The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

AMOR Y PAZ

Con este último mensaje has acabado de demostrarme que das la argumentación por perdida, y ya sólo te interesa comprobar hasta dónde alcanza la educación y la paciencia de la gente. Ahora que ya sé por dónde van los tiros, puedo relajarme (aún más si cabe: estoy a punto de tirarme un pedo ) y disfrutar del espectáculo que ofrece un individuo mayor de edad comportándose como un crío de seis años.

En otro orden de cosas, absolutamente al margen de la disputa, me gustaría obtener la dirección de Internet en la que se puede admirar tu obra artística. Son muchos ya los que la han alabado públicamente en este foro, y me han picado la curiosidad.

Atentamente

Pablo

PS he renunciado al usted siguiendo tu ejemplo. Bastará una indicación para que recupere el tono formal.

El tono formal lo perdiste en tu primera aparición en este tema, o es acaso que te has olvidado de los insultos publicados?
Retrocede a tu primera aparición y ponte la mano en el pecho si fué suficientemente educada para merecer lo que has logrado.

Te agradezco tu curiosidad por a cuestión artística pero no tengo el link guardado.
Es una página de latinijral, tu otro amigo , si la consigo a futuro te la envío por privado para evitar malinterpretaciones, suficiente con las que tengo.

Si tu tienes argumentos, los míos son propios de una realidad. Puede ser que necesites leer todo el "thread".Esto no es una guerra, es simplemente un debate y como te darás cuenta sigo tranquilo y campante. Tampoco necesito esconderme.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S
Harter investigation is not only poor for me, is a fact according to some others members.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I hope you notice my new tagline.

Originally posted by S&S
Or are you still thinking was good enough?

Of course, I think he did an excellent job. He wasted absolutely the minimal amount of time and resources on a something easily proven false. Look far enough to see it wasn't worth pursuing any further and probably tossed your tape into the trash.

Originally posted by S&S
Just look at you, you are doing a better job, just to eliminate the doubts you have.

I am quite capable of expressing why I do this myself, thank you.

It is most certainly not to eliminate and doubts I have. Your theory is false.

And as to your petty little beef with JREF, I don't care. I know you don't believe that and I don't care about that either.

I've already told you that clip that I already had would have been enough for me to toss your tape in the trash.

Originally posted by S&S
I hope you will have the access to the equipments as you did in TELECLIP : "I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice." (????)

I meant I just didn't take to much time to look. I knew I could look at it at me leisure later.

 

[Pablo]

Re: AMOR Y PAZ

El tono formal lo perdiste en tu primera aparición en este tema, o es acaso que te has olvidado de los insultos publicados?

Acepto que perdí las formas, pero no el tono formal. Cuánto más fácil habría sido caer en el tú para resultar más desagradable. Entiende empero que acababa de tragarme las tropecientas páginas de disputa, y la falta de argumentación por tu parte me sacaba de quicio.

 

[Thanz]

Blue Monk -

Well, I for one think that your new tagline is excellent. Couldn't have said it better myself.


Seriously, I thank you for putting this in. I also thank you for all of the investigative work that you have done. When I first saw the animated gif, I was curious and thought that there had to be something more to the story. Now that I have seen all of the evidence that you have put forth, I am convinced that it is something peculiar to the angle of that particular camera, like a bird, out of focus and well in front of both towers.

I think that by the time Harter got Carlos tape, he had already seen the video several times and been asked about it by more than a few people. The video you posted on the internet is enough for me to conclude that there is nothing paranormal going on. Carlos is just upset because he feels he was blown off by the JREF.

Excellent work. You have the patience of Job.

Thanz

 

[Guest]

I WAS ABLE TO REVIEW THE TAPE BUT..............

I am quite capable of expressing why I do this myself, thank you.

"I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice."

I meant I just didn't take to much time to look. I knew I could look at it at me leisure later.

Hi Blue Monk:

So YOU and I "think" also the workers at TELECLIP reviewed the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipments , but also you didn't have much time to look it. (????????)

