The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

WHAT IS NEW ; BLUE MONK?

Now all the members "have " access to see a link on internet of the complete sequence of the shot I send to JREF. The link is http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html
Is a web page created under an investigation of Blue Monk, I thank to him also his work.

But Blue Monk , you "forgot " to put my translated application to the challenge ( Patricio Elicer also "forgot" that when he created this thread).

This is important so ANY member or persons who want to know the truth or make any commentary will have also the arguments of "the other part", the ussual way to make conclutions.

You are refering to a "Carlos", I assume that is me, so to be honest enough put my translated application to the challenge with my complete name on it: Carlos Swett.

Now that I see there are many fans or "believers" of the "bird" assumption, let me remember what you said in that page:
" I agree with Harter that the object is probably a bird. "

So Harter and you Blue Monk are not sure that is a bird.

Let me remember you and Harter what I said in my application WITH REASONS ON IT why is not a bird or an insect:

"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."

Now blue Monk or followers of "the bird" , can anybody say here that the "bird" can be seen after it enterd the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower? Can you Blue Monk or somebody else have the honesty to put a picture demonstrating that the bird is over that side of the building?
Is a paranormal bird that just dissapear at that point?
Patricio Elicer admited HERE this:"It turned out that one of those gaps coincided precisely with the moment the bird passed in front of the building."

That was the basis of my conclution in MY application:

"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."

Now you can see Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that. Can be seen also in your link.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that,.Can be seen also in your link.

The only difference is that you are using an internet tape, I made the final study based in a 3/4 tape property of a tv network, with persons that worked in the same station and with their proffesional equipments, best resolution, really slow frame by frame, no jumps or gags, watched in a big 52 inchess wide screen television, more than hundreds reviews, so I am SURE to tell you BLUE MONK and followers, "that thing" entered the hole, and its form remains to what latinijral posted here.

Just by saying "IS a bird; Is a bird" without arguments , is not necesarilly a truth, and you know that sceptics.
Your mission now is to debate my reasons exposed in my notarized application to the challenge.

So blue Monk , don't forget to put my translated notarized application, and to complete the honesty put Andrew Harter's answer to my application. Or you are afraid like James Randi?

Arguments , please, arguments.
What's new in "your tape" Blue Monk?

Thanks,

S&S

 

[PinkRabbit]

Er, as I wrote, I did look at it on 3/4 inch tape, and I could see the object all the way across the building. It was very faded due to motion and out of focus blur, but it was there. Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there.

Look at it at something approaching regular motion actually makes it easier to see.

The object never disappears. I repeat, that's an optical illusion. It's there all the way across the arc when you look at it on good tape at near normal speed.

I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy.

You're wrong, Carlos Swett, it does not go through the tower. It goes in front of it, probably only a short distance from the camera (since the zoom is doubtless tightly pinned, it's hard to be certain, since that alters depth of field quite a lot, and also alters the perception of depth, but we guessed at less than one hundred yards).

Barb

 

[Blue Monk]

Carlos has gone to great lengths to put his own spin on my page.

Most amusing.

I offer this page as proof.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves two points conclusively.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

Don't believe me? Then view my page. It is not opinion. It is factual and anyone who desires can repeat the process. Find any view you want on the internet and it will prove me correct and Carlos wrong.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

<a href=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html</a>

And don't worry Carlos. Do not mistake my little 'previews' as the answers to your questions. I am going over every one from what was and was not said on your application, every little petty charge, Everything!

I haven't 'forgotten' your application.

One more thing.

Originally posted by S&S
Why you did not post a picture of "the bird in front of the towers"?

Just because you can't.Or maybe you can trick it(remember is digitized)

I've provided a more accurate representation of what you have than you have.

If your so damn worried about the integrity of the people providing information concerning your tape why don't you just get up off of your butt and provide us with a quality representation of your tape yourself.

Or is that too obvious for you to understand.

 

[Guest]

I SAW IT BUT I DID NOT SAW IT

Er, as I wrote, I did look at it on 3/4 inch tape, and I could see the object all the way across the building. It was very faded due to motion and out of focus blur, but it was there. Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there.

Look at it at something approaching regular motion actually makes it easier to see.

