The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

DIGITIZED VERSIONS

Hi Blue Monk:

Yes was the other computer that was "dark".
Now I am looking "your work" in another computer, is more clear "your stills"


BM"frame 10 - This frame shows the object passing in front of this building. In the odd set, we have already seen this. It shows up in the previous frame, frame 9. The next significant frame is frame 12."

CS :Yes that frame is before the object "entered in the hole" , I already said that. Is at the left side of that tower.
Frame 11 is the "object " entering in the hole . You have no comment in that frame.

BM"frame 12 - Though it is hard to see in this still, this is the frame that shows the object still in front of this building. It can be seen clearer by stepping through one of the clips frame by frame."

CS:Well , is hard to see according to your words. Is the frame I was asking YOU to post before : A picture of the object at the right side of the hole., in front of that side of the tower.Frame 12 shows NOTHING at that side.


BMframe 13 - "This, of course, is the frame that has mislead some of the more gullible among us to believe the object is passing through the tower. Should anyone still be foolish enough to believe that this is possible then please review this clip from another angle to remove all doubt that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either building."

CS:Now ,again your "work" only can be based on a clip from another angle.(?????)

Frame 12 shows NOTHING.

BM"frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'

CS: Why you didn't use your filters and equipments to enlarge and clear that image?

Blue Monk Conclusion: "The clips I have provided here prove that an internet clip can contain the information that conforms exactly to what was said in JREF's response to Carlos."

Yes this is YOUR internet clip, was made by yourself after Harter's answer to my application.
No Harter's answer was not based in your "digitized" version or in the "enthusiastic work" that you had done, maybe as you said before was the other clip by abc (second video in your web page).

I also saw in this thread another "digitized version" of a video of the same shot posted by Rwald. Yes in that version I saw King Kong moving in front of the towers. Of course he explained that was a gallows humour.I also protested that day, yes was the only one. Yes was another digitized version, not yours.

Can I have the adress of Teleclip?
What kind of tape (format) they gave you?

Well, keep on working, this was just a preview.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

ABOUT DIGITIZED VERSIONS

Originally posted by Rwald:09/15/02

"OK, I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything (Carlos, please don't tell me your video was originally broadcast live to everyone in the world, and couldn't have been edited; I already know this); I just think it is funny.
Yes, I know this is gallows humor, at best. I mean no disrespect to those who died on 9/11/01. I'm just making fun of the Swett video. Please don't turn around and say I'm anti-American; that simply isn't true. I'm just taking the existing video, and trying to find some humor in it."
[/edit]

rwald attached his "digitized version" of the same video with king kong moving in front of the towers in page 5 of this thread:http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=5

My answer that day to Rwald was :"As you see, in your"gallows humor" is a fact that internet is not the correct method to analize the video, it can be tricked.
Sorry for the big favor you did to Andrew Harter and the JREF (The Amazing Randi) proving they used the stupid , antitechnical and poor method , That is a fact.

I don`t know if U:S: people aprooves your humor, perhaps some stupids yes (they will think lyke you: is about "SWETT`S VIDEO),
but the rest I am sure they will not."

Then Rwald answered this to me:
"Carlos, I know that the internet video can be edited, as I proved. I never said that Randi and Harter did the best possible review of your case; I know that it would have been better had they looked at the original video"

Yes any digitized version can be tricked.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[PinkRabbit]

What difference does it make what clip Harter viewed, if his conclusion was correct?

Just as I and others have said, you can see the object all the way across both buildings, clearly in front of them. It does not go through either building.

It's undoubtedly a bird.

Harter's conclusion was right, whatever his technique. Isn't that what's important?

Barb

 

[Guest]

WHERE ???

What difference does it make what clip Harter viewed, if his conclusion was correct?

Just as I and others have said, you can see the object all the way across both buildings, clearly in front of them. It does not go through either building.

It's undoubtedly a bird.

Harter's conclusion was right, whatever his technique. Isn't that what's important?