I "thought " you already new and study before that particular shot in your's preview, so you were prepared to look at the "particular" frames that I told JREF and you. But you didn't have time, but you looked it in slow motion and in stop action(??)

Is a little complicate to me to understand that point, or you didn't see "your bird" at the right side of the hole or in front of the TOWERS? I mean at TELECLIP equipments.

Do you really now need to digitize the tape and look at it in another equipments? You are welcome, I trust in your honesty , but remember digitized images can be tricked (ask Rwald)

Well , just take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

ARGUMENTOS

Acepto que perdí las formas, pero no el tono formal. Cuánto más fácil habría sido caer en el tú para resultar más desagradable. Entiende empero que acababa de tragarme las tropecientas páginas de disputa, y la falta de argumentación por tu parte me sacaba de quicio.

Hi Pablo:

Primero hay que reconocer los errores y tú lo has hecho. Bien de tu parte.
Hay momentos en que es mejor conservar la "cabeza fría" y es lo que intento, llenarme de paciencia.

¿No te has puesto ha pensar que si no tuviera argumentos que replicar esto ya hubiera concluído en la primera página?
El "tuteo" no lo hago con intenciones de faltarte el respeto , simplemente como una apertura más informal de mi parte.

Tus argumentos son bienvenidos y te recomiendo que lo hagas en inglés para beneficio del resto de participantes.

Talvez te escriba un privado para aclarar ciertas "malinterpretaciones " de ambos lados y para proporcionarte el link de latinijral.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

Hi Blue Monk:

So YOU and I "think" also the workers at TELECLIP reviewed the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipments , but also you didn't have much time to look it. (????????)

I "thought " you already new and study before that particular shot in your's preview, so you were prepared to look at the "particular" frames that I told JREF and you. But you didn't have time, but you looked it in slow motion and in stop action(??)

Is a little complicate to me to understand that point, or you didn't see "your bird" at the right side of the hole or in front of the TOWERS? I mean at TELECLIP equipments.

Do you really now need to digitize the tape and look at it in another equipments? You are welcome, I trust in your honesty , but remember digitized images can be tricked (ask Rwald)

Well , just take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

Teleclip is a commercial company and not a research facility. I reviewed the information there briefly so they could be sure they knew what I wanted and I got the right information. It was their hand on the controls, not mine.

The equipment at the University is far superior to what they have at Teleclip I assure you. The equipment at Teleclip is merely for review. The equipment at the University is state of the art and there are stations that are set up precisely for research. I will be at the controls and I can view the tape at my leisure.

About digitization.

Digitization will not harm the tape in anyway. I will always have the tape.

Often when a tape is digitized for the internet it is done at a lower resolution and compressed to save space. This is fine for most applications but you will lose information if you do it that way.

I will, however, digitize the tape at full resolution with no compression. It will make a larger file but we will have a quality digitized copy. Then copies can be made of the digitization without any loss of quality.

Also I will consult some of the others here who are experienced in this and we can compare notes. I will be able to tell them exactly how I did it and so we can all be assured that we have the best quality possible.

Also there is no other way for others to view this information. If this is done right you will probably find that you can see more detail this way than when you view it on a large monitor.

Once I actually post the file you will be able to tell and I think you will be satisfied with the results. Maybe not but I really don't know what more I can do.

But as long as we're talking about honesty why do you continue to use Thanz quote in your tagline? He has told you repeatedly that he no longer holds that view and has asked you specifically to remove it.

 

[Guest]

DEFENDING THANZ

Teleclip is a commercial company and not a research facility. I reviewed the information there briefly so they could be sure they knew what I wanted and I got the right information. It was their hand on the controls, not mine.

The equipment at the University is far superior to what they have at Teleclip I assure you. The equipment at Teleclip is merely for review. The equipment at the University is state of the art and there are stations that are set up precisely for research. I will be at the controls and I can view the tape at my leisure.


But as long as we're talking about honesty why do you continue to use Thanz quote in your tagline? He has told you repeatedly that he no longer holds that view and has asked you specifically to remove it.

