The "Carlos Swett affair"

[rwald]

Well, since your application was invalid from the beginning, it doesn't matter how poor or dodgey you think Andrew's response was; your application was still invalid.

Yes, the original clip was just 30 frames per second, as opposed to 60 frames (fields, whatever) per second as the TV clip was. But that doesn't automatically mean you're right; it just suggests that the 30 FPS clip isn't the best evidence available. We can still make assumptions based on inconplete evidence, as long as we remain open to the possibility that new evidence can be found.

What's wrong with changing your opinion over time in response to new evidence? If you refuse to look at any evidence or even consider that your original opinion could be wrong, you have the problem, not us.

Your application does give a reason why you think it was not a bird. I will admit that. Your reason is, "It is not seen against the wall of the right/rear tower."

However, as you may have noted, I JUST POSTED A PICTURE OF THE OBJECT AGAINST THE WALL OF THE RIGHT/REAR TOWER!!! Sorry for yelling, but you apparently didn't see it. It's at the bottom of page 25. I'll even add it again to the bottom of this post. The bird is right there, IN FRONT OF THE TOWER. So stop acting like "the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it" is a valid argument. It is not.

Yes, the image is hard to see if you look at the stills. But if you look at my animated GIF, it's plain as day. It's right there. Look at it.

If you think that I have faked my animated GIF, I invite you to create your own version, combining frames 11, 12, and 13 together and focusing on the area pointed to by the red arrows in frames 12 and 13. If you don't like Blue Monk's images, by all means make your own set of digital images and give them for all of us to see. But until you do either of these things, you cannot complain that Blue Monk or I have changed anything. You must specifically prove that we have faked the images, not just say, "They're digital, so they're faked."

Anyway, there you are. I have a picture of the bird in front of the tower. What else do you want?

 

[Guest]

ARROWS AND KING KONG

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

Hi Davidhorman:

I saw what you posted , a dark square with 2 arrows, one is green and the other is red.
About Rwald GIF let me remind you thislease look at this, is another version of the same shot and video , originally posted by Rwald: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

My conclution is that if YOU ALL are trying to act as really skeptics, you CAN NOT be based in a digitized image, is not a proof,

I made it different , I send a referential tape to the JREF, not to be analyze that tape , just to have the referential shot to find the broadcast tape and then analyze that shot.

They did not; THEY (JREF) trusted in an internet unknown link of a digitized version of the shot.

I told you that I also have a digitized version but I didn't send it because I explained in a letter to James Randi (march 28 2002) that digitized versions can be tricked , so I send just the referential shot. Please read it:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...hoto&PhotoID=13

So YOU ALL have no excuses .YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
The images of the shot that are taped in the networks are authentic, they all transmmited to the world "live " that particular shot, are aunthentics, NO EXCUSES.

 

[rwald]

Carlos, for the nth time, we DON'T need to provide proof. That is not our job. Everything we have done, from Andrew's analysis, to Blue Monk's getting the videos, to my creation of animated GIFs, has been out of the goodness of our hearts. We do not need to prove anything. We are automatically assumed to be correct. We will only change our mind when YOU prove anything. YOU must provide COMPELLING proof that it COULD NOT have POSSIBLY been a bird. Sure, my animated GIF may not absolutely prove that it was a bird. But it does prove that it MIGHT have been a bird. I don't need to do anything else. If I've shown that it might be a bird, than I've shown that your claim, namely that it could NOT be a bird, is wrong. You must defend your claim, not just by saying that our evidence is inadequate, but by providing your own evidence. Until you have done so, you have no claim. The only "paranormal thing" going on is that you can feed yourself without a brain. A true scientific miracle.

 

[davidhorman]

So YOU ALL have no excuses .YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Do we have to tell you again that we are making no claim? We are challenging your claim. In a scientific sense the only option must be to assume the normal until there is compelling evidence of the paranormal.

I saw what you posted , a dark square with 2 arrows, one is green and the other is red.

I'm assuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse, but it's hard to tell. Look where the arrows point - you'll see two areas much brighter than the rest. You may need to turn up the brightness on your monitor. The reason these patches are much brighter is that the two areas are markedly different in frames 10 and 12. It is the object, passing in front of the tower.

About Rwald GIF let me remind you thislease look at this, is another version of the same shot and video , originally posted by Rwald:

We've learned our lesson. We'll never attempt to connect to your sense of humour again, because it's clear you don't have one. Rwald does; but that is no reflection on his integrity.

My conclution is that if YOU ALL are trying to act as really skeptics, you CAN NOT be based in a digitized image, is not a proof,

Essentially you're trying to cast doubt on the images we've used - you're practically accusing us of faking the images.

Since you can easily confirm for yourself that we haven't, you might as well accuse the original cameraman of faking the video. The likelihood is that the original recording was digital.

So YOU ALL have no excuses .YOU HAVE NO CLAIM.

Do we have to tell you again that we are making no claim? We are challenging your claim. In a scientific sense the only option must be to assume the normal until there is compelling evidence of the paranormal.

The images of the shot that are taped in the networks are authentic, they all transmmited to the world "live " that particular shot, are aunthentics, NO EXCUSES.

Again you sound like you're accusing us of fakery.

On another note, I'll remind you again that the other angle shot that has been posted here was ALSO broadcast and is authentic. It does NOT show the object.

David

 

[rwald]

I was debating with Carlos in a private chat (you can imagine how futile that is), and I asked him a question. He said he would answer it in the thread, but only if I posted the question. I said, sure, I'd post it. So here it is, my question to Carlos:

Carlos, is there anything anyone could ever do to make you think that you could possibly be wrong?

 

[Guest]

ANSWERS

Carlos, for the nth time, we DON'T need to provide proof. That is not our job. Everything we have done, from Andrew's analysis, to Blue Monk's getting the videos, to my creation of animated GIFs, has been out of the goodness of our hearts. We do not need to prove anything. We are automatically assumed to be correct.

Hi Rwald:

Yes chatting and writing here.
Of course I agree with you that YOU all had not provide no proof of nothing.

I just provided to all of you my application , Harter's poor answer to it based on an study of internet, randi's insulted e.mails , some tips for the work in the videos, and now the letter I send to James Randi.

Now I feel that you have some regrets of your digitized version of the shot.
originally posted by Rwald:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496


But let me tell you, that proved that digitized images can be tricked, so is good for skeptics to know this kind of fact. So there is always a good point to learn about it.

There is a difference from "live" broadcasted images that are showing an particular EVENT and that finally also shows something else. Those tapes are at almost all tv stations and networks of the world.


I also told Randi this fact and to be prepare enough.
I have alsoa digitized version of my own, is told in my letter to Randi also:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...ialchallenge.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13

Please read the post data.

About your question:"Carlos, is there anything anyone could ever do to make you think that you could possibly be wrong?"

Let me tell you Rwald; when I send this stuff to the JREF, I first "think" if it was correct to have complains or mockery, but I made many views and analysis of any kinds and specially I am a rational educated person, I have a family I love so much, I have a free work I like it, I "thought" Randi must use the correct method and equipments, so I had no fear. I never was cared about the prize, I wanted to investigate the truth with an skeptic man. I had propositions from charlatans to make money about that tape, but my education refuses that. I am just a normal person, I don't beleive in easy money.

After Harter's answer with Randi's aprooval I was dissapointed of the method they used and the mistakes they made.
Now I am just pretending that you all don't make the same mistakes of analysis.That's all.

I also pretend to accept me as your friend, I know that there will be differnts points of views from this particular stuff but that must be no reason for acting like in a war.
So is just a debate , though some members doesn't like the word. Let me tell you something: I never started the insults. Randi did it, then some members, then I did some , but that will be part of this "thing".

I will still put you answers and arguments in this thread only until my wife and family say to me : Hey Carlos, is enough.
Don't worry the time I am spending with all of you is disturbing them, though they know and support that is a fight for thre honour of the "name" of my family on it.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

You gave us your application. Your application is not proof. It's simply a statement of what your theory is. If you want us to believe it, you'll need to provide proof, like finding a picture to confirm the statement "the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it." Words alone cannot act as proof in this debate (at least, not proof of that statement above); only picture can do so.

Yes, my previous King Kong clip does show that digital pictures aren't the absolute best type of evidence. (If that's so, then why does Latin always post that digital image he has? is it any better than my digital images?) But Blue Monk's digital pictures are all the evidence we have. Sure, we must look at them and remember that the could be faked, but since we don't have any evidence that they are faked, nor any other evidence of any kind, we have to assume that his pictures are good to work with. Just because digital images can be faked doesn't mean you should automatically assume that all digitial images are faked. You have to prove that Blue Monk's images are fake before you can discount them as evidence.

Regarding your answer to my question: Did you actually answer the question? All you said was that you were dissapointed by Harter's method and our insults. You still havn't told us what we can do to show you that you are wrong. A key principle of any scientific claim is that it can, in principle, be disproven. If you were to show us a second camera shot from a different angle which also showed your paranormal object, that would seriously damage our counter-claim. But by the same token, you must tell us what evidence, if we hypothetically came up with, would disprove your claim. Is there anything we could provide you which could show that your claim is false? Any footage, any testimony, anything at all? I don't promise that we will find this for you if you ask (if you demand that we track down the cameraman who shot the footage and ask his opinion, for example, I can't promise that we would do it), but if you won't even admit that your claim is in theory refutable, than your claim cannot have any scientific merit, and cannot be considered valid.

And if you were a truly rational person, you would not claim to know more about science than I (a claim made in the chat room), when clearly you do not understand the most basic principles of science.

 

[hal bidlack]

Randi's Pope Here...

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here. This reminds me of the challenge of teaching logic, evidence, and reason. My students really enjoyed silly theories, and often were not bothered by the problem of non-falsifyability.

Here are the stages of the debate, stripped of much nonsense.

-Carlos claims we don't have the right tape, says with right tape we will see him proven correct

-right tape is obtained by Blue Monk (what a great guy!) who uses cutting edge equipment and proves Carlos's basic claim false

-Carlos NOW says it's not about having the right tape, it's about, well, I dunno what it's about now.

Simply put, Carlos will consistantly redefine his claim as the evidence proves his previous claims false. I'm not quite sure why he is so tied up emotionally in "proving" to us that he saw something paranormal. In answer to the earlier question, what would he accept as evidence as proving him wrong: NOTHING. He will continue to redefine the issue as long as we keep responding.

Blue Monk has closed the last reasoned chapter in this strange saga, leaving only a shrill and vacant protestation.

Carlos, again, let me say. You have, in the minds of all here save one other, been proven wrong. We firmly, finally, and reasonably reject your claims. Your time here is wasted. You are certainly welcome to stay, but if you still feel the need to carry on, I really do think you should contact your national media. If you are right, you'll have the last laugh.

I close with a certainty that you will attack this post, most tangentally, but I close none the less.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Re: "IS A BIRD ; IS A BIRD;......AGAIN"

after entering in the hole left by the first plane is not seen at the right side of the hole against the wall.

No Carlos. The object is seen against the wall to the right of the hole. If you watch the path of the object in the mp4 clip, frame by frame, you will clearly see that it darkens that particular spot of the wall. And this is conclusive proof that it didn't go through the hole.

My conclution is that if YOU ALL are trying to act as really skeptics, you CAN NOT be based in a digitized image, is not a proof.

Blue Monk analized the video tape of the very same shot with "professional equipments" and he saw the object in front of the buildings the entire time.

 

[Tesserat]

Thank you, Blue Monk for the incredible job that you did in demolishing carlos's claim.

I think this thread has been very useful. It's one of the first times that somebody has cried "foul" about the JREF, and the board members were able to get together and cry "fowl" right back. That it took such a long time was a tribute to the obtuseness that carlos used to defend his ego.

Carlos is already preparing his departure, citing family pressure. I, for one, sincerely hope that he does get a life.

In claiming, however obliquely, that the video that you posted was faked, he's as much as admitting that it destroys his claim.

Congratulations on a decisive win.

 

[Blue Monk]

Well, now that we have all seen what I have concerning Carlo's tape perhaps you'd like to see some of the other clips I got from Teleclip.

I certainly wasn't going to go to all that trouble and only get Carlos' clip. Time and expense was a limiting factor but I did manage to get three others.

This one's my favorite. It's a nice clear shot of the hole that Carlos' "paranormal hat form" should be exiting from if it were really there.
<TABLE>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD COLSPAN="4">

</td>
</TR>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD>second_angle.mov</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mp4</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mpg</TD>
<TD>second_angle.avi</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="4"><H3>Coming Soon....</H3></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="2">

</TD>
<TD COLSPAN="2">

</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I think this thread has been very useful. It's one of the first times that somebody has cried "foul" about the JREF, and the board members were able to get together and cry "fowl" right back

And it also gave us a lesson: paranormal claims survive and prosper because debunking them can take such a big deal of effort, that not so many people can afford it. Blue Monk and Randi can, however.