The object never disappears. I repeat, that's an optical illusion. It's there all the way across the arc when you look at it on good tape at near normal speed.

I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy.

You're wrong, Carlos Swett, it does not go through the tower. It goes in front of it, probably only a short distance from the camera (since the zoom is doubtless tightly pinned, it's hard to be certain, since that alters depth of field quite a lot, and also alters the perception of depth, but we guessed at less than one hundred yards).

Barb

Hi nick Pink Rabbit :
Yes I read your "adventure" watching a 3/4 tape of the same shot I send to JREF . But Pink:
How we can trust you?,
Where is your location?,
which broadcast tape you used?
at what tv station "your friend works"?

If you want , you can answer ; that is because I said in my application where I did the same thing and I send also a copy of that "news" and interview to the JREF.

That does not means I don't "beleive you".
You made 3 assumptions:
1). "Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there."

Pink, can you please explain us how do you know "it was there" if your eye lost track?
So you ALSO did not saw "the object" at the right side of the hole as I said.

2)"The object never disappears. I repeat, that's an optical illusion. "

Well, again your object dissapears now because of an "optical ilusion", so you ALSO did not see "the object"at the right side of the hole as I said.

3)"The gifs aren't an especially good representative, simply because they lose the subtleties and the object does nearly disappear except for the latter portion of its path. From that I would have guessed it was debris from the plane. "

You agreed now about studying gifs on internet. Debris from the plane?Only for fools that don't compare the speed of the plane and the explotion with the speed of "the object".

Did you discovered something new?

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that. You also said that.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that. You are just not sure because you never saw it at the right side of the hole.

You are not even sure that is a bird, a blur, debris from the plane, optical illusion.
Maybe because as you said:"since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy."

Remember I said in my notarized application to JREF this:
"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."

Also remember that I DID IT with proffesional equipments in a tv network, was a news transsmission, is taped, etc.

That doesn't mean I don¿t beleive you did it also with your "friend".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

You also posted:"And just because you like to point out that you're a professional artist, yadda, yadda ... I'll add that I've got an undergrad in tv/film and worked in the industry for several years, though these days I'm a graphic artist and my friend has been a field videographer, producer, and video editor, so we did actually know what we were doing and looking at."

Good for you and congratulations, but try to do a better job next time. Yes I work in arts, but is that wrong to you?

 

[Guest]

DON'T FORGET

Carlos has gone to great lengths to put his own spin on my page.

Most amusing.

I offer this page as proof.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves two points conclusively.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

Don't believe me? Then view my page. It is not opinion. It is factual and anyone who desires can repeat the process. Find any view you want on the internet and it will prove me correct and Carlos wrong.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

<a href=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html</a>

And don't worry Carlos. Do not mistake my little 'previews' as the answers to your questions. I am going over every one from what was and was not said on your application, every little petty charge, Everything!

I haven't 'forgotten' your application.

One more thing.



I've provided a more accurate representation of what you have than you have.

If your so damn worried about the integrity of the people providing information concerning your tape why don't you just get up off of your butt and provide us with a quality representation of your tape yourself.

Or is that too obvious for you to understand.

Hi Blue Monk:

You never used bad words, maybe you are worried because you can not provide facts, you helped me proving to ALL of you ,that what I said in my application can be also seen in "your link".
Thanks again for that.

But you are still refusing to be a little honest and to put my translated notarized application in "your link" and the lies or mistakes Harter gave me in his answer.
Why are you afraid as Randi. Just be honest.
Yes your "videos" the first and the second are from the same shot I send to JREF.

The one you are reffering here "from Purple tentacle" I did not send to JREF.
But yes, I also saw it, and I saw birds flying : they are free to fly.
But I did not see "the same bird" of the other tape, I mean flying in the same trajectory.
Why not? Something paranormal?
Is supposed as you said (" CNN similar angle") that Harter's" special bird" must be seen in front of the towers. But nothing.

Don't forget to put the picture of "the bird" at the right side of the hole of the north tower.I mean in front of the wall.
Just do it.

Don't forget also to put my translated application with my full name in your link.
No comments about the first or second video? or you need more time like Harter's lies.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Don't forget to see the large dark object passing through the tower. JUST USE YOUR MOUSE. [/b]

 

[Blue Monk]

Carlos,

PinkRabbit has provided exactly as much proof as you have as to what is on the tape.