Hi BlueMonk:

But you had "time" to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on the commercial company of TELECLIP, or not?
I mean you review the tape in slow motion and in stop action there but you didn't have time enough to review it many times as you wish. But at least you must reviewed once or twice, and you were prepared enough to see what you want to see.
What did you see there? What did the personal of TELECLIP said?
Can I have also a copy of Teleclip of that particular shot and how?

Yes, you must need more time to review the tape in better equipments (?).

About Thanz' quote that is in my signature: I don't "think" he is lying, when he wrote this :"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality."
That is a fact , so please don't be so traumatic about that truth, besides he wrote "WE".

Also Davidhorman posted this:
"Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
Assuming the original was recorded on some professional format, you might get more information by viewing it on that original format. "

So Blue Monk, don't be worry, now you have a tape with more frames, you already looked at slow motion and in stop action at TELECLIP, and now you are trying to use better equipments.

Keep on going,

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Tesserat]

Carlos, Davidhorman posted:

Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
[/bold]

This does not mean that frames were missing from video an the internet, it means it's a possibility. There are other ways of converting between formats, and not all of them lose frames.
I disagree that it's "likely" that half the frames are missing, although I agree that it's a possibility. Don't jump to conclusions, it hasn't helped you yet.

I think it's funny that you're asking Blue Monk to supply you with a copy of the tape he paid money to find. Aren't you supposed to have a copy? How come you haven't sent a copy to Blue Monk?

In regards to Thanz's quote, it's his intellectual property, if he asks you to remove it, you should comply. It's a question of honor. Do you have a sense of honor? Why are you using Thanz's words without his permission?

I used to have respect for you, you seemed to be trying honestly to discover the truth, without hiding. However, to use Thanz's words after he has asked you to stop is dishonest.

 

[davidhorman]

This does not mean that frames were missing from video an the internet, it means it's a possibility.

The original video was (I assume) 60fps interlaced video. The internet video is 30fps and non-interlaced - if it was interlaced you'd see fringing as the camera moves. Or they could have merged even/odd fields, in which case we'd see blurring as the camera moves. We don't, so I think it's safe to assume that half the frames (by which I really mean fields) are missing.

David

 

[Wyrd1]

The Swetts only have a sense of honor when it seems to suit them or their ulterior motives. They (I believe S&S is Carlos and his brother Guillermo) aren't going to remove those offending quotes unless the moderator forces them to. They also aren't going to quit posting to this forum until they get booted.

These are the facts boys and girls. Get used to them. They are here to stay.

Arguing with them is a waste of time. Facts are just tools to confuse the issues. Fact 1: They lost their challenge no matter how the determinition was made. Fact 2: No million dollars. Fact 3: No matter how hard they try there will be no further responses from either Andrew Harter or James Randi. Fact 4: Despite fact 3 they will continue.

Blue Monk, you have been great tirelessly trying to combat these people with facts, reason, and logic. Despite this they will not be satisfied.

Look at it all like it's a pony ride that won't stop. Which end of the pony is Carlos?

 

[Blue Monk]

Oh I agree with you Wyrd1.

I hope no one here thinks I am foolish enough to believe I will ever convince Carlos of anything.

If he is, however, going to whine about all of this silly nonsense then let him do it in the face of the evidence.

Which brings me to his tape. Consider this a preliminary report.

I have now viewed this tape on three separate professional systems (four if you count Teleclip).

In addition to my brief viewing at Teleclip I have also view it from our own video station here at the Fine Arts Microcomputer Lab where I work.

I also took it over to CASA (The Center for Advance Studies in the Arts). Their department head is my big boss. They have an excellent system that is tuned mostly for digitization but they have excellent monitors.

Finally I took it over to the communications building where there system is tuned precisely for video and watched it on their huge monitor. This monitor's resolution far exceeds that of the videotape so I know nothing was loss.

What can I say? I see the object in full view the entire time. The two key frames that have been the subject of such great concern for Carlos are indeed in the video and they show the object in front of both towers.

This now brings us to the point of an Internet copy.

