The "Carlos Swett affair"

[thatguywhojuggles]

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?

I wouldn't necessarily call it dancing. It's more like fumbling around drunk in the dirt and drooling all over the place!

He is a troll.

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't necessarily call it dancing. It's more like fumbling around drunk in the dirt and drooling all over the place!

He is a troll.

And you are my best couple for the dance, always saying you will NEVER post here again. How many times you said that?

I think your hello kyttie diary is full now.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Ceinwyn]

And you are my best couple for the dance, always saying you will NEVER post here again. How many times you said that?

I think your hello kyttie diary is full now.

Thanks,
S&S

Still looking for the truth are you? Here it is:


YOU ARE A DUMBASS

That's from me in Canada. You dimtwat.

 

[Ceinwyn]

I have no respect for carlos swett. To me, he would make a horrible witness.

"So you saw this guy actually stab him?"

"Well, I saw this guy with a knife....I assumed he did it..."*













*the guy is a chef.

 

[davidhorman]

Carlos, you seem to be afraid to answer this question:

Why does the object (whatever it is) not appear from any other angle?

David

 

[Guest]

YOUR CLOCK IS TICKING MR. DAVIDHORMAN

Frame 17: in negative big picture

Frame 17: with filters big picture

Frame 21: in negative: Change your eraser Blue Monk

Frame 21: with filters: confirmed....blue Monk must change his eraser.

POOR TRICKY "SKEPTIC"

quod erat demonstrandum

What is your opinion about Blue Monk`s digitized pictures????


Blue Monk: Did you change your eraser for your new analysis of your new digitized videos???????????????????????????????????

 

[Guest]

LIAR RWALD

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

Hey Rwald, are you loosing part of your brain????????

Did you remember this post:

Interesting thing, Latin: If you blow up frame 17, it looks exactly like your favorite digital image.

Are you trying to confuse???????? 17 is not 21

Frame 17: in negative big picture

Frame 17: with filters big picture

Rwald.:It looks exactly like your favorite digital image

 

[rwald]

Latin, I first blew up frame 21, and then frame 17. The first one I did, frame 21, did not look like your favorite image. The second one, frame 17, did. Here, I'll post links. This is frame 17:

Note that it does look like your image, with a "hat-like structure" on top of it.

Now, this is frame 21:

Note that it does not have a "hat-like structure." Does that clarify things?

 

[Guest]

LIAR RWALD

Rwald.:It looks exactly like your favorite digital image

 

[rwald]

Frame 17 looks exactly like your favorite digital image.

Frame 21 does not.

How much clearer can I be?

 

[Guest]

TRICKY????

Carlos, you seem to be afraid to answer this question:

Why does the object (whatever it is) not appear from any other angle?

David

:

Hi David:

You helped so much with "your" knowledge of images on internet and broadcast tapes.
The difference between them that you exposed before specaially in the matter of FRAMES proved that many members here were with WRONG assumptions about it, but the time Blue Monk started his first set of videos of internet ( not "his " new work).

Now that is demostrated that Blue Monk manipulated "his " digitized version, and I guess YOU know that like a "technician" in images, the ONLY stuff you are replying now is about " the other angle".

Blue Monk saw the tape at teleclip in slow motion and stills in their equipments and NEVER said what he saw there, but "needed to make a "his digitized TRICKY version to fool YOU ALL, and have the congratulations of "the SKEPTICS" that beleived in his work.Poor kind of skeptics, just beleivers. Bidlack is on that bunch too.

Let me tell you David that I 've been asking about YOUR definition of PARANORMAL and seems to be that everybody is afraid to post here it. Why?
It is THE PARANORMAL CHALLENGE according to Randi's words, so please answer : What is paranormal ? over what laws are based the paranormal?

Are YOU all afraid to give a definition?
Ask Randi for help and post it here, so I will answer your "smart question" abouth the other angle.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

Here's a good definition of supernatural/paranormal I've thought of. If anyone disagrees with this, say so.

Paranormal/Supernatural -- Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules.

 

[Guest]

EDIT OR?????????

For whom it may concern, here's my edit of frame 17.

Edition?????

I only see that you post a big picture of Blue Monk`s frame 17, so it means that you change the resolution and lost the quality of it, maybe you fix it and then you attach your edited file.

It looks exactly like your favorite digital image.

 

[rwald]

Of course I just took frame 17 and made it larger. That's what I said I did. There's no argument there.

And it should come as no surprise that my version of frame 17 looks just like your favorite picture. Both your picture and Blue Monk's frame 17 came from the same source. If they looked different, it would imply that Blue Monk had been lying. But as you keep quoting me saying, "it looks exactly like your favorite digital image."

And why didn't you mention that frame 21 looks different from your favorite image? I think that's more important, personally.

 

[Guest]

SUPERNATURAL AND PARANORMAL

LOOKING FOR THE DEFINITION OF PARANORMAL AT THE CHAT, TONIGHT. (sounds like a song)

Carswett> define supernatural rwald
Carswett> and paranormal too
rwald> "Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."
rwald> I would say they are synonyms.
Carswett> thanks can you post that at the thread rwald
rwald> For example, a bird can be explained by known scientific rules.
rwald> Sure.<rwald> Your object, if it acts as you say, breaks many scientific rules.
rwald> It moves away from the camera without getting any smaller.
rwald> Also, it doesn't move as normal objects do; when you look at it for 1/60 of a second, you don't see a blur where it moved for that time period, but you see its "exact form."
rwald> Neither of these are actually possible.
rwald> You explained that it could do these because it was "paranormal."
rwald> So, even you agree that a paranormal object, by definition, breaks scientific rules.
Carswett> Rwald can I paste that at the thread?
rwald> Sure. As long as you put it in the context of, "If the object acted as Carlos believes, the following must be taking place."
Carswett> thanks rwald.