Exactly.

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

The fact you seem unable to grasp the significance of this is hilarious.

Your attempts to discredit anyone who disagrees with you seem to know no limits.

While I accept PinkRabbits' account and thank him for it, it ultimately is not needed as one only needs to view another perspective of the event to prove without a doubt that your theory is incorrect.

If you ever decide to actually show this miraculous tape to the rest of us then we can all see what ever it is you think is so incredibly important.

Perhaps you should get off your butt and provide a quality representation, then we won't have to relay on PinkRabbits account.


I only agreed to answer your questions.

I did not agree to convince you as I have no hope of doing that. I also did not agree to provide any visual aids you desire nor did I agree to follow any order you decide.

I intend to show what information I have that I base my opinions on. That is the honest way to do it.

If I don't have quality information that supports your position simply because you haven't provided it then that's tough. I cannot see it if you do not post it.


You have a lot more answers coming. You're not going to like any of them.

 

[compjan]

re: just that??

Hi Compjan:

Maybe if you put some arguments I will "beleive" you.

Just put it , you can, now you have a basis., just read my quotes.

Thanks,
S&S

Sure thing. Based on my previous message

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not
convince anyone here.

Based on my observations of how claims like yours are handled on the JREF forum, I am confident yours will receive the same treatment. Skeptics here tend to trash poorly researched claims like yours. Witness how Lucianarchy's beliefs are handled. Additionally, after 19 pages the best you can get from anyone on this thread is that Harter brushed you off too quickly. No one except your brother has even coincided that there is the slightest possibility of a paranormal event. You are known as a joke on other threads as well. You have no credibility at the JREF forums.


2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have
forgotten all about it.
Randi has never mentioned you in his weekly articles. The JREF is more concerned about the Horizons show, Sylvia, PsiTech, etc.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you
respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".
My opinion is based on the utter lack of celebrity attention paid to people with beliefs like yours. The crop circle guys get more celebrity, and they aren't exactly household names. You've got to be a psychic these days to get famous. At best you'll get 30 minutes on Art Bell. He'll, even I got five minutes on NPR as a kid for being in a model rocket contest!

I'm not going to argue the merits of your claim. That's been done to death. I am curious what you hope to gain by continuing to post. You've defended your honor. You've posted the truth as you see it. Now what? Will you spend the rest of your life posting to this thread about the paranormal hat and Randi's silence? When will you be satisfied?

CompJan

 

[Guest]

JUST AFRAID

Carlos,

PinkRabbit has provided exactly as much proof as you have as to what is on the tape.

Exactly.

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


.

Hi BlueMonk:

You are still afraid.
I already answered Pink Rabbit and I answered YOU about "purple tentacle's video", the CNN tape

But it seems that you are still refusing to analize the tape I send to the JREF and that correspont to the first and second of "your link" , specially the second one, of channel 7 (abc) which shows all the sequence. Why? Don't you have arguments?

You are also afraid to put my notarized application in "your link.
Why?Are you don't honest enough? or you don't want people compare my claim to the video?.
Your position remind me Patricio Elicer when he originally created this thread, he was also refused to put my translated application to the challenge, remember is in page 2.

Don't be afraid Blue Monk, is your opportunity to beat me.
Or you "think" you need more time , like Harter's lies?

You are refering to a "Carlos" in YOUR LINK , I assume that is me, so to be honest enough put my translated application to the challenge with my complete name on it: Carlos Swett.

Now that I see there are many fans or "believers" of the "bird" assumption, let me remember what you said in that page:
" I agree with Harter that the object is probably a bird. "

So Harter and you Blue Monk are not sure that is a bird.

Let me remember you and Harter what I said in my application WITH REASONS ON IT why is not a bird or an insect:

"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."

Now blue Monk or followers of "the bird" , can anybody say here that the "bird" can be seen after it enterd the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower? Can you Blue Monk or somebody else have the honesty to put a picture demonstrating that the bird is over that side of the building?
Is a paranormal bird that just dissapear at that point?
Patricio Elicer admited HERE this:"It turned out that one of those gaps coincided precisely with the moment the bird passed in front of the building."