 

[Guest]

THANKS

Well, now that we have all seen what I have concerning Carlo's tape perhaps you'd like to see some of the other clips I got from Teleclip.

I certainly wasn't going to go to all that trouble and only get Carlos' clip. Time and expense was a limiting factor but I did manage to get three others.

This one's my favorite. It's a nice clear shot of the hole that Carlos' "paranormal hat form" should be exiting from if it were really there.
<TABLE>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD COLSPAN="4">

</td>
</TR>
<TR ALIGN="CENTER">
<TD>second_angle.mov</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mp4</TD>
<TD>second_angle.mpg</TD>
<TD>second_angle.avi</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="4"><H3>Coming Soon....</H3></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN="2">

</TD>
<TD COLSPAN="2">

</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

Hi Blue Monk:

I am glad you posted these anothers angles of that tragic event.

Now you will notice the position and direction of the smoke of the north tower(first plane crashed).

Also the members will notice the difference of quality in resolution of the videos of Teleclip and the one YOU made with your "own" digitalyzation.
YOu can also notice that REALLY exists TWO HOLES on the north tower. (sorry Charlie of Dayton)

The day you "found " the tapes at teleclip, you said that you looked at the shot of my claim in slow motion and stills in the equipments of teleclip, but YOU NEVER said what you saw there.
Then you said you didn't have time (?) but you had time enough to look the shot in slow motion and still frames,and you already knew what specific frame is the discussion about, is on my notarized application and is also the frame you STILL have difficult to see at your NEW own digitized version(????).

Again you came with nothing. I already have all the angles .
I send one particular angle to the challenge, Harter studied that particular angle "frame by frame " in a copy (?) of a video of internet, and was HIS support to gave me HIS poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes.

Now that you know you only have the enthusiasm to defend Harter's position , you still don't have the principal argument to demostrate that is a bird.

Why don't you separate "your bird" and study it with another programs? Ask latin how to do it. Or do your OWN version.


About digitized works I already said to Mr. James Randi I alsohave my own study:read the post data of this letter

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...hoto&PhotoID=13

But I am honest enough. You are just "beleivers" in digitized versions.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

DEFENDING RANDI

Here are the stages of the debate, stripped of much nonsense.

-Carlos claims we don't have the right tape, says with right tape we will see him proven correct

-right tape is obtained by Blue Monk (what a great guy!) who uses cutting edge equipment and proves Carlos's basic claim false

-Carlos NOW says it's not about having the right tape, it's about, well, I dunno what it's about now.

Simply put, Carlos will consistantly redefine his claim as the evidence proves his previous claims false. I'm not quite sure why he is so tied up emotionally in "proving" to us that he saw something paranormal. In answer to the earlier question, what would he accept as evidence as proving him wrong: NOTHING. He will continue to redefine the issue as long as we keep responding.

Blue Monk has closed the last reasoned chapter in this strange saga, leaving only a shrill and vacant protestation.

Carlos, again, let me say. You have, in the minds of all here save one other, been proven wrong. We firmly, finally, and reasonably reject your claims. Your time here is wasted. You are certainly welcome to stay, but if you still feel the need to carry on, I really do think you should contact your national media. If you are right, you'll have the last laugh.

I close with a certainty that you will attack this post, most tangentally, but I close none the less.

Hi Mr . Hal Bidlack:

If you are a proffesor is correct, if you are acting like a Randi's defender is also correct , besides you are part of the foundation.
So YOU must said things with the truth first.
Hal:"Carlos claims we don't have the right tape, says with right tape we will see him proven correct."

You only have digitized versions.Harter studied "frame by frame " a copy of the video on a link (?) on internet. Only the shot is the correct, and the reason? he had my REFERENTIAL tape.

Blue monk is supposed to have "the tape", he looked at teleclip "THE TAPE" in slow motion and stills but NEVER said what he looked there.He needed to digityzed the tape , make his own version. Here at the thread we have also a version with King Kong moving in front of the towers.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

dID YOU LAUGH THAT DAY WHEN YOU SAW IT? i DO NOT, i WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO PROTESTED.

Now YOU also want to "beleive " a personal unknown work, from a guy who refused to say what he saw the same day he saw THE TAPE in slow motion and stills in the same EQUIPMENTS of TELECLIP. Now is too late, he has a "digitized version" of the tape.
I send an application.
I have your answer to my notarized application based in another digitized version.
I DID study THE TAPE, and YOU know that, you have also a copy of that TAPE and is wrote in the letter I send to Randi.