For simplicity sake I will speak in broad terms. The video is 60 frames per second and Internet media runs at 30 frames per second (actually 29.97 but who’s counting).

So the Internet media will only show every other actual frame. Which set of frames depends simply on where you start the capture.

I did 20 test captures to be sure and in each case the result included one set or the other. It is a 50/50 chance.

Now we have seen one clip that shows one set.

The other set is very significant as it shows both key frames that Carlos was worried about and in both of those frames you can see the bird in front of the building.

I will post both versions so you can all see what I’m talking about. Step through them frame by frame and you will see.

The second version shows exactly what Harter describes. The object clearly passes in front of the towers, both of them.

Since Internet media doesn’t support 60 frames per second I have assembled a third video. It includes all frame segments but it will appear in slightly slow motion. Anyone wishing to can go frame by frame and see that the object is in view the entire time and never enters the building (shock!).

Remember, these are preliminary posts. They are enough to prove that 50% of the Internet versions of this tape will show exactly what Harter described. He obviously viewed a clip that showed the object passing in front of both towers and he then probably threw Carlos’ tape in the trash.

I am working on one high quality representation but I need to work on it.

I did one briefly but I still didn’t get the quality just right. Even so, the 1/3 of a second clip was 275 megabytes, done at full resolution, no compression and millions + colors, hehe.

Give me an hour or so and I’ll have some clips online. I have to burn them to a CD to get them off of the station

 

[Tesserat]

Hi Davidhorman

Yep, I know what you're saying, I do agree with you 99% but in the clip I was looking at, the camera wasn't moving that much. But I'm not a professional, so I'll defer to others with more experience. Anyway, my point is pointless after reading Blue monk's latest video analysis.

If I check out the properties of digital video that i've captured, it always says 29.97 fps. Never 60 fps. A lot of video I can get off the net has the same properties. I agree that if a lot of camera movement is happening, some blurring will be seen on interlaced video. Do you know any technique to check video that doesn't rely on camera movement?

 

[Hellbound]

Hi Davidhorman

If I check out the properties of digital video that i've captured, it always says 29.97 fps. Never 60 fps.

Well, that'sthe whole point, Tesserat

Digital video is typically 29.97 fps, non-intelaced. However, the NTSC standard used for TV broadcast and some analog video recording is 60fps interlaced. The interlaced means that each frame has half a picture; it skips every other row of pixels and alternates rows between frames. The net effect is a 29.97 fps shot.

However, when you capture (at 30fps) a shot recorded at 60 fps interlaced, you get half the frames and each frame has half the pixel rows updated, essentially. That make sense, I hope?

Since the tape is from a TV broadcast, my guess is that it is in NTSC format, thus it's 60fps interlaced.

 

[Guest]

I AGREE

Originally posted by Thanz 08-27-02
"Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality. I haven't seen the whole video - I just saw the short thing linked to in this thread. But Andrew seems to be saying that it didn't come from behind the tower, so therefore it is not paranormal. Huh? There must be more to this. The apparent speed of the object (again, I just saw the crappy thing linked to) seems to go against the 'bird' hypothesis.



Blue Monk`s investigation is better, but...............

 

[Peter S.]

Re: DEFENDING THANZ

Originally posted by S&S in the Fairy Godfather Peter thread


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Peter S.
Wow, I've never had a topic with my name on it before! I feel just like Carlos Swett.



Have you ever done anything nice for someone with no thought of reward?

No? I didn't think so.

I guess you'll never understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Peters :

Why don't you just tatoo my name in your ass?
You will be more happy.

Thanks,
S&S

Oh come on Carlos!! Yes, I was making a joke that included your name, but I wasn't mocking you an any way, (even though you deserve it you brainless fuckhead).

I guess some people just have no sense of humor.

I bet you would like to have your ugly name on my ass. You like guy's asses, don't you?

 

[Guest]

SPEAKING IN BROAD TERMS

Oh I agree with you Wyrd1.

I hope no one here thinks I am foolish enough to believe I will ever convince Carlos of anything.