That was the basis of my conclution in MY application:

"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."

Now you can see Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that. Can be seen also in your link.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that,.Can be seen also in your link.

The only difference is that you are using an internet tape, I made the final study based in a 3/4 tape property of a tv network, with persons that worked in the same station and with their proffesional equipments, best resolution, really slow frame by frame, no jumps or gags, watched in a big 52 inchess wide screen television, more than hundreds reviews, so I am SURE to tell you BLUE MONK and followers, "that thing" entered the hole, and its form remains to what latinijral posted here.

Just by saying "IS a bird; Is a bird" without arguments , is not necesarilly a truth, and you know that sceptics.
Your mission now is to debate my reasons exposed in my notarized application to the challenge.

So blue Monk , don't forget to put my translated notarized application, and to complete the honesty put Andrew Harter's answer to my application. Or you are afraid like James Randi?

Arguments , please, arguments.
What's new in "your tape" Blue Monk?

Thanks,

 

[PinkRabbit]

I will put this as simply and succinctly as possible because I don't think you understand more complicated English very well, Carlos, and I think you misread some things I wrote.

We tracked the object as it came into frame on the upper left hand side, then arced from left to right, in front of the buildings in a downward arc to the lower right hand side.

The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times.

It took several viewings, and some adjustments to contrast and brightness (darkening the image and boosting contrast) to be certain. It was not easily seen, but IT WAS THERE.

No, I do not know for certain what the object is, but I am certain that it did not go through the building, so if that is a factor that defines it as paranormal, then it's not paranormal, because it does NOT go through the building. It goes in front of it.

The optical illusion is that when looked at as stills, the eye can lose track of the shadow because it is very light colored and, depending on your equipment, difficult to see. Someone who did not think to readjust settings or who did not WANT to see the object could easily overlook it in this fashion and convince themselves that it was not there.

The other optical illusion is that it appears to be moving incredibly fast if you believe it to be much farther away, since that would be crossing a much longer distance.

I looked at a tape identical (though at a greater resolution) to the clip online. It's the original from a local new station's file. They have no reason to have doctored it, and it's listed as what was received that day from their satellite feed. Believe me or not, not my problem. However, given that they're not pursuing this as a story, and he was doing this for fun, not work, no I'm not going to tell you what station or give you any other info. However, everything I've commented on can actually be seen on the mpeg that was posted. It's just somewhat more difficult.

I listed his and my experience in the field because you have been quite insulting to several people in questioning their credentials for doubting your opinion, which, by the way, is all you have ever really produced. No proof, just your opinion that it's a paranormal object based on your viewing of a videotape that you didn't even take of an event that you didn't see in person. That wouldn't even hold up in court, much less a scientific laboratory.

Meanwhile, I looked at the same thing, and it's my opinion it's not the least bit paranormal, just a minor optical illusion because of the way cameras work coupled with uncontrolled shooting conditions. By the way, if you actually had any experience with video or motion picture cameras, you would know that things like this happen all the time.

Personally, I think you decided what you'd seen before you ever stepped foot in a TV station, and as a result, saw exactly what you wanted to see. The station, wanting a personal interest story, went along unquestioningly. You have proven nothing, just shown a mildly interesting videotape that can be interpreted one way, but can also be interpreted several others.

Barb

 

[Guest]

OPTICAL ILLUSION : NEVER BUT ONLY

The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times.

It took several viewings, and some adjustments to contrast and brightness (darkening the image and boosting contrast) to be certain. It was not easily seen, but IT WAS THERE.

No, I do not know for certain what the object is, but I am certain that it did not go through the building, so if that is a factor that defines it as paranormal, then it's not paranormal, because it does NOT go through the building. It goes in front of it.

The optical illusion is that when looked at as stills, the eye can lose track of the shadow because it is very light colored and, depending on your equipment, difficult to see. Someone who did not think to readjust settings or who did not WANT to see the object could easily overlook it in this fashion and convince themselves that it was not there.

The other optical illusion is that it appears to be moving incredibly fast if you believe it to be much farther away, since that would be crossing a much longer distance.


You have proven nothing, just shown a mildly interesting videotape that can be interpreted one way, but can also be interpreted several others.