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum...hoto&PhotoID=13

Or if you want to look at all the documents of the application

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=169496

Or you can look at it in the same page you saw my works in art.
You JREF know the page.

Those are facts for the REAL SKEPTICS, no for the beleivers in digitized versions.

Sorry for your students.

So if now are you so sure, Why don't you Mr.James Randi write about my application and your poor answer full of lies and/or mistakes?

Thanks,

S&S

 

[hal bidlack]

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[davidhorman]

A question, Carlos - I'd appreciate it if you kept the answer short and concise.

How do you explain the fact that the object only appears in footage from one camera, and all other cameras trained on the towers at the same time do not show it?

I'd also like to say that if you wish to dismiss all of our efforts simply because they are digital images, you must dismiss the tape you saw. It could just as easily have been faked (and was probably a digital recording itself). The only evidence you should accept is that of your own eyes - and you weren't there.

David

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Re: DEFENDING RANDI

Blue monk is supposed to have "the tape", he looked at teleclip "THE TAPE" in slow motion and stills but NEVER said what he looked there.

No Carlos, read this:

Originally posted by Blue Monk
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.

 

[Blue Monk]

Re: THANKS

ROFLMAO!

You’re a real genius aren’t you Carlos. Such an eye for detail.

Except you failed to notice the most significant feature.

There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Do you see anything come out of that hole? Is there anything there?

Tell me Carlos, as I’d love to get an opinion of an intelligent man such as yourself, what does the absence of a large dark object passing through that hole mean to you? Hmmmmm?

Also the members will notice the difference of quality in resolution of the videos of Teleclip and the one YOU made with your "own" digitalyzation.

I didn’t shoot the video Carlos. I’ll post a reference clip showing what came before and after that clip so you can see for yourself.

What am I saying? You’ll only accuse me of cheating. Well, what the hell, I’ll post it anyway.

Originally posted by S&S
The day you "found " the tapes at teleclip, you said that you looked at the shot of my claim in slow motion and stills in the equipments of teleclip, but YOU NEVER said what you saw there.

All I saw was a bird passing in front of the towers.

Originally posted by S&S
Then you said you didn't have time (?) but you had time enough to look the shot in slow motion and still frames,and you already knew what specific frame is the discussion about, is on my notarized application and is also the frame you STILL have difficult to see at your NEW own digitized version(????).

Carlos, I don’t work for you, get it?

Now I’ve already told you this and since you are not very bright there is no doubt I’ll have to tell you again until it sinks in.

We have better equipment at UT. They were using a TV monitor at Teleclip. They’re not doing research, they are just cueing up the clips. I knew I had better equipment I could view it on and it wouldn’t cost me $30 bucks an hour.

But the main reason was I don’t give a damn about your tape. I already knew from viewing the CNN tape that there was nothing passing through the tower. We did look at it long enough for all of us to have a good laugh though.

Originally posted by S&S
Again you came with nothing. I already have all the angles.

But you are apparently aren’t smart enough to realize that they prove your object isn’t passing through the tower.

Originally posted by S&S
I send one particular angle to the challenge, Harter studied that particular angle "frame by frame " in a copy (?) of a video of internet, and was HIS support to gave me HIS poor answer full of lies and /or mistakes.

You are a cry baby. You have a stupid claim that is easily disproved. Grow the hell up.

Originally posted by S&S
Now that you know you only have the enthusiasm to defend Harter's position , you still don't have the principal argument to demostrate that is a bird.

I don’t give a damn. I tried to tell you that from the beginning but you insisted I answer your questions so I’m answering them and I don’t give a damn if you like the answers, I don’t give a damn as to what you think my motivation might be, I don’t give a damn if I ever convince you.

And most importantly, I don’t give a damn about proving to you it’s a bird.

Originally posted by S&S
Why don't you separate "your bird" and study it with another programs? Ask latin how to do it. Or do your OWN version.

Why don’t you? You’re the one interested in that stupid tape. There is nothing on that tape that is going to make your object ‘magically’ appear in any of the other videos.

Originally posted by S&S
About digitized works I already said to Mr. James Randi I alsohave my own study:read the post data of this letter

Oh yeah I have. For a guy who’s not concerned with the rules you have made sure your documents made it online. You can’t produce a single clip from your tape but you can damn sure document the date JREF received your application.

Your theory is false and easy to disprove.

If you want to whine about how your application was handled then by all means be my guest.

