The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

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.

Frame 21 was tricked by Blue Monk.

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 [/B]

 

[Yahzi]

27 pages of this drivel?

Oh well, it's all in one thread, so I suppose I shouldn't complain.

 

[Guest]

ANOTHER BELEIVER

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

Hi PeterS :

You are the one that always send me presents and gifts (no insults) but you NEVER put arguments.

I "guess" you don't have that ability, maybe you are only related with tricks.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
How is your tatoo? Always looking it at the mirror?

 

[rwald]

What PinkRabbit is asking is, why can't it be seen from other angles? Are you saying that, because the object is paranormal, it can only be seen from certain angles?

 

[Guest]

BLUE MONK ERASING THE PARANORMAL OBJECT AT FRAME 21

 

[rwald]

Latin, as I think I've said before, if Blue Monk had erased anything, or edited the shot in any way, it would have been child's play to use the smudge tool in Photoshop to get rid of the circle. So why does the circle's presence mean the shot was faked?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

27 pages of this drivel?

Oh well, it's all in one thread, so I suppose I shouldn't complain.

I never thought this thread was going to be such a big "success". There is a positive side however, it tells us something of the psychology of beliefs. When someone strongly believes in something, no matter how much or how good the evidence against it is, he/she will not stop believing

 

[Guest]

LOOKING FOR MORE PARANORMAL OR "SUPERNATURAL" DEFINITION

I send a 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 ALL OF YOU WILL agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.

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

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

Carlos, again, what does the fact that you think the object is paranormal have to do with the other angles? Do you think that because the object is paranormal, it can't be seen from other angles?

 

[Guest]

I never thought this thread was going to be such a big "success". There is a positive side however, it tells us something of the psychology of beliefs. When someone strongly believes in something, no matter how much or how good the evidence against it is, he/she will not stop believing

Good evidence, perro?????

I imagine that you are talking about Blue Monks`s digitized tricked poor resolution video and pictures.

I guess that.


P:S: Los perros no saben de sicologìa, sòlo ladran y menean la cola a su`amo.

 

[chessmanskeptic]

Latin, as I think I've said before, if Blue Monk had erased anything, or edited the shot in any way, it would have been child's play to use the smudge tool in Photoshop to get rid of the circle. So why does the circle's presence mean the shot was faked?

A very good question. When I went through the gif files frame by frame, I noticed the circle myself, yet did not notice anything in particular when it came to full blown editing!

 

[Guest]

I never thought this thread was going to be such a big "success". There is a positive side however, it tells us something of the psychology of beliefs. When someone strongly believes in something, no matter how much or how good the evidence against it is, he/she will not stop believing

Hi Patricio:

Sorprendido?
Eso te pasa por farsante . Te acuerdas del primer dia en el chat que conversaste con latin antes de que publiques esto?
Has quedado como un mentiroso oportunista.Está grabada esa conversación, espera otra sorpresa.

Are you the same guy who's little brother show you the "object" at the smoke?(wow a "discovery")

Are you just another BELEIVER of Blue Monk's "digitized version"?

Are are you just another one who beleives on Randi's silence?

He comprobado que son solamente un grupo de fanáticos, con poco poder de razonar sobre métodos que conduzcan a esclarecer la verdad, y tu eres el abanderado de la farza.
Imaginate que aún no publico lo que me mandaste por privado y tus comentarios sobre Randi y el caso..Acuerdate que tengo tu permiso.
Farsante.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Carlos,

Remember that the official language of the boards is English, so please write your messages in that language so that everyone can read your ramblings.

One last thing: I'm not against you, nor I'm in favor of Blue Monk or Randi. I'm in favor of the truth. All the cards have been dealt by now, and the truth is that there's no paranormal object, but just a common and normal BIRD.

 

[PinkRabbit]

First off, on an unrelated note, Carlocita, I find your tendency to screw around with/mock people's names in what you seem to consider is some cutsie fashion really annoying, condescending, and makes you look like a serious jerk. Just had to comment.

And now, on with the show.

We have Blue Monk's word he hasn't screwed with the digital images and latinjrl's screwing with digital images to theoretically prove he has. Why should I take Latinjrl's word over Blue Monk's?

Now on to my question: Why wasn't the object seen by any other cameras. I see you answered it ... sort of.

And your answer is is essentially that anything that doesn't support your thesis is because the object is paranormal. Got it.

Well, it would make science easier if only the evidence one wishes to agree with counted and all else was superfluous.

But, reality check, life doesn't work that way.

Barb

 

[Guest]

VIVA NUESTRO IDIOMA

Carlos,

Remember that the official language of the boards is English, so please write your messages in that language so that everyone can read your ramblings.

One last thing: I'm not against you, nor I'm in favor of Blue Monk or Randi. I'm in favor of the truth. All the cards have been dealt by now, and the truth is that there's no paranormal object, but just a common and normal BIRD.

Patricio:

Remember YOU are the "official translator" of this thread.

Don't you remember your first post that originated this thread?
The only thing "you forgot" to translate was my notarized application that day.You lied that day also.

YOU DID IT then only because I forced you to do it, because you are the kind of "skeptic" that only "beleives" in tricks.

Of course all the cards have been dealt by now, and YOU all are still like a bunch of "beleivers" in digitized versions.Remember Blue Monk refused to said what he saw THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills ?He didn't say anything that day, he waited to have his OWN digitized versions for fools like you.

You can translate what I said to you in spanish ( are you afraid?), besides you said in another thread you LOVE english language more than spanish.

Thanks
S&S

 

[Guest]

BARBARITA

First off, on an unrelated note, