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability you plan to demonstrate or under what conditions you plan to do so as clearly indicated by the rules. If you can't meet the basic rules of the challenge then as far as I'm concerned, case closed.
I am sure you believe this is a paranormal event but that notwithstanding I think it's a shame you have let it affect your ethical judgment to the point you are willing to slander others for not addressing this issue when it quite clearly can not meet the most minimal requirement of being demonstrable under satisfactory observing conditions.
You have a tape that, though many plausible explanations have been put forth, no one, including you, has yet to definitivly explain.
When does the proof that this is paranormal begin?
Guest
Unregistered
G
CHARLIE (EL CID) AGREES WITH SWETT
1. Charlie confirms that a proper method is not analized an internet image or video. Harter did it.
2. Charlie confirms to me one month ago (charlie`s clock update 30 days) that he wanted to analyse the image on his own local tv station.
3. The pictures that Carlos found in the internet are similars that I found on my local tv station.
4. Why Randi likes to analize videos or pictures of planets and clouds or airplanes, but in this shot he is in silence. You can see his week`s commentarys.
Charlie in Dayton said:
1. Charlie confirms that a proper method is not analized an internet image or video. Harter did it.
2. Charlie confirms to me one month ago (charlie`s clock update 30 days) that he wanted to analyse the image on his own local tv station.
3. The pictures that Carlos found in the internet are similars that I found on my local tv station.
4. Why Randi likes to analize videos or pictures of planets and clouds or airplanes, but in this shot he is in silence. You can see his week`s commentarys.
hal bidlack
Unregistered
H
OK, Carlos, let me try and speak to you in your own way that I might therefore avoid "stupid" questions again. Please address my final concerns below. If you can explain these, I will be convinced.
-can you verify that you did not fail to unsee the object before it was concerned (i.e., integrated or conjoined) with the influx of the psychic forces of the planes before the smoke was attenuated via the vector theory of lift and drag before the rotor effect was dominate?
-does the mothership provide the needed video valance balance to confirm the orientation of the ship's frame rate transmission in terms of the on-board vortex context and the unneeded energy diodes?
-did your application include proper fiduciary non-disclaimers of the time continum reference to the studio's video tape and therefore does not fail to not contain the needed and unneeded inverse and converse chronographical data input stream?
-given the veracity of your claim, can you swear or affirmm, or attest that that ingestion of biochemical Galenicals from a sybaritism concern have not mitigated the intersection of the claim and the non-claim, vis-a-vis the outcome of the resolution in current dollars?
If the answers to all these are yes, heck, you may have a leg to stand on.
-can you verify that you did not fail to unsee the object before it was concerned (i.e., integrated or conjoined) with the influx of the psychic forces of the planes before the smoke was attenuated via the vector theory of lift and drag before the rotor effect was dominate?
-does the mothership provide the needed video valance balance to confirm the orientation of the ship's frame rate transmission in terms of the on-board vortex context and the unneeded energy diodes?
-did your application include proper fiduciary non-disclaimers of the time continum reference to the studio's video tape and therefore does not fail to not contain the needed and unneeded inverse and converse chronographical data input stream?
-given the veracity of your claim, can you swear or affirmm, or attest that that ingestion of biochemical Galenicals from a sybaritism concern have not mitigated the intersection of the claim and the non-claim, vis-a-vis the outcome of the resolution in current dollars?
If the answers to all these are yes, heck, you may have a leg to stand on.
CurtC
Illuminator
bidlack, I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
Re: FORCED PERSPECTIVE?
I went back and looked over the translated entry form on this thread.
Your explanation still does not rule out forced perspective. If the object was a bird or insect close to the camera, the object was likely to be out side of the depth of focus of the video camera. It is quite possible to place an object so close to a camera that it starts to become invisible if it does not receive adequate light or is back lit. Your "paranormal" object passes from a blue background to a white background which naturally reflects more light towards the camera. The light from the white tower is reflected back at the focal point of the camera so the tower shows up quite well. The object passing in front of the tower but close to the camera gets blotted right out because it is out of focus and cannot concentrate sufficient light at the focal point of the lens.
Your "paranormal" object could have disappeared because the background changed, not because it entered a building.
Examples of objects that were to close to the camera to be seen can be found in old issues of Penthouse magazine. When Bob Guccione (spelling?) used to do his own photography, he would place bandage gauze across the lens of his camera to achieve a soft focus effect. The gauze was never visible thanks to the focal depth of the camera and the lack of light on the gauze itself.
Here is a link that discusses the use of gauze to achieve soft focus:
http://www.virtix.com/doc/Sample/SoftFocus.asp
Of course, it there was a second camera at a different location that saw this object, then my explanation would be invalid. Do you have a second perspective on the object?
S&S said:
I went back and looked over the translated entry form on this thread.
Your explanation still does not rule out forced perspective. If the object was a bird or insect close to the camera, the object was likely to be out side of the depth of focus of the video camera. It is quite possible to place an object so close to a camera that it starts to become invisible if it does not receive adequate light or is back lit. Your "paranormal" object passes from a blue background to a white background which naturally reflects more light towards the camera. The light from the white tower is reflected back at the focal point of the camera so the tower shows up quite well. The object passing in front of the tower but close to the camera gets blotted right out because it is out of focus and cannot concentrate sufficient light at the focal point of the lens.
Your "paranormal" object could have disappeared because the background changed, not because it entered a building.
Examples of objects that were to close to the camera to be seen can be found in old issues of Penthouse magazine. When Bob Guccione (spelling?) used to do his own photography, he would place bandage gauze across the lens of his camera to achieve a soft focus effect. The gauze was never visible thanks to the focal depth of the camera and the lack of light on the gauze itself.
Here is a link that discusses the use of gauze to achieve soft focus:
http://www.virtix.com/doc/Sample/SoftFocus.asp
Of course, it there was a second camera at a different location that saw this object, then my explanation would be invalid. Do you have a second perspective on the object?
- Status