• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The "Carlos Swett affair"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting thing, Latin: If you blow up frame 17, it looks exactly like your favorite digital image. But if you blow up frame 21, it looks different. Your conclusion: Frame 21 must have been faked. Most everyone else's conclusion: Maybe it happens to look different in frams 17 and 21 because it is a moving object and it changes shape as the wings go up and down...
 
rwald said:
Interesting thing, Latin: If you blow up frame 17, it looks exactly like your favorite digital image. But if you blow up frame 21, it looks different. Your conclusion: Frame 21 must have been faked. Most everyone else's conclusion: Maybe it happens to look different in frams 17 and 21 because it is a moving object and it changes shape as the wings go up and down...

Or because Blue Monks try to erased !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Why would Blue Monk want to erase that? He says that the bird should be visible in every frame, so why should he erase it from one frame?
 
rwald said:
Why would Blue Monk want to erase that? He says that the bird should be visible in every frame, so why should he erase it from one frame?


Because he is a Randi`s fan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Here's a copy of Frame 21, enhanced the same way that Latin's favorite image was. Where's the "hat-like structure"?

[edit]Carlos didn't like the version of the picture I uploaded earlier, so here's a different version. Let's see if Carlos likes this better.[/edit]
 
Thanks

rwald said:
Here's a copy of Frame 21, enhanced the same way that Latin's favorite image was. Where's the "hat-like structure"?

Thanks Rwald, it also shows how he manipulated and edited the picture, see how he did it or not? You are smart enough so find the answer , if you can not Latin or I will help you.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S
Now do the same with frame 17, Please.
 
Wait a second...

Why is Latin allowed to use edited digital images as proof, but I can't? And why can't Blue Monk, either?
 
JUST CHANGING MY SIGNATURE

Now that we have "digitized versions".

Thanks,
S&S
 
Carlos, a word of advice: The signature line should not be longer than 90% of your posts. Seriously, you shouldn't have more than 3 quotes, unless they're all only a line long. You shouldn't have a 20 line long sig.
 
rwald said:
Wait a second...

Why is Latin allowed to use edited digital images as proof, but I can't? And why can't Blue Monk, either?

They don't think I altered the tape, rwald.

They're jerks.

It's the only way they have left to attack and they do it to anybody that disagrees with them.

They one formula they follow over and over is to raise another new issue concerning their stupid little tape.

They will do anything, and I mean anything, from calling people liars to suggesting they fake evidence to draw attention away from the most obvious question of all.

Why isn't there object on any other video?

I don't care if they convince everyone on the planet that I'm dishonest it will never change the fact that every single video clip of the event proves these two foolish men are wrong.

And so there is nothing left for these two pathetic individuals except the name calling.

No one needs defend my honor from these morons.

I never gave a damn about the stupid tape. None of us did.

But they know that if they claim I faked the tape stills then everyone will be talking about their dumb tape again which is what they want.

I say if they are too stupid to provide their own evidence then there is no reasoning with them. I knew that from the begining.

But now I don't have to put up with their nonsense.

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
second_angle_small.jpg

</A>

I can easily prove them the fools with a simple hyperlink.

I mean does anyone need more proof that their theory is nonsense? Of course not.

Does anyone need any more proof that they are creeps? I don't think so.

Let the children play. I will make sure the other clips are available for a long, long time.
 
THINK??????

Blue Monk said:


They don't think I altered the tape, rwald.

They're jerks.



Hi Blue Monk:

Well we don't "think" that , we are SURE.

From the first time you find the TAPE at Teleclip and you saw it there with their equipments in slow motion ans stills, and you NEVER said what you saw there , only excuses to give you time to make YOUR digitized version WITH CLEARLY TRICKS ON IT.

Now that you were discovered in your enthusiasm to defend Harter poor method , you again only want to focus in the other angles.

What is paranormal? Loser.

Thanks,
S&S
 
Carlos, the other angles prove that you are wrong. As a newbie who just came on the chat a few minutes ago said, "something that big, and black against the light sky would have shown up on more than one angle." Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
 
Originally posted by S&S
Well we don't "think" that , we are SURE.

Well I can prove I didn't.

If anyone wants a copy of the tape to judge for themselves they can send me the money to cover postage and the tape and I'll send them a copy.

What? Don't trust me?

Then order it from the company yourself.

Teleclip, Inc.
3601 S. Congress Ave. Building B Suite #100
Austin, TX 78704
Ph: (512) 851-8800, Fax (512) 851-8507
www.teleclip.com

Information you'll need to tell them
Sept 11, 2001 ABC Network
News footage of the World Trade Center Attack

They can't sale you just the clip your interested. You have to buy the specific news segment.
The segment your clip is on is the 5:00pm segment.
I also got the 5:20pm segment and the 6:01pm segment.

Anyone anywhere in the world can check for themselves and see that what I posted was not faked.

Dumbass.

<A HREF="http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/wtc/proof.html">
second_angle_small.jpg

</A>

But you just want to talk about that because you don't want anyone seeing these other clips that prove just how foolish you and latinijral are. Anyone can see there is no large dark object passing through or even near either building.

Proof Carlos' Theory is Nonsense
 
Re: THINK??????

S&S said:


Hi Blue Monk:

Well we don't "think" that , we are SURE.

From the first time you find the TAPE at Teleclip and you saw it there with their equipments in slow motion ans stills, and you NEVER said what you saw there , only excuses to give you time to make YOUR digitized version WITH CLEARLY TRICKS ON IT.

Now that you were discovered in your enthusiasm to defend Harter poor method , you again only want to focus in the other angles.

What is paranormal? Loser.

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos,

It has been shown that whatever you are trying to do here is futile. I don't really understand why you still post here, seems to me you just like to annoy people. If that is the case, then rest assured your job is done.

If, however, your idea is to lend credence to science, then I suggest you take some time and re-evaluate what evidence you have, on your own, and then come back when you have something really interesting.

just my opinion.

buki
 
PARANORMAL?????

rwald said:
Carlos, the other angles prove that you are wrong. As a newbie who just came on the chat a few minutes ago said, "something that big, and black against the light sky would have shown up on more than one angle." Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Hi Rwald:

Are you talking about the bird or the paranormal object?

Please a definition of paranormal.

Thanks,
S&S
 
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

Anything which was moving through the hole in the tower would have been seen from more than one angle.
 
Ok, now he's just posting for the hell of it.

I commend all of you, Blue Monk particularly, for working so hard to show the truth. This guy, he just wants to dance.

Do you want to dance with him?
 
Re: PARANORMAL?????

S&S said:


Hi Rwald:

Are you talking about the bird or the paranormal object?

Please a definition of paranormal.

Thanks,
S&S

Oh, I don't effing BELIEVE this...now you want US to define YOUR terms?

You're the one who claimed there was a 'paranormal' something on the tape. YOU define what paranormal is.

DO YOUR OWN WORK, MANURE-FOR-BRAINS!!!!
 
PARANORMAL?????

Charlie in Dayton said:


Oh, I don't effing BELIEVE this...now you want US to define YOUR terms?

You're the one who claimed there was a 'paranormal' something on the tape. YOU define what paranormal is.

DO YOUR OWN WORK, MANURE-FOR-BRAINS!!!!

Are YOU afraid again?
Is on Randi's challenge.
Poor Cid.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
I forgot you are preparing another SCIENTIFIC method base on an internet tape. Is another survey?Good luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom