The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Blue Monk]

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.

Well actually I misspoke a bit there, hehe. The clip was actually about a second and a half I think. Only the key time is about 1.3 of a second.

But don't worry I will put up friendlier versions and jpegs.

I just did a test run with everything maxed out. I could have cut down on the size considerably by simply trimming it a bit, hehe.

I do want to put up at least one good copy out of fairness to Carlos. It will probably be a bit big but it will be there for anyone with the bandwidth and desire to see.

But I want to put one up with alternate frames in it at the same level you would expect to see on the internet just to show that it is possible to to see the object, probably a bird, pass in front of both towers and and prove Carlos' theory false.

I'm also going to post some new clips showing a couple of new views. Of course there is nothing passing through the tower.

 

[Tesserat]

originally posted by carlos

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.

See, now that's the difference between me and you Carlos, I'm able to look at what I believe, and change my beliefs of they don't fit the facts. I don't get into useless ego battles.

And as Blue Monk is about to prove, it is possible to post information on the internet that is better quality than what you see on a TV screen.

The thing that annoys me is when Blue Monk talks about video being 60 frames per second,

BlueMonk, a bit earlier
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).

when technically, it's 60 fields per second, or 60 half - frames.
But that's me nitpicking more than anything else, I do understand what they mean, video takes 60 pictures of something every second, and it's difficult to translate that to the internet in a meaningful form. I think Davidhorman, Hunstman, Bluemonk and the rest did a great job of explaining what they mean to me, and I have to agree with them.

You, however, are an idiot stuck in an ego battle, unable to admit that youre wrong.

Thanz has asked you to take his words out of your sig (His words, not yours), and you don't do it. You're a dishonest thief. Show some self respect, and do as Thanz asks.

 

[davidhorman]

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?

I think there might be room in the AVI format for indicating interlaced video. My video capture card will capture interlaced video, but it plays back at 30fps with interlace fringing on my monitor. When played back out through the capture card, it rips out the fields and plays it back properly (in theory anyway; the card itself is a heap of crap )

Hey BM, any chance of doing that flapping bird gif thing with all the fields?

David

 

[hal bidlack]

I think we see some interesting psychology here. When BlueMonk began his remarkable and praise-worthy efforts, Carlos was a supporter. But when the results began to near, Carlos started to lay the groundwork to 'debunk' the debunking. Now, with results completed (again, what a great job!), BlueMonk has become a bad guy.

Not a suprise, really, but another interesting chapter in the Carlos saga. Carlos is one heck of an artist, not the world's clearest thinker.

Carlos, please do feel free to use that last sentance above in your sig line, perhaps to replace the one you have been asked again and again to remove.


edited to fix a misspelled name

 

[PinkRabbit]

Sticking my head back in here to say that I'm really glad Blue Monk was able to find a place that could make a dub of the shot legally, and look at it on good equipment, since there's no way a new division was going to do so. You're lucky to have a service that can do that for you, since most places don't, unless you're in LA or NYC. I look forward to seeing the internet dub, since I'm curious to see if it's any better than what we were looking at (the setup we used at the station was an older one they keep rigged as a backup and it doesn't have the greatest monitor around or much in the way of extras).

Anyhoo, I have to admit, I'm looking forward to Carlos' next attempt to squirm out of the obvious truth that it's just a bird moving in front of the camera, not a paranormal hat. *grabbing some popcorn while I sit back and enjoy the show*

Barb

 

[Guest]

FIRST THINK MR. BIDLACK

I think we see some interesting psychology here. When BlueMonk began his remarkable and praise-worthy efforts, Carlos was a supporter. But when the results began to near, Carlos started to lay the groundwork to 'debunk' the debunking. Now, with results completed (again, what a great job!), BlueMonk has become a bad guy.

Not a suprise, really, but another interesting chapter in the Carlos saga. Carlos is one heck of an artist, not the world's clearest thinker.

Carlos, please do feel free to use that last sentance above in your sig line, perhaps to replace the one you have been asked again and again to remove.


edited to fix a misspelled name

:

Hi Mr. hal Bidlack:

Well, now you are full af assumptions about me.
I am just waiting Blue Monk to put his digitized version.

What results from BlueMonk? Nothing yet.
He got a copy uf a video from Teleclip.
Nobody knows the format: vhs, 3/4 or what.
Where and what is Teleclip?
He saw the tape in slow motion and in still frames at Teleclip, but never said what he saw there and then he said he didn't have no time to see it. (?)
Now he is digitizing the tape and we are still waiting.
Something wrong with that?

The sentence in my signature that you want me to remove, was posted by Thanz BEFORE I came to this forum with a thread with my name on it.
Why are you worried? Read it again:
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."

That is fact Mr. Bidlack, also Blue Monk knows that when he replied me this:

Originally posted by S&S
So now you also agree that is a difference between an internet video and a broadcast tape?
-------
Originall y posted by Blue Monk
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.


So Mr Hal Bidlack, Andrew's investigation was pretty poor ( dodgy ??) to me ,
or maybe you can ask your friend and partner about the link if you want, to me is not a big deal , the investigation JREF made was their mistake.

Thanks again for your words about my work arts, but artist needs to "think" to make our jobs, we create from nothing.
What are you trying to say ? That I don't "think"?
I am sure of what I applicated and I am sure of your answers as JREF researchers.

If I didn't have no arguments this threat must be death in the first page, but I am still here almost alone after you know how many replies and views.

Think about it.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[PinkRabbit]

Just as a total side note, Carlos, it's generally considered good Netiquette (ie, the honorable thing to do) if you are using someone else's words in your sigline to cease and desist if asked by the rightful owner of those words. Given that Thanz has asked you to remove his comments, you should do so as a matter of courtesy.

Barb

 

[Guest]

BOOMERANG

See, now that's the difference between me and you Carlos, I'm able to look at what I believe, and change my beliefs of they don't fit the facts. I don't get into useless ego battles.

And as Blue Monk is about to prove, it is possible to post information on the internet that is better quality than what you see on a TV screen.

The thing that annoys me is when Blue Monk talks about video being 60 frames per second,

You, however, are an idiot stuck in an ego battle, unable to admit that youre wrong.

Thanz has asked you to take his words out of your sig (His words, not yours), and you don't do it. You're a dishonest thief. Show some self respect, and do as Thanz asks.

Hi Tesserat:

Well you are admiting that you were the idiot (I am just using your words) that had to change your beleif.

Yes, I am still waiting for Blue Monk digitized version, the same as you are.

Why should I admit that I am wrong?
I didn't see it on my tv screen, I saw it and really study with the equipment and personal of a tv station in their own 3/4 broadcast tape, that session and interview brodcasted in the news is also taped in the video I send to the JREF.

If you admited that you were wrong about quality of tapes, then Thanz quote is a truth. So be proud that you have a truth in my signature. This thread has my name on it, so everything you said concerns to myself.

Just relax next time you reply and just use anothers adjectives to me.This time THE IDIOT you posted was like a boomerang to you.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

What results from BlueMonk? Nothing yet.
He got a copy uf a video from Teleclip.
Nobody knows the format: vhs, 3/4 or what.
Where and what is Teleclip?
He saw the tape in slow motion and in still frames at Teleclip, but never said what he saw there and then he said he didn't have no time to see it. (?)
Now he is digitizing the tape and we are still waiting.



Carlos. please explain to us, why Bidlack is Randi`s pope?

 

[Guest]

DEFENDING THANZ

Just as a total side note, Carlos, it's generally considered good Netiquette (ie, the honorable thing to do) if you are using someone else's words in your sigline to cease and desist if asked by the rightful owner of those words. Given that Thanz has asked you to remove his comments, you should do so as a matter of courtesy.

Barb

Hi Barb:

Thanz made that comment in a thread that has my name on it.
Nobody asked me to put it on, I just keep replying as you all do.

What Thanz posted was before I came to this thread and to the forum.

Now we have opinions that agree with that signature, so why he is ashame on it ? Is a truth what he said, just face it.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I also saw some signatures with my quotes on it. I remember rwald, de bunk, etc. I am not crying, those were my words.
But if Thanz is getting a kind of illness with this, he must just tell me again in a propper way.

 

[rwald]

Carlos, seriously, just because Thanz posted that before you came around doesn't mean you have automatic permission to include his words. I agree, you could assume permission -- right up until the time he specifically asked you to remove his words. From that time onwards, you did not have permission, and have been using his words against his will. If you're truly "fighting for your honor," you should act honorably. Do the honorable thing, and remove his words.

A related note: You may use my words in your sig, so long as I may use yours. If you request that I take your quote out of my sig, I will do so, after seeing you remove mine from yours. Sound fair? If you would like me to do this, just ask, and do the honorable thing. I will follow.

 

[Tesserat]

originally posted by Carlos[i/]

Hi Tesserat:

Well you are admiting that you were the idiot (I am just using your words) that had to change your beleif.
....
Just relax next time you reply and just use anothers adjectives to me.This time THE IDIOT you posted was like a boomerang to you

No, Carlos, it's just your poor understanding of what I wrote. That's not a surprise, since english isn't your first language. I have the same problems in french.

No, the reason I'm calling you an idiot is because you saw a dark blur on a tape, and decided it was paranormal. You submitted it for Randi's million, and even though many people have explained to you that you were never eligible, you've refused to acknowlege that.

I'm saying that you're driven by your ego, and that you're not capable of even imagining you might be wrong.

I'm saying that you're dishonorable, because Thanz asked you to take his words off your quote, and you still haven't.

But if Thanz is getting a kind of illness with this, he must just tell me again in a propper way

What?? Why would he have to ask you more than once? Why must he ask you again? And what, to you, is a proper way?

And finally, you're ungrateful. Blue Monk has spent a lot of his time and money to find a good copy of the clip. He's trying to digitize it, and find a place to put it on the internet. In other words, he's done a lot more than you ever did about this whole thing. If it takes him a few days, learn some patience.