Barb

:

Pink Rabbit:

Do I have to beleive you?

You refused to say the location, the network and the channel station where YOU "studied" a 3/4 broadcasted tape.

Should I trust a nick saying that?.:

You said this:"The optical illusion is that when looked at as stills, the eye can lose track of the shadow because it is very light colored and, depending on your equipment, difficult to see. Someone who did not think to readjust settings or who did not WANT to see the object could easily overlook it in this fashion and convince themselves that it was not there."

But remember Andrew Harter studied just an internet video "frame by frame" and he did not have that problem, he did not even mention nothing about an optical illusion, he can see "the BIRD" in front of the wall of the tower at the right side of the hole . And YOU are saying you can not see "the bird" when you use slow motion , stills or frame by frame, give me a break.

What is the "new stuff" in your " 3/4 tape study"?

I already said the same , the only difference is that I said also:

"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."

About optical illusions I already wrote in my application:
"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."

Of course only in NORMAL SPEED"you can see"as you said : The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times. "

But when you still "it dissapears" (??????)

It "never dissapears at normal speed of the tape" just because the speed of the object is so FAST that create in your eye the OPTICAL ILLUSION that never dissapears.

That¿s the main reason why you have to study it "frame by frame", like I did and ANDREW HARTER did,
Or Harter also lied in that point?

Of course , you will find someones who will "beleive " in you.

Confused about optical illusions?
Well I just work in art.

Thanks,

S&S

 

[CurtC]

Just for fun, I took the second video at Blue Monk's page, and superimposed the bird's image on four consecutive frames. It's pretty obvious that the reason you can't see the bird in front of the bright wall is that when the bird was there, the camera was between video frames. Video cameras normall record at 30 frames per second, with 1/60 second exposure times, so a fast-moving object will be a blur, then a blank space of equal length, then a blur, then a blank space, etc.

 

[Blue Monk]

I don't have access to the tape you sent to JREF.

I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me.

Of course any plan to suppress your tape would have to depend on you being too stupid to post it yourself.

I'll include your application when I answer your questions concerning it.

You, of course, are free to repost it at anytime. We could all use a good laugh. Be sure to include the part about the one station that was the only one that 'dared' to show it. That cracks me up every time I read it.

[url]http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html[/url]

When are you going to quit bitchin' about what's on your tape and post a quality representation so we can see for ourselves.

What are you afraid of?

If and when I find a copy I will post it. But I doubt that there is anything there that is going to make your object magically appear on any of the other videos.

I'll post Sunday. Feel free to rant and rave until then.

I never tire of hearing of your magic hat.

 

[PinkRabbit]

What I said, Carlos, is that the object much harder to see in the stills, not that it's not there. I said the object is easier to see when it's moving because you can track its position from frame to frame. It does not disappear in the stills, but it is more difficult to see, particularly if you do not readjust some settings.

The same thing can be seen on the Mpeg, but it is far more subtle.

No, I am not seeing the arc where it is not, you are not seeing it where it is.

In short: you are wrong, the object DOES NOT disappear into one side of the building and come out the other. The object is a considerable distance from and in front of BOTH buildings.

The object arcs all the way across in front of both buildings and is simply difficult to see as it is quite blurred and against a similarly colored background.

Perhaps the tape you viewed was not as good, or the equipment used was not of the same quality as what we were using. Tape quality, transmission quality, and monitor quality all effect the image greatly. I would suggest you try and view it somewhere else and with technicians who are not simply trying to prove your belief to create a story for their next broadcast.

I am neither defending nor criticizing Andrew Harter's technique for studying the image. I am simply offering my opinion of what I saw. As I am not an employee of the JREF, nor an official consultant in any form, my opinion is purely that of an experienced layperson ... just like everyone else on this forum with whom you have been so vociferously arguing.

No, I will not put out personal or professional information in this venue, especially concerning a topic this silly, to a person I consider likely to be somewhat unbalanced.

And now, I'm going to make a suggestion you undoubtedly won't listen to:

Go away.

Seriously. You are achieving nothing here. You have offered no proof, simply an opinion, which you are unwilling to admit is nothing more than an opinion. You are wasting your time, bandwidth that could be better used, and fast becoming a troll. You will change nothing by continually posting exactly the same argument over and over.