Barb

Hi Barb:

Where did you saw that?

Of what version are you refering?
Your's 3/4 tape unknown and incomplete analysis?
Or Blue Monk's or Rwald's digitized version on internet?
Or to the unknown link where Harter did his analysis "frame by frame"?

I also have another version but is taped and really shows how and where the analysis were done. Yes that tape was also send to JREF. Remember was broadcasted also .Yes , read my application.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

Ah, you brought up my King Kong clip. I guess I should have expected that. Well, if you're trying to use that to suggest that Blue Monk's digitalization is incorrect, then at least go ahead and explicitly say so. But remember, while I was at odds with you from the start, Blue Monk actually went out and got a copy of the video. I would trust his analysis more than mine, were I you. Also, note that I never claimed my King Kong video was genuine; I freely admited it was edited. When I later posted clips from Blue Monk's earlier videos, I said they were real. You obviously don't have to trust me, but I promise that I will only ditigally edit the pictures if I direcly say so -- and I know that the same holds for Blue Monk.

 

[Guest]

YES I KNOW

Ah, you brought up my King Kong clip. I guess I should have expected that. Well, if you're trying to use that to suggest that Blue Monk's digitalization is incorrect, then at least go ahead and explicitly say so. But remember, while I was at odds with you from the start, Blue Monk actually went out and got a copy of the video. I would trust his analysis more than mine, were I you. Also, note that I never claimed my King Kong video was genuine; I freely admited it was edited. When I later posted clips from Blue Monk's earlier videos, I said they were real. You obviously don't have to trust me, but I promise that I will only ditigally edit the pictures if I direcly say so -- and I know that the same holds for Blue Monk.

:

Hi Rwald:
I understand your point, I already said that was just your "gallows humour", but I also agree in the words you said the same day:
"Carlos, I know that the internet video can be edited, as I proved. I never said that Randi and Harter did the best possible review of your case; I know that it would have been better had they looked at the original video"

Try NOW to understand my point.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I already said is a good effort made by Blue Monk, but he stills have problems in some particular stills, "his" video shows a different trajectory from the one he posted before , and there are more facts to be analize .He is still working.

Well, anyway we have "his word" and must be honourable enough like the words of the rest of the members, but words are not prove to skeptics.That doesn't mean I don't trust in his effort to defend Harter's method.

 

[rwald]

Carlos, I'm going to write out the Burden of Proof argument here once and for all, so maybe you're stop demanding that we "prove" it was a bird, or whatever. It won't help, but maybe in the future, we can just cite this post, instead of repeating our arguments.

In science, the person who has the burden of proof must produce the proof. Who has the burden of proof? The person who is making the claim, or alternatively, the person whose claim is in greatest contradiction to known science. Randi's (and mine, and Blue Monk's, etc.) claim is that the object it the video is a bird. Your claim is that it is a paranormal object. You have also said that your paranormal object is able to break the laws of physics. So, clearly, you are the person who must provide the proof. It is not enough for you to say, "There are missing frames, and because you can't produce them, I win." You must produce evidence that there are in fact missing frames. If you don't like Blue Monk's digitation of the video, that's fine. It isn't Blue Monk's burden to produce a quality digitation of the video; that burden lies on you.

I know your reply to this is going to be something like, "I have proved the claim! It's in my application!" Could you quote to us the exact parts which prove that it could not have been a bird (simply saying, "It could not have been a bird," is not proof that it wasn't a bird). You say it passed through the tower. What proof do you have of that? Blue Monk has posted pictures of the bird clearly in front of the tower. Unless you have proof that those pictures are false or misleading, we have no reason to believe you. If any of us disagree with you, than by definition you have not provided convincing proof. Though Blue Monk has been nice in providing proof that you are wrong, he is not obligated to. If you want anyone to believe you, you can't say, "Go find the proof for yourself!" You must say, "Here's the proof, right here." What proof do you have that we should believe you? Why should we believe it passed through the tower?