For simplicity sake I will speak in broad terms. The video is 60 frames per second and Internet media runs at 30 frames per second (actually 29.97 but who’s counting).

So the Internet media will only show every other actual frame. Which set of frames depends simply on where you start the capture.

I did 20 test captures to be sure and in each case the result included one set or the other. It is a 50/50 chance.

Hi Blue Monk:

So now you also agree that is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape?

Yes, that was my reply from the beggining, Harter's method was not the appropiate . You are making a better job.

Keep on going.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[CurtC]

Blue Monk, the 1/3 of a second clip was 275 megabytes? That's just 20 frames, or about 14 megabytes per frame? This sounds, well, a little excessive to me. There's no way that I could hope to see a 275 megabyte clip. Do you think you could save it as 20 separate JPG images, saved at a low compression? I can't imagine that each image would be more than 200 kbytes or so, for a total of 4 MB. I mean, a TV picture has what, 200,000 pixels, if you multiply the horizontal "resolution" by the vertical lines? And probably less than that, because at 60 fps, only half of the lines are updated.

 

[Guest]

THE FRAMES AGAIN

Carlos, Davidhorman posted:

Most AVIs are progressive in nature - each individual picture is full resolution. The easiest way to convert from one to the other is to ignore every other field. So it's likely that in the video in question, half the fields (pictures) are missing in the AVI.
[/bold]

This does not mean that frames were missing from video an the internet, it means it's a possibility. There are other ways of converting between formats, and not all of them lose frames.
I disagree that it's "likely" that half the frames are missing, although I agree that it's a possibility. Don't jump to conclusions, it hasn't helped you yet.

I think it's funny that you're asking Blue Monk to supply you with a copy of the tape he paid money to find. Aren't you supposed to have a copy? How come you haven't sent a copy to Blue Monk?

In regards to Thanz's quote, it's his intellectual property, if he asks you to remove it, you should comply. It's a question of honor. Do you have a sense of honor? Why are you using Thanz's words without his permission?

I used to have respect for you, you seemed to be trying honestly to discover the truth, without hiding. However, to use Thanz's words after he has asked you to stop is dishonest.

Hi Tesserat:

I was reading your reply after Davidhorman and BlueMonk's aclaration about the frames, I "think" NOW you agree with my conclusion about the difference about an internet video and a broadcast tape.

I never asked Blue Monk to send me a copy of the Teleclip tape .
I said this:"Can I have also a copy of Teleclip of that particular shot and how?"
Yes I have a particular copy, but since Blue Monk got it from Teleclip, I just want to know how I can get one, I need to know the location , city, address and stuff, that's all.
Of course I will paid for it, and make my own research. Is that not fair enough? I only want the ADDRESS of Teleclip.

So now you and Thanz must be relax enough, he never said a lie in this thread with my name on it, so there is no reason to be ashame of.
You are all trying honestly to dicover the truth.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

So now you also agree that is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape?

When did I ever disagree? Most internet videos have a great deal of information reduce the size. That does not mean you can't digitize a tape and retain that information.

But of course that is not the question before us. Just your little beef with JREF.

Originally posted by S&S
Yes, that was my reply from the beggining, Harter's method was not the appropiate . You are making a better job.

I totally disagree. I now know for a fact that half the internet copies of this tape have those key frames on them showing your bird in front of a building. Now which set of frames do you think he viewed when one set matches what he said he saw exactly?

He did his job perfectly. He quickly found evidence that your theory was false and that was that. He did not waste any time or resources on a silly claim.

Originally posted by S&S
Keep on going.

What do you mean keep on going? I'm done.

I viewed your tape on professional equipment and all it did was help me see your bird clearer passing in front of both towers.

I'm just working on making a good copy so everyone can see what's on the tape.

Oh sure, I'm still going to reproduce those scary pictures of yours following the method give on that web site and I'll do my best but I can't promise. He doesn't say exactly what he does.

I am putting together a clip that has all of the frames so you can step through them and see for yourself (or not if you choose).