Repetition will not convince anyone of anything, and you have offered nothing beyond your opinion of what something is. Others disagree. That alone means you lose.

The JREF challenge is set up to be conclusive.

There is nothing conclusive about a single videotape of an event, taken under uncontrolled circumstances.

You have proven nothing. And can prove nothing.

Even if your analysis of visual aspects of the tape were 100% correct, it would prove nothing, except, at most, that something entered and exited the building on a specific trajectory.

Even that is not necessarily paranormal.

You have proven nothing even if everything you claim is true.

Deal with it.

Whether Harter's technique was good or bad doesn't change that.

Believe in your paranormal hat if you must, but it's time to accept that you can't prove it, and move on with your life.

Barb

 

[Guest]

JUST AFRAID

I don't have access to the tape you sent to JREF.

I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me.

Of course any plan to suppress your tape would have to depend on you being too stupid to post it yourself.

I'll include your application when I answer your questions concerning it.

:

Blue monk,:
When you use bad words is because you don¿t have an answer,

I already told you that the tape I send to JREF correspond to "your second video", you also said that is the one you "think" Harter studied it "frane by frame",

Why are you still afraid to analize it?
Why you are afraid and dishonest to put my translated notarized application in your web page?

Post the picture of "your bird" at the right side of the hole at the wall of the tower,

Keep on going,

S&S

 

[Guest]

YES BUT NO

What I said, Carlos, is that the object much harder to see in the stills, not that it's not there. I said the object is easier to see when it's moving because you can track its position from frame to frame. It does not disappear in the stills, but it is more difficult to see, particularly if you do not readjust some settings.


Barb

Nick Pink Rabbit;

You are still refusing to tell details of where , name of tv station, etc, You made your 3/4 tape study.

Should I beleive you?

I did tell where I did the analisis , the name of the broadcast channel, etc,JREF have that tape too, Is a fact,Is in my notarixed application,

Andrew Harter studied just an internet video "frame by frame" and he did not have that problem, he did not even mention nothing about an optical illusion, he can see "the BIRD" in front of the wall of the tower at the right side of the hole . And YOU are saying you can not see "the bird" when you use slow motion , stills or frame by frame, give me a break.

What is the "new stuff" in your " 3/4 tape study"?

I already said the same , the only difference is that I said also:

"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."

About optical illusions I already wrote in my application:
"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."

Of course only in NORMAL SPEED"you can see"as you said : The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times. "

But when you still "it dissapears" (??????)

It "never dissapears at normal speed of the tape" just because the speed of the object is so FAST that create in your eye the OPTICAL ILLUSION that never dissapears.

That¿s the main reason why you have to study it "frame by frame", like I did and ANDREW HARTER did,
Or Harter also lied in that point?

Of course , you will find someones who will "beleive " in you.

Confused about optical illusions?
Well I just work in art.

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

Re: JUST AFRAID

Originally posted by S&S
I already told you that the tape I send to JREF correspond to "your second video", you also said that is the one you "think" Harter studied it "frane by frame"

That's a lie. I never said I thought that was the one Harter used. I stated quite clearly I have no idea what clip Harter used.

I did say, "This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."

Originally posted by S&S
Why are you still afraid to analize it?
Why you are afraid and dishonest to put my translated notarized application in your web page?

I intend to. I'm just not much concerned with your demands little man. I'm preparing a page that shows all of the frames from all perspectives. I am not even close to being done.

When I start answering your questions about your application you will no doubt try to steer the topic in another direction.

You are going to get answers to all of your question on my time schedule and mine alone. If you don't like it, tough.

If you don't like it then feel free to get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt and post any evidence you feel appropriate.

Now that I've proven your theory is crap the rest of this is just a bunch of petty stuff to appease a very childish man.

You'll just have to wait until Sunday. I have things I need to do right now. It might be hard for a four year old to wait that long. It will probably be impossible for you.

If your video proves your claims then why don't you simply post it? Too lazy or too afraid? Maybe too dishonest.

See you Sunday!

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

I have the video.