You're probably going to make some sort of innane comparison to da Vinci, or Newton, or Einstein. Well, guess what. When they first made their claims, people didn't believe them. They only won people's beliefs when the ran experiments, conducted tests, and provided proof that their theories were correct. So don't act like you have anything in common with them. They had proof. You don't.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

The case is definetly closed.

 

[PinkRabbit]

In short, there is no proof you will accept.

Is that the long and short of it, Carlos?

The footage he digitized shows the same thing I and others have seen in looking at the tape. Namely an object that is blurry and fast moving and in front of the towers the entire time.

Have you considered that perhaps you were the one on substandard equipment? That perhaps the monitors you used weren't very clear, or the footage was dubbed onto cruddy quality tape that didn't give a clear image? That maybe your method and not the entire world's is the one that's flawed? You're not a videographer. Would you even know good equipment from bad, or a sharp image from a muddy one. And don't give me the, I'm an artist crap. Being an artist doesn't mean you know everything about all technical aspects of every craft.

The fact that you submitted an application doesn't make you right. It just means you submitted an application.

Whatever method Harter used, he was right. It's a bird. Whatever you convinced yourself you saw, you didn't. There's nothing paranormal there. Just an out of focus bird a short distance from the camera.

A thousand notarized applications don't change that basic fact, and they never will.

Barb

 

[Andalyn]

Only 9 more posts till this thread reaches 1000.

This may be a good time to display this smilie for Mr. Swett:

<img src=http://www.tnfj.com/Images/Smilies/crucified.gif>

 

[Guest]

CLARO???? SOLO PARA LOS PERROS

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.

CLEAR??? Seguro que me quedò claro que eres perro y sòlo ladras mentiras.

 

[Guest]

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_17.jpg

Blue Monk`s frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'

Latin: The study of this frame that shows YOUR "paranormal hat shaped form" is the same that i am posting here.


http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/stills/all_frames/frame_21.jpg

Blue Monk`s frame 21 - How come these guys never posted this frame? Gee, I wonder, is this a bird or a 'paranormal hat?'

Latin: I never used digitized tricks as you are doing here. You forgot to erase the circle around your "bird".
Your videos are really very poor resoluted.
You never posted "your black bird" at the right side of the hole, so you again you have NOTHING yet.

PLEASE DON`T USE DIGITIZED TRICKS IN YOUR PICTURES AND VIDEOS.

 

[davidhorman]

PLEASE DON`T USE DIGITIZED TRICKS IN YOUR PICTURES AND VIDEOS.

I hope you don't think one of us has done so.

Have you viewed the MP4 file? It's a lot clearer, in a moving image, that the object passes in front of both towers. DON'T go by the AVI or the MPG - it's much clearer in the MP4.

And latinraj, what do you have to say about the fact that your "paranormal hat" seems to be flapping, much as a bird would?

If it moves like a bird and is close enough to be the size of a bird, it's probably a bird.

David

 

[Guest]

Have you viewed the MP4 file? It's a lot clearer, in a moving image, that the object passes in front of both towers. DON'T go by the AVI or the MPG - it's much clearer in the MP4.

And latinraj, what do you have to say about the fact that your "paranormal hat" seems to be flapping, much as a bird would?

If it moves like a bird and is close enough to be the size of a bird, it's probably a bird.

David

I saw the MP4 "digitized version" of Blue Monk, can you as a skeptic determine that this is a proof????

Carlos also has a digitized study of the same shot, but he did it from the original broadcasted transmission. He refused to send this study to JREF because he knows that digitized versions can be tricked like Rwald and Blue Monk did it. He was honest enough to send only a referential tape, so JREF should find a broadcasted tape to do the analysis and don`t try to be based on internet or tricked digitized tapes.

About the "size" of the "bird", do you have the perspective to determined it size, but you can see that it is impossible to you to post a picture of the "bird" at the right side of the hole.

