Guest
Unregistered
G
The "Carlos Swett affair"
- Thread starter Patricio Elicer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carlos swett
- Status
hal bidlack
Unregistered
H
Re: JUST ANSWER
I have also tried to understand what your exact questions are. As you have been kind enough to mark the "lies" below, I shall assume that these are your questions.
"Lie 1" Andrew says you made two assumptions
my response: yes, I think you did too. So that's not a lie. And in your history of posting, simply asserting something as true has been enough proof for you, so it is for me too.
"Lie 2" Andrew says you said it came from behind the tower, but you say you only said it looked that way.
my response: Yup. Based on your long history here, I am certainly under the impression that you have been claiming the "object" was behind the towers. But let's say I'm wrong on this one, just to keep the process moving. Let's say Andrew misunderstood that point (note: I don't believe he did, but I'm trying to bend over backwards so that you'll answer my "in advance" question)
"Lie 2.5" I think you are claiming that since he did not use the words "your claim is invalid" but rather said, "you have no claim" you believe that to mean he was saying you had a valid application?
A generous response is to suggest a language problem. A harsher response might suggest a purposeful obtuseness. If you ask me to give you my car, and I say "you can have it when the last cow comes home" do you think I have made a binding bovine-based contract with you, or told you to take a hike?
Carlos, he said you have no claim. That suggests that YOU HAVE NO CLAIM. You may disagree (and I've suggested several media outlets that you should take your issue to to let the public decide), but it's certainly not a lie
OK. I believe that I have, once again, directly responded to your complaints to me. You asked me to address the "lies" you were told, and I have done so.
Now I ask you one last time: Do you agree that the JREF million dollar challenge clearly states that any claim must be based on a test set up IN ADVANCE AND AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES?
This is a simple question. Do you agree, or do you not agree.
I wait with baited breath for your next missive.
S&S said:Mr. Hal Bidlack :
You are just refusing to answer my questions.
Prove me that they (ANDREW and RANDI) did'nt lied in their answer.
HB -- well, that's not the way it works. The burden is not on me, but rather you. If I say "Carlos sets cats on fire" and then I demand that you prove I'm not lying, you can't do it. In a court, you need not prove you are innocent, the DA must prove you are guilty
Who do you think you are? Randi's Pope?
HB -- Yes. You are on to me. I think I'm Randi's Pope.
Prove it and answer the specific questions, don't be afraid.
HB -- see below
I have also tried to understand what your exact questions are. As you have been kind enough to mark the "lies" below, I shall assume that these are your questions.
"Lie 1" Andrew says you made two assumptions
my response: yes, I think you did too. So that's not a lie. And in your history of posting, simply asserting something as true has been enough proof for you, so it is for me too.
"Lie 2" Andrew says you said it came from behind the tower, but you say you only said it looked that way.
my response: Yup. Based on your long history here, I am certainly under the impression that you have been claiming the "object" was behind the towers. But let's say I'm wrong on this one, just to keep the process moving. Let's say Andrew misunderstood that point (note: I don't believe he did, but I'm trying to bend over backwards so that you'll answer my "in advance" question)
"Lie 2.5" I think you are claiming that since he did not use the words "your claim is invalid" but rather said, "you have no claim" you believe that to mean he was saying you had a valid application?
A generous response is to suggest a language problem. A harsher response might suggest a purposeful obtuseness. If you ask me to give you my car, and I say "you can have it when the last cow comes home" do you think I have made a binding bovine-based contract with you, or told you to take a hike?
Carlos, he said you have no claim. That suggests that YOU HAVE NO CLAIM. You may disagree (and I've suggested several media outlets that you should take your issue to to let the public decide), but it's certainly not a lie
OK. I believe that I have, once again, directly responded to your complaints to me. You asked me to address the "lies" you were told, and I have done so.
Now I ask you one last time: Do you agree that the JREF million dollar challenge clearly states that any claim must be based on a test set up IN ADVANCE AND AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES?
This is a simple question. Do you agree, or do you not agree.
I wait with baited breath for your next missive.
Guest
Unregistered
G
JUST ANSWER
Just answer Mr . Hal Bidlack , don't just go around the questions, be frontal.
Where are the 2 assumptions in Harter's answer ? Only because YOU "thinks" the same is already an answer?
ANSWER MR HAL BIDLACK : Where are the 2 assumptioms I made according to Harter's answer to my application. You are a liar too, you did not answer the question. FIRST LIE
About the second lie:
Another confused answer Mr. Bidlack : where in my application I said that the "object " was behind or comes behind the tower.?
That's your second lie. So you: "don't beleive he did"?
Are you a "beleiver"?. Just answer. Be frontal: where in my application I claim that the object comes from behind the tower?
SECOND LIE
About" Lie 2.5"
Another poor answer, Mr. Bidlack.
Andrew Harter said in his answer: "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."
He explained the reason why I have no claim : because nothing supernatural is taking place, according to the stupid method he used to analize the image :his words :". I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "
No a single word that my application was not valid.
Again you also interpretate his words.THIRD LIE
Harter answered:
"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame."
*Somebody or YOU Bidlack knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?
Blue Monk , you better take your time or you will become another lier.
Don't worry about the money Mr. Bidlack, I don't care about that, all I want you is to recognize that Harter lied (as you did), used a poor method to give an answer to a notarized application and to make this officially as James Randi do with other similar material in his week's commentaries. Just put my application and harter's answer with the aprooval of Randi. That's all.
Why are they afraid to comment about it?
bidlack said:
Just answer Mr . Hal Bidlack , don't just go around the questions, be frontal.
Where are the 2 assumptions in Harter's answer ? Only because YOU "thinks" the same is already an answer?
ANSWER MR HAL BIDLACK : Where are the 2 assumptioms I made according to Harter's answer to my application. You are a liar too, you did not answer the question. FIRST LIE
About the second lie:
Another confused answer Mr. Bidlack : where in my application I said that the "object " was behind or comes behind the tower.?
That's your second lie. So you: "don't beleive he did"?
Are you a "beleiver"?. Just answer. Be frontal: where in my application I claim that the object comes from behind the tower?
SECOND LIE
About" Lie 2.5"
Another poor answer, Mr. Bidlack.
Andrew Harter said in his answer: "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."
He explained the reason why I have no claim : because nothing supernatural is taking place, according to the stupid method he used to analize the image :his words :". I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "
No a single word that my application was not valid.
Again you also interpretate his words.THIRD LIE
Harter answered:
"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame."
*Somebody or YOU Bidlack knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?
Blue Monk , you better take your time or you will become another lier.
Don't worry about the money Mr. Bidlack, I don't care about that, all I want you is to recognize that Harter lied (as you did), used a poor method to give an answer to a notarized application and to make this officially as James Randi do with other similar material in his week's commentaries. Just put my application and harter's answer with the aprooval of Randi. That's all.
Why are they afraid to comment about it?
CurtC
Illuminator
latinjral, no one is sure what it is. We've looked at the evidence:
* It's blurred by about half the distance it travels each frame, so it's pretty small compared to the length of the blur, and
* There were other birds flying around in the area.
If you can show me something that's wrong with this conculsion, please make your case, but don't just post the picture again and make a poor attempt at insulting one of us, like you've done up to now.
S&S, Harter did not lie. He tried to understand what your point was, but came to a different conculsion. He said you made two assumptions, and explicitly pointed out one of them. I'm not sure what he was referring to about your second assumption, but are you basing your complaint on the fact that he wasn't explicit about identifying what both assumptions were?
But he tells you why this isn't evidence of anything paranormal. That right there says that you may not claim the money. People on this forum have also pointed out that, even if this tape showed a paranormal hat, you still didn't meet the technical requirements of the challenge. So you failed on two counts - one, the evidence does not support a paranormal explanation, and two, your claim doesn't meet the "in advance" rules of the challenge anyway. No one has lied, although it wouldn't be surprising for someone to have misunderstood something that you said somewhere, because it's a little hard to understand your English (my Spanish is much worse and I'm glad that you're making the effort to communicate in English, but it's still a little hard to understand).