I have been given the video in question in all of this. It's a four-second clip, running at normal speed, and as a video file it is 112kb in size. It runs in Windows Media Player, is capable of being run in stop-action frame by frame, and the image is expandable to fill the screen if you like (those experienced in the use of Windows Media Player know how to do these things easily).
I have been reassured by the individual who gave me the clip that it is: the video in question (apparently from a New York TV station's live feed of the situation at the WTC); 'referential', meaning it's meant to show me what time period to refer to on a video tape of the event; running at normal speed.

I have viewed this clip this evening numerous times, in both real-time and stop-action. It is EXTREMELY interesting.

I have given my word that I WILL NOT give my opinions of what is on the tape until I see a video tape of the event. This clip is meant for reference only, and it seems to be a bone of contention that a formal opinion of it was given by Andrew Harter based only on a very short Internet slow-motion digitized loop. Therefore, I make no statement at this time as to what is or is not on the clip, other than to say that it will be a very interesting view. Because of its format (real time, and a longer period of time than the little Internet loop), there is more information in the clip than possibly has seen before on this thread.

I am looking for someone who will host this clip for viewing and/or download for awhile (30 to 60 days, maybe? I realize that Internet space costs) on a volunteer basis. More than one volunteer? Mirror sites are always nice.

I will include the comments on how I viewed the video (some action on the screen not connected with the object in question is distracting, and can be blocked out by holding a piece of paper up to the screen), and some questions about what the viewer sees. While I am constrained by my own promises not to reveal my opinions (to prevent coloring others' opinions before viewing it), I am very interested in the opinions of others as to what they see here. Again, the video in this format has more information than possibly has been seen before here, and is guaranteed to be very interesting in terms of what has been posted here.

So -- any volunteers for this? My PM box has been cleared of electro-effluvia, and I'm ready. Serious responses only, please.

 

[Purple Tentacle]

the 112kb file is alrady being hosted here - http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wct_sh2.mpg

which is linked from Blue Monk's GIF Compare site here - http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html

i have the file, and the object is a bird

this case is closed people

 

[CurtC]

Charlie, I can host your video if it's reasonable size, like less than 20 MB. Surely a four-second clip would be smaller than this? PM me for details on where to upload.

 

[Guest]

BE HONEST

That's a lie. I never said I thought that was the one Harter used. I stated quite clearly I have no idea what clip Harter used.

I did say, "This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."



I intend to. I'm just not much concerned with your demands little man. I'm preparing a page that shows all of the frames from all perspectives. I am not even close to being done.

When I start answering your questions about your application you will no doubt try to steer the topic in another direction.

You are going to get answers to all of your question on my time schedule and mine alone. If you don't like it, tough.

If you don't like it then feel free to get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt and post any evidence you feel appropriate.

Now that I've proven your theory is crap the rest of this is just a bunch of petty stuff to appease a very childish man.

You'll just have to wait until Sunday. I have things I need to do right now. It might be hard for a four year old to wait that long. It will probably be impossible for you.

If your video proves your claims then why don't you simply post it? Too lazy or too afraid? Maybe too dishonest.

See you Sunday!

:

Hi Blue Monk:

You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it." , is the same as "I "think" this clip was the one Harter saw or one similar to it". In both you made presumptions.But don't worry is the same shot.

You are still refusing to put my application in your "web page", WHY? Be honest ,show both faces of the coin.

What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?

You can see now Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that first in my application. Can be seen also in your link.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that first in my appication,.Can be seen also in your link if you study it "frame by frame" like Harter did.

I already told YOU and JREF that "my tape" is just referential, I already told that your second video is the same shot I send to the JREF.
Just study it like Harter did : "frame by frame" and don't forget to post a picture after "the paranoramal object 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”. Don't forget to look at the right side of the hole in the wall of the north tower.
YES ,ONE MORE TIME; YOUR SECOND VIDEO IS THE SAME SHOT I SEND TO JREF AND THE SAME SHOT HARTER STUDIED IT "FRAME BY FRAME" ON A LINK OF INTERNET. NO excuses, Blue Monk.

What are you tryng to say by using this kind of terms?:"get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt ". Is that the way you show your frustration, like others few members?
Be smart enough, you can do it Blue Monk.

Thanks:

S&S