You insisted I answer your questions concerning whether using an internet copy was a valid method so I did. In my opinion yes.

Was the method used appropriate? Again, the answer is yes.

But only an idiot could belief your theory after seeing the other tapes that clearly show there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

But don’t worry Carlos. There are still some questions you gave me that I haven’t answered yet but don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten.

 

[Guest]

THANKS for CALLING ME GENIUS; I AM JUST HONEST ENOUGH

ROFLMAO!

You’re a real genius aren’t you Carlos. Such an eye for detail.

Except you failed to notice the most significant feature.

There is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

Do you see anything come out of that hole? Is there anything there?

Tell me Carlos, as I’d love to get an opinion of an intelligent man such as yourself, what does the absence of a large dark object passing through that hole mean to you? Hmmmmm?




I didn’t shoot the video Carlos. I’ll post a reference clip showing what came before and after that clip so you can see for yourself.

What am I saying? You’ll only accuse me of cheating. Well, what the hell, I’ll post it anyway.



All I saw was a bird passing in front of the towers.




Carlos, I don’t work for you, get it?

Now I’ve already told you this and since you are not very bright there is no doubt I’ll have to tell you again until it sinks in.

We have better equipment at UT. They were using a TV monitor at Teleclip. They’re not doing research, they are just cueing up the clips. I knew I had better equipment I could view it on and it wouldn’t cost me $30 bucks an hour.

But the main reason was I don’t give a damn about your tape. I already knew from viewing the CNN tape that there was nothing passing through the tower. We did look at it long enough for all of us to have a good laugh though.



But you are apparently aren’t smart enough to realize that they prove your object isn’t passing through the tower.



You are a cry baby. You have a stupid claim that is easily disproved. Grow the hell up.



I don’t give a damn. I tried to tell you that from the beginning but you insisted I answer your questions so I’m answering them and I don’t give a damn if you like the answers, I don’t give a damn as to what you think my motivation might be, I don’t give a damn if I ever convince you.

And most importantly, I don’t give a damn about proving to you it’s a bird.



Why don’t you? You’re the one interested in that stupid tape. There is nothing on that tape that is going to make your object ‘magically’ appear in any of the other videos.



Oh yeah I have. For a guy who’s not concerned with the rules you have made sure your documents made it online. You can’t produce a single clip from your tape but you can damn sure document the date JREF received your application.

Your theory is false and easy to disprove.

If you want to whine about how your application was handled then by all means be my guest.

You insisted I answer your questions concerning whether using an internet copy was a valid method so I did. In my opinion yes.

Was the method used appropriate? Again, the answer is yes.

But only an idiot could belief your theory after seeing the other tapes that clearly show there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

But don’t worry Carlos. There are still some questions you gave me that I haven’t answered yet but don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten.

:

Hi Blue Monk:

Is too late, when you SAW THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills with their equipments.YOU NEVER said what you saw there.
You needed To make YOUR own digitized version of the SHOT of my application WITH TRICKS on it, easily noticed. The same way Rwald posted a picture of KING Kong dancing IN FRONT of the TOWERS.

Even to you is hard to see "YOUR BIRD" in your frame still , I guess is number 12, so you have nothing.And NOW no excuses for the FRAMES.
What kind of TAPE you got from TELECLIP?
Where is the adress of Teleclip?

So now AGAIN you are looking from another angle the "PARANORMAL ACTIVITY" as the only proof you can have .So you waisted time, money and efforts. But you still have your enthusiasm in defending Harter's poor answer to my application, that was based in an unknown link of a another digitized version on the internet. Can you please DEFINE what is PARANORMAL?

WOW, the NONPLUSULTRA of the skeptics are based on an unknown links of digitized images. Sorry IS BLUE MONK link(WOW)

I am sure that when you saw Jurassic park(the movie) the first time, you also beleived those dinosaurs were real.Of course then you must regret when they explained you that were digitized images, POOR SKEPTICS, always regreting.

Yes, you also post a "referential clip" done by yourself.
Sorry you have nothing, and is thair fault if you have a bunch of beleivers of your "magic equipment".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Now you can return to the first part, that my application was not valid, but take your time again.

P:S: I have the document (FED EX)of the date JREF received my application and REFERENTIAL TAPE, not digitized tape.

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/oficialchallenge.msnw?albumlist=2

Any more regrets?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

THE END

<img src=http://www.royaldragonusa.net/images/Emoticons/banghead.gif>