* It's blurred by about half the distance it travels each frame, so it's pretty small compared to the length of the blur, and
* There were other birds flying around in the area.
If you can show me something that's wrong with this conculsion, please make your case, but don't just post the picture again and make a poor attempt at insulting one of us, like you've done up to now.
S&S, Harter did not lie. He tried to understand what your point was, but came to a different conculsion. He said you made two assumptions, and explicitly pointed out one of them. I'm not sure what he was referring to about your second assumption, but are you basing your complaint on the fact that he wasn't explicit about identifying what both assumptions were?
But he tells you why this isn't evidence of anything paranormal. That right there says that you may not claim the money. People on this forum have also pointed out that, even if this tape showed a paranormal hat, you still didn't meet the technical requirements of the challenge. So you failed on two counts - one, the evidence does not support a paranormal explanation, and two, your claim doesn't meet the "in advance" rules of the challenge anyway. No one has lied, although it wouldn't be surprising for someone to have misunderstood something that you said somewhere, because it's a little hard to understand your English (my Spanish is much worse and I'm glad that you're making the effort to communicate in English, but it's still a little hard to understand).
Guest
Unregistered
G
"I DON'T THINK" ??????????????
Is this the kind of researcher and conferencist the JREF have?
Investigate and answer Hal Bidlack.
Andrew Harter and James Randi , do the same.
Thanhs,
S&S
bidlack said:
Is this the kind of researcher and conferencist the JREF have?
Investigate and answer Hal Bidlack.
Andrew Harter and James Randi , do the same.
Thanhs,
S&S
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
An ignorant S&S fool
who was stubborn and thick as a mule
when he saw a bird fly
said that it was a lie
thought that he could ignore every rule
who was stubborn and thick as a mule
when he saw a bird fly
said that it was a lie
thought that he could ignore every rule
hal bidlack
Unregistered
H
Re: "I DON'T THINK" ??????????????
Carlos, perhaps we are up against a language problem. I have absolutely no idea what your last two posts mean. I only gather that in spite of my attempt to directly answer your questions so that you will directly answer my "in advance" question, you still refuse.
I am now also a liar, although I have no idea what you feel I lied about.
I'll ask this one last time, in hopes that you will answer.
Do you agree that the challenge is clear in the requirment to agree IN ADVANCE to the paranormal event?
Assuming you will not answered this, and will again called me a liar and a 'conferencist,' I shall again urge you to abandon this JREF quest, and immediately report us to the media.
If you are right, you have the greatest news story since creation, and will be vindicated, and your good name restored, the JREF will become the object of ridicule and scorn, and you will be the toast of the globe.
I urge you to take the tape to radio, TV, newspapers, and let them proclaim your insight. That'll teach us.
best of luck
S&S said:
Carlos, perhaps we are up against a language problem. I have absolutely no idea what your last two posts mean. I only gather that in spite of my attempt to directly answer your questions so that you will directly answer my "in advance" question, you still refuse.
I am now also a liar, although I have no idea what you feel I lied about.
I'll ask this one last time, in hopes that you will answer.
Do you agree that the challenge is clear in the requirment to agree IN ADVANCE to the paranormal event?
Assuming you will not answered this, and will again called me a liar and a 'conferencist,' I shall again urge you to abandon this JREF quest, and immediately report us to the media.
If you are right, you have the greatest news story since creation, and will be vindicated, and your good name restored, the JREF will become the object of ridicule and scorn, and you will be the toast of the globe.
I urge you to take the tape to radio, TV, newspapers, and let them proclaim your insight. That'll teach us.
best of luck
Guest
Unregistered
G
"I DON'T THINK" ??????????????
Mr.Hal Bidlack:
Just answer , don't be afraid.
I send My application to JREF and I received from them only lies based on apoor method . That's a fact.
Just answer, be frontal in your answers, you just go around and around.
My application was in spanish (before Randi changed the rules) so there is not excuse of language, just answer about the lies, Bidlack. This is not a war.
Thanks,
S&S
bidlack said:
Carlos, perhaps we are up against a language problem. I have absolutely no idea what your last two posts mean. I only gather that in spite of my attempt to directly answer your questions so that you will directly answer my "in advance" question, you still refuse.