 

[Guest]

SKEPTIC'S REGRETS

A related note: You may use my words in your sig, so long as I may use yours. If you request that I take your quote out of my sig, I will do so, after seeing you remove mine from yours. Sound fair? If you would like me to do this, just ask, and do the honorable thing. I will follow.

Hi Rwald:

The word "fair" is only for YOUR side.
So I must ALSO remove your words in my signature after you remove my words from your signature?

Why is not the opposite? Why don't you remove it AFTER I remove your words?

I am giving you the permission you never asked to keep on posting my words in your signature, YES I said that and was my answer to a "smart" member.

I first "try to think" when I write something, so then I will have no problems of regrets like some skeptics members are now suffering.

Yes I am waiting to Randi and Harter's regrets to their answer to my application full of lies and /or mistakes that was based in a poor and "dodgy" method of analizing a tape on internet. The fact is the quality and the frames. like Thanz perfectly said before, and now Davidhorman, Blue monk, Curt C, Tesserat ,etc.

Hey Rwald you posted this also:"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." 10-27-02

I will use that in my signature someday, or more regrets?

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

ABOUT THE WORD IDIOT

No, the reason I'm calling you an idiot is because you saw a dark blur on a tape, and decided it was paranormal
.

Hi Tesserat:

I am forgiving your words, maybe IDIOT is your favorite word that shows your way of life.

Originally posted by Tesserat 10 /27/02
" I am an idiot who desperatley needs to get a life"


Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

A reasonable enough question, Carlos. Why should you remove my words before I should remove yours? Why shouldn't I remove your words first. However, as it so happens, I have a reasonable answer to these questions. Based on how you've acted with Thanz, I have no reason to believe you will behave honorably. If I remove your words, what guanteree do I have that you will remove mine? I need a show of good will on your part before I will do anything on mine.

And if you decide to use my quotes, I'll go find some good quotes from what you said in the chat room to include in my signature. Remember these?

<Carswett> I want you in my harem
(10/21/02)

<rwald> Just tell me true or false: As an object moves away from the viewer, it will appear to get smaller.
<Carswett> depends
<rwald> Depends?
<Carswett> if it is normal or paranormal
(11/07/02)

<rwald> The frames weren't really still. It was still traveling 122 feet, even in the "still" frames.
<rwald> So it should be spread across 122.22 feet of space.
<rwald> You never saw the object sitting still, Carlos. You just saw it when it was moving 122 feet.
<Carswett> but remember is paranormal
(11/08/02)

<rwald> Carlos's argument: "It's paranormal, therefore it's paranormal."
<Carswett> I never said that rwald
<rwald> Whenever we ask for proof that it's paranormal, you say, "It's paranormal."
(11/08/02)

I'll be happy to include these in my sig, if you want me to. Sound fair?

 

[Blue Monk]

Here's what I got so far.

Video Clips

Video Stills

Carlos' theory is false.

Harter's method was correct.

Carlos's theory can be proven false by an internet video that matches what JREF describes exactly.

 

[Tesserat]

Carlos, you're as hilarious as you are pathetic.

I'm honored that you went back to page 17 or so to post something that I wrote out of context. It's OK, carlos, I understand that you have trouble understanding what certain english phrases mean, for example:

"You have no claim"

You still haven't clued in to that one yet.

English isn't your first language, and thinking isn't your first priority.

 

[davidhorman]

Nice work BlueMonk - after viewing the MP4 I think it's now irrefutable that the object was not inside the tower and does in fact pass in front of both towers.

Hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making an animated GIF from frames 15-20 (frame 14 wasn't posted and frames 21 and 22 were both too close to the right-hand edge). Lest I have shenanigans called on me, I'll point out that in the last two frames of my GIF I've edited out the station logo, and, of course, applied an auto levels filter to make things clearer.

It's either a bird, or aliens are using ornithopters.

David

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Good work Blue Monk, thanks again.

I just saw the mp4 clips. In the full motion mode it's absolutely clear that the object is a bird passing much closer to the camera than to the buildings.

In the frame by frame mode it's also absolutely clear that the object is seen against both towers. And it's also seen against the last bit of the wall of the right tower, a fact that Carlos has denied so far.

So this is the ultimate proof that the object didn't go through the hole and that is was indeed a bird.

The case is definetly closed.

 

[Guest]

Here's what I got so far.

<
.</A>

Hi Blue Monk:

Nice work in "your" digitized version.

I was looking this:All Stills
"Here are stills from all 22 frames of the video where the object is in view."
I only "saw " 8 frames , or this computer only captured 8.

"A digitized video clip will capture either all of the odd frames or all of the even frames. ".
I think is too much filter

I will be fair enough with you : or my computer is so dark or your posted pictures are so dark.

I also saw a looped version of Davidhorman (was more clear) that "shows " the form of the "It's either a bird, or aliens are using ornithopters."

I am going to change to another computer to keep on looking your analysis.

This was just a preview.

By the time what format did Teleclip gave to you?

Thanks,

S&S

.