About the "flapping" of the "bird", where are the wings????

I just saw a "particular" movement of the object.

And what about the "form of the bird":
Why don`t you use your filters to enlarge just the "bird" and make a separate study of it????????????

You can use this frame to make the study that will show you the form of the "bird".

Blue Monk`s frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'


You can also use your filters that will show you that this frame was tricked by Blue Monk.

Blue Monk`s frame 21 - How come these guys never posted this frame? Gee, I wonder, is this a bird or a 'paranormal hat?'



I ALREADY DID THAT ANALYSIS

 

[rwald]

Latin, it doesn't matter if you think that Blue Monk's pictures conclusively prove that it was a bird. IT IS NOT BLUE MONK'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE ANYTHING. Any work Blue Monk has done has been out of the goodness of his heart; neither he nor anyone else from our side is obligated to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with you. You must prove that it could not have been a bird. You have not done that.

Did you notice that Blue Monk *did* post a picture of the bird to the right side of the hole? It is frame 12. Here, I'll even include it below:

See that black spot to the right of the hole? That spot doesn't appear in any other frame. That spot is the bird, sitting to the right side of the hole. What do you think that black spot is? Why do you deny that this spot exists?

As we've already told you, using filters to "enhance" a digital image will just reduce its quality. Besides, if we did, you would just say we digitally altered it, like my King Kong clip, and ignore our posts anyway. There's no reason to bother using filters. Of course, Blue Monk may still do so; but it won't prove anything to you.

You have clearly not convinced any of us of your point of view. Therefore, by definition, you have not given us convincing proof that you are correct. Until you do, you have no cause for complaint.

 

[davidhorman]

Carlos also has a digitized study of the same shot, but he did it from the original broadcasted transmission. He refused to send this study to JREF because he knows that digitized versions can be tricked like Rwald and Blue Monk did it. He was honest enough to send only a referential tape, so JREF should find a broadcasted tape to do the analysis and don`t try to be based on internet or tricked digitized tapes.

If a digital image can be faked, it can just as easily be laid off onto tape.

About the "size" of the "bird", do you have the perspective to determined it size

In a way, yes. Other video clips from almost, but not quite, identical angles do not show the object. Therefore the object is much closer to the camera than the towers.

About the "flapping" of the "bird", where are the wings????

The wings are the things that move up and down either side of the body. That's how birds fly. The fact that we don't have an instantly and unmistakably recognisable image of a bird is due to the motion of the object and the probable nearness of the object. We'd only get a sharp view of this object if it was at the same distance from the camera as the towers.

I just saw a "particular" movement of the object.

That's like dismissing video evidence of a stabbing by saying you only saw the defendant make a "particular" movement of his arm. It looks like a flapping bird.

And what about the "form of the bird":
Why don`t you use your filters to enlarge just the "bird" and make a separate study of it????????????

Because I have a better understanding of what those filters do to the information in the image than you do.

I ALREADY DID THAT ANALYSIS

It's not an analysis. It's the application of a filter whose sole purpose is to invent information to fill in the blanks.

David

 

[davidhorman]

Thanks for mentioning burden of proof again rwald, I forget to do that in my post.

but you can see that it is impossible to you to post a picture of the "bird" at the right side of the hole.

Attached is an image made by subtracting frame 12 from frame 10 - this more-or-less removes the common elements (ie the Tower) and leaves only the differences. This shows very clearly that there is something in frame 12 at the right hand side of the tower (that's the faint line on the right) that wasn't there in field 10.

David

 

[rwald]

OK. Though this won't convince Carlos or Latin, I promised Latin I would make this clip, and so I did. I took frames 11, 12, and 13 (remember, frame 12 is the frame showing the bird in front of the tower to the right of the hole), cropped them, and made them into an animated GIF. The frame without any red arrow is frame 11; 12 and 13 follow in order. Notice the black spot in frame 12 which is not present in frame 11. That is the bird. Also notice the black smudge to the right of the tower in frame 13. If you look closely, you can see that it covers the tower a bit as well, not as much as in frame 12, but it's there nonetheless. Though there was no real purpose to making this clip, I've made it, so I might as well post it.

 

[Guest]

"IS A BIRD ; IS A BIRD;......AGAIN"

I understand BlueMonk's position from the beggining: TRY TO DEFEND HARTER's POOR ANSAWER TO MY APPLICATION.

His "enthusiastic work" is not really neutral, was conducted to justify the poor dodgy method Harter's did when he studied a digitized tape on internet ( not Blue Monk's work).

I heard from almost all of YOU that "is a bird" from the beginning of the thread, FIRST when nobody saw the video neither my application, SECOND when Blue Monk posted the video with "missing frames" and now when Blue Monk posted HIS "digitized version" of a tape he found at Teleclip.(?)

So is not new for me to try to debate your "beleiver's facts" , also I have many regrets from members that know "think" different than when they first posted quotes, or that recognized that made "mistakes"
I will remind you all the principal part of my application to demostrate you all that YOU ALL are just as the beggining, only with doubts and with the efforts to justify JREF position about the thread.

I WROTE IN MY APPLICATION:
"In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, 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. "

"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 that we have Blue Monk's digitized version with no excuses about frames, it is possible to see:

A) the smoke of the north tower (where the first plane crashed) is moving , bacause of the direction of the wind, not behind the south tower., the smoke is moving south west , so is covering the up side of the south tower. I said in my application that the object is moving through the smoke, in the opposite direction of it.
You all can see now that effect.

B) I explained in my application the reasons why is not a bird or an insect (proving that I "thought " first about the possibility of that optical illusion) WHY ?:after entering in the hole left by the first plane is not seen at the right side of the hole against the wall. I saw this particular "effect" in proffesional broadcast equipments, with technicians that work at a tv station, and that made a particular "news" of that "particular event.

Now we have Blue Monk's "stills frames" that show the dark object , but I found this in that particular frame :and according to Blue Monk's words.
BM"frame 12 - Though it is hard to see in this still, this is the frame that shows the object still in front of this building. It can be seen clearer by stepping through one of the clips frame by frame."

Yes Blue Monk : IS HARD TO SEE (NOTHING), and now you don't have no excuses to frames., but is easy to see when it gets out of the other side of the hole, when the sky is its background.

So what I said in my application was correct . AGAIN, YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Now I will write to you for the first time of the thread an extract from the letterof 2 pages I send to Mr. James Randi, in the same package I send my application. Is about digitized versions.
The link to that letter is thisage 1
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...ialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=14

and specially the pos data in page 2
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...ialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13

I wrote in that post data to James Randi :"WE HAVE ALSO DIGITALIZED THE IMAGES; BUT THAT IS ONLY A PROOF FOR US BECAUSE THIS KIND OF IMAGE CAN BE TRICKED"

Yes members I already told Randi and the JREF about digitized images. My tape was only referential, please read the letter.
Remember is the first time I am refering to that link.

The entire documents are in a web page of MSN that Latinijral have , the link to the entire albums are:

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw

There are pictures of documents and stuff , not posted by me , but that I send to Latin to be able to make his own research.
I also send before this documents to some particular friends in others countries but that are not notified by me of the existence of this thread, I tried to be honest enough in this case, I am sure of what I am claiming.
Please read the letter to James Randi (wrote in March 28 2002)and then make your conclutions.

Thanks,
S&S


P.S.

I have also more facts about the "running of the frames" and the movement of the object. I guess Blue Monk also noticed this.

 

[davidhorman]

Yes Blue Monk : IS HARD TO SEE (NOTHING),

My JPEG (attached here so it is present on this page) and rwald's GIF both show that frame 12 DOES contain an image of the obect, in front of the tower.

By the way, having an image on videotape doesn't make it any more authentic than a digital image.

David