I am now also a liar, although I have no idea what you feel I lied about.
I'll ask this one last time, in hopes that you will answer.
Do you agree that the challenge is clear in the requirment to agree IN ADVANCE to the paranormal event?
Assuming you will not answered this, and will again called me a liar and a 'conferencist,' I shall again urge you to abandon this JREF quest, and immediately report us to the media.
If you are right, you have the greatest news story since creation, and will be vindicated, and your good name restored, the JREF will become the object of ridicule and scorn, and you will be the toast of the globe.
I urge you to take the tape to radio, TV, newspapers, and let them proclaim your insight. That'll teach us.
best of luck
Mr.Hal Bidlack:
Just answer , don't be afraid.
I send My application to JREF and I received from them only lies based on apoor method . That's a fact.
Just answer, be frontal in your answers, you just go around and around.
My application was in spanish (before Randi changed the rules) so there is not excuse of language, just answer about the lies, Bidlack. This is not a war.
Thanks,
S&S
hal bidlack
Unregistered
H
ok, then.
I answered your questions.
You pretend that I didn't.
You refuse to answer my single, simple question.
I have no choice but to conclude that you are a fraud.
Until you answer my "in advance" question, I am done with you. Say what you wish, your credibility is zero.
good bye, Carlos
I answered your questions.
You pretend that I didn't.
You refuse to answer my single, simple question.
I have no choice but to conclude that you are a fraud.
Until you answer my "in advance" question, I am done with you. Say what you wish, your credibility is zero.
good bye, Carlos
Guest
Unregistered
G
JUST: "I think"
Mr Hal Bidlack:
No , You did not answer anything.
You just said :"I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. "
So answer the questions,are clear enough.
Don't be afraid.
I don't care what you "think".
Act like a member of JREF.
Thanks,
S&S
bidlack said:
Mr Hal Bidlack:
No , You did not answer anything.
You just said :"I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. "
So answer the questions,are clear enough.
Don't be afraid.
I don't care what you "think".
Act like a member of JREF.
Thanks,
S&S
Let's drop the language barrier here for a moment (apologies to those who cannot read Spanish. Iwill be translating posts upon demand, but I feel this man needs to be adressed in his own mother tongue):
?QUé co?o es lo que quiere demostrar, caballero? Se le ha explicado por activa y por pasiva que a) lo que usted presenta no es en modo alguno aceptable, por una serie de motivos que se han repetido hasta la saciedad y que no es preciso reproducir aqui de nuevo (si ha estado atento a los ultimos 800+ mensajes los habrá leido hasta aburrirse) y b) al mantener esa actitud cerril, lo único que consigue es que la mayoría de miembros de este fórum crean que es usted un iluminado o un idiota. No creo que esperase usted encontrar mucha simpatía en un fórum de escépticos dedicados a desenmascarar enga?os psíquicos y a buscar soluciones a sucesos aparentemente sobrenaturales. Así pues, háganos a todos un favor: diga claramente QUÉ CO?O PRETENDE MANTENIENDO VIVO este intercambio de mensajes: qué pretende sacar en limpio? Ha presentado sus pruebas en infinidad de ocasiones; no convencen a nadie (excepto a un par de zumbados, alguna marioneta que maneja usted mismo y quizá a alguno de esos fanáticos que anteponen la letra de una afirmación a su espíritu). Usted considera que se le ha tratado injustamente y que Randi está faltando a su palabra: dígalo así, claramente, UNA SOLA VEZ, y deje de dar la paliza, hombre de Dios. Presente una demanda judicial si cree haber sido víctima de un enga?o, pero por favor no nos inflinja más fotos y repeticiones de sus argumentos.
Ah, y otra cosa: métase el argumento de "ustedes los del Primer Mundo" por donde le quepa. Estoy hasta los huevos de oír esa estupidez en este contexto: lo único que consigue con ello es banalizar un problema muy grave que efectivamente existe, pero que no tiene nada que ver con usted. Toda la incomprensión que encuentre usted aquí es de su propia cosecha de usted, y no tiene NADA que ver con su país de procedencia. Si quiere usted discutir, adelante, pero déjese de falacias, joder.
Atentamente
Pablo Álvarez
?QUé co?o es lo que quiere demostrar, caballero? Se le ha explicado por activa y por pasiva que a) lo que usted presenta no es en modo alguno aceptable, por una serie de motivos que se han repetido hasta la saciedad y que no es preciso reproducir aqui de nuevo (si ha estado atento a los ultimos 800+ mensajes los habrá leido hasta aburrirse) y b) al mantener esa actitud cerril, lo único que consigue es que la mayoría de miembros de este fórum crean que es usted un iluminado o un idiota. No creo que esperase usted encontrar mucha simpatía en un fórum de escépticos dedicados a desenmascarar enga?os psíquicos y a buscar soluciones a sucesos aparentemente sobrenaturales. Así pues, háganos a todos un favor: diga claramente QUÉ CO?O PRETENDE MANTENIENDO VIVO este intercambio de mensajes: qué pretende sacar en limpio? Ha presentado sus pruebas en infinidad de ocasiones; no convencen a nadie (excepto a un par de zumbados, alguna marioneta que maneja usted mismo y quizá a alguno de esos fanáticos que anteponen la letra de una afirmación a su espíritu). Usted considera que se le ha tratado injustamente y que Randi está faltando a su palabra: dígalo así, claramente, UNA SOLA VEZ, y deje de dar la paliza, hombre de Dios. Presente una demanda judicial si cree haber sido víctima de un enga?o, pero por favor no nos inflinja más fotos y repeticiones de sus argumentos.
Ah, y otra cosa: métase el argumento de "ustedes los del Primer Mundo" por donde le quepa. Estoy hasta los huevos de oír esa estupidez en este contexto: lo único que consigue con ello es banalizar un problema muy grave que efectivamente existe, pero que no tiene nada que ver con usted. Toda la incomprensión que encuentre usted aquí es de su propia cosecha de usted, y no tiene NADA que ver con su país de procedencia. Si quiere usted discutir, adelante, pero déjese de falacias, joder.
Atentamente
Pablo Álvarez
I just read this whole thing. All eighteen pages. I am an idiot who desperatley needs to get a life. The part that made the most sense was the last post, and I don't read spanish.
My Ed, this guy is prepared to go on forever, because his honour has been besmirched. Not because he believes in what he's doing, but for his honour. He's prepared to do any evasion, any misquoting, any ignoring of questions, any responsibilty to actually read the rules of a game he wants to play. I'd hate to try to play soccer with this guy. He'd throw a golf ball at the side lines, declare he'd scored a touchdown, and then say that the other team had questioned his honour, and he really did touch all the bases.
I want the two hours back.
My Ed, this guy is prepared to go on forever, because his honour has been besmirched. Not because he believes in what he's doing, but for his honour. He's prepared to do any evasion, any misquoting, any ignoring of questions, any responsibilty to actually read the rules of a game he wants to play. I'd hate to try to play soccer with this guy. He'd throw a golf ball at the side lines, declare he'd scored a touchdown, and then say that the other team had questioned his honour, and he really did touch all the bases.
I want the two hours back.
Purple Tentacle
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 64
carlos is a LIER, he REFUSES to answer me !!!
S&S or CARLOS,
you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi
S&S or CARLOS,
you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!
http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi
Guest
Unregistered
G
CurtC said:
Curt C:
Did you see the professional image transmitted live with professional equipments or you are talking about the internet videos like Harter????
Are you sure that it is a bird???
Pablito:
Pablito clavò un clavito y se lastimò el dedito por no analizar el videito.
Attachments
Guest
Unregistered
G
If Harter is not a liar researcher, obvoiusly is a non prepare researcher.
HARTER: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT YOUR BIRD??????
HARTER: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT YOUR BIRD??????
rwald
Unregistered
R
Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? And besides, even if Andrew didn't mention your second assumption, that doesn't mean you didn't make two assumptions; it just means that Andrew didn't talk about both of them.
And one more thing: What does Andrew's reply have to do with your application being invalid? It was invalid before Andrew ever saw it. It was invalid the moment it left your hands. Andrew's reply has no relationship to your application being invalid.