Only for the afraid members that refuse to give a definition of paranormal or supernatural.

Any others definitions are welcome.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

ABOUT BLUE MONK , MR R and PARANORMAL DEFINITION ON THE CHAT

rwald> Why should he bother? If you think he tricked the
picture, you're going to think he lied, as well.
Carswett> and never said what he saw at teleclip in slow
motion and stills
rwald> He didn't get a good look at teleclip.
rwald> He only looked long enough to tell that it was the shot
he wanted.
latinijral> because...people with honor always defend his job
Carswett> that's a fact, he needed to go to the "proffesional
equipments"
latinijral> but his job is a liar
rwald> He looked at it with better equipment BEFORE he
digitized it.
latinijral> and he tricked the image
rwald> If he didn't use "professional equipment," you would
claim that his equipment wasn't good enough.
latinijral> he edited the image
rwald> Besides, none of this answers the question: Why isn't
the object seen in any other shots?
latinijral> he is a liar
rwald> You see? Why should he bother saying, "I didn't fake
the shots."? You don't listen to him anyway.
latinijral> rwald: do you remember your words????? i will
never analized the video...never
rwald> Well, whenever I talk about the rules, you ignore me.
rwald> So if I want to have a dialog, I have to talk about the
video.
rwald> I'd rather talk about the rules, but you people won't
pay attention.
latinijral> fine randall
latinijral> your rules???
rwald> Randi's rules.
rwald> Not the introduction to Randi's rules; Randi's rules
themselves.
latinijral> and what is the opinion of randi and harter about
their rules??????
rwald> I assume that Randi respects his rules.
SpaceLord has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving )
latinijral> assume??????
rwald> "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural going
on here."
latinijral> so...he didn`t find something supernatural?????
rwald> Andrew did not find anything supernatural. That is
correct.
latinijral> supernatural like what????
rwald> I don't know. Carlos never said what type of
"supernatural" object he thinks his "hat" is.
rwald> He just says it's "supernatural" or "paranormal."
latinijral> randall: how many types of supernatural exists????
rwald> I would say none.
rwald> But that's just me.
rwald> I mean, if you want a list, like "aliens, ghosts, acts
of God, etc.", there you are.
Carswett> define supernatural rwald
Carswett> and paranormal too
rwald> "Something which cannot be explained by known
scientific rules."
rwald> I would say they are synonyms.
rwald> For example, a bird can be explained by known
scientific rules.
Carswett> thanks can you post that at the thread rwald
rwald> Sure.
latinijral> fine randall
latinijral> well definition
Carswett> but the "object not?
Carswett> ponla en el thread
Carswett> copiala
rwald> Your object, if it acts as you say, breaks many
scientific rules.
rwald> It moves away from the camera without getting any
smaller.
rwald> Also, it doesn't move as normal objects do; when you
look at it for 1/60 of a second, you don't see a blur where
it moved for that time period, but you see its "exact form."
rwald> Neither of these are actually possible.
rwald> You explained that it could do these because it was
"paranormal."
rwald> So, even you agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

 

[PinkRabbit]

Let me guess this straight, the supposed proof that Blue Monk digitally manipulated the image is a series digitally manipulated images by latinjrl?

This thread just gets weirder and weirder because I have zero doubt that Carlos will fail to see the basic paradox there.

Meanwhile, Carlos, you've yet to answer the question about why the object that you claim is paranormal and went through the tower isn't seen on any single other frame of footage shot that day. C'mon,Carlos, avail us of your brilliant explanation. Quit throwing around the insults and just tell us why it's not visible in any other camera angle.

Do you even have ANY explanation?

Barb

 

[Guest]

Meanwhile, Carlos, you've yet to answer the question about why the object that you claim is paranormal and went through the tower isn't seen on any single other frame of footage shot that day. C'mon,Carlos, avail us of your brilliant explanation. Quit throwing around the insults and just tell us why it's not visible in any other camera angle.

My guess is you simply don't have an explanation?

Barb

Hola Barbarita:

I send an notarized application to the JREF PARANORMAL CHALLENGE.

The definition of paranormal is this( unless you have another version) :"Something which cannot be explained by known scientific rules."

So, even you agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

Please try to focus on that , so YOU ALL can answer yourself that question, now that everybody knows that a "digitized version" is not a proof to anybody , only for fools.

Gracias Barbarita,

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
About insults, thankyou all for the presents and gifts you all are sending to me.

 

[Peter S.]

I'm not sure why latinijral would post a chat that makes him look like the idiot he is. You and Swett are unbelievable!

 

[Guest]

Let me guess this straight, the supposed proof that Blue Monk digitally manipulated the image is a series digitally manipulated images by latinjrl?

I only used a filter and the option "negative" on Adobe Photoshop, so I can demonstrate that Blue Monk`s digitized pictures were manipulated.

So, Who is the liar??? Blue Monk



P:S: Blue Monk never answered me saying...hey Latin. my digitized pictures are OK.