Here's an example: If I sent in a notarized application saying, "My talent is that I am God. Here's a video proving it:" would the application be "valid until proven otherwise"? No. Since I broke at least two of the rules, my application would be invalid WITHOUT anyone having to specifically say so. Just as it was with your application.
And what part of "You have no claim." = "Your claim is invalid." don't you understand?
And one more thing: What does Andrew's reply have to do with your application being invalid? It was invalid before Andrew ever saw it. It was invalid the moment it left your hands. Andrew's reply has no relationship to your application being invalid.
Here's an example: If I sent in a notarized application saying, "My talent is that I am God. Here's a video proving it:" would the application be "valid until proven otherwise"? No. Since I broke at least two of the rules, my application would be invalid WITHOUT anyone having to specifically say so. Just as it was with your application.
And what part of "You have no claim." = "Your claim is invalid." don't you understand?
Guest
Unregistered
G
VIRTUAL SPANISH
Hi Pablo;
You have an hispanic name , but seems that you forgot spanish or you are using a "virtual translator".
Your opinion you can also introduce it where you know it fixes on you.
You are not the one who been lied by meembers of JREF.
I only put facts here in the forum, is not my fault that you can notdebate in a propper way with me, with arguments and no insults.
Check your spanish.
Thanks,
S&S
P.S:
You are also wrong in your signature, was SOCRATES and not ARISTOTELES who said that. Read a little more.
Pablo said:
Hi Pablo;
You have an hispanic name , but seems that you forgot spanish or you are using a "virtual translator".
Your opinion you can also introduce it where you know it fixes on you.
You are not the one who been lied by meembers of JREF.
I only put facts here in the forum, is not my fault that you can notdebate in a propper way with me, with arguments and no insults.
Check your spanish.
Thanks,
S&S
P.S:
You are also wrong in your signature, was SOCRATES and not ARISTOTELES who said that. Read a little more.
Guest
Unregistered
G
READ THE APPLICATION
Dragon:
Wow, big letters, no fire indeed.
Are you a kind of slow person, there had been a lot of replies and views and you still don't know what I wrote in my application to the JREF?
Just read it, is on page 2 the translated version and in more pages (I don't remember now) in which I wanted Blue Monk and Bidlack to answer me about Harter's lies.
Try again.
Thanks,
S&S
Dragon said:
Dragon:
Wow, big letters, no fire indeed.
Are you a kind of slow person, there had been a lot of replies and views and you still don't know what I wrote in my application to the JREF?
Just read it, is on page 2 the translated version and in more pages (I don't remember now) in which I wanted Blue Monk and Bidlack to answer me about Harter's lies.
Try again.
Thanks,
S&S
Guest
Unregistered
G
DON?T BE RIDICULOUS
nick Purple Tentacle:
You are calling me a lier.I never did.
Andrew Harter and Bidlack did it. Check Rwald's answer.
If you are "thinking" that because of your question , I am sure you must use another word.
But , remember I already answered you and I put to you a question , but you never answered.
So again, see this point:
I always said here that Andrew Harter used a poor and stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown video on internet). Right? Many times I said that and also otheres members said the same , just read my signature.
So is not my fault that you did not understand that point.
You are asking me the same, to study a video from the internet, an unknown video, a digitized image.
Don't be ridiculous, send that link to the JREF , they used that stupid method to analize tapes.
Thanks,
S&S
:Purple Tentacle said:
nick Purple Tentacle:
You are calling me a lier.I never did.
Andrew Harter and Bidlack did it. Check Rwald's answer.
If you are "thinking" that because of your question , I am sure you must use another word.
But , remember I already answered you and I put to you a question , but you never answered.
So again, see this point:
I always said here that Andrew Harter used a poor and stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown video on internet). Right? Many times I said that and also otheres members said the same , just read my signature.
So is not my fault that you did not understand that point.
You are asking me the same, to study a video from the internet, an unknown video, a digitized image.
Don't be ridiculous, send that link to the JREF , they used that stupid method to analize tapes.
Thanks,
S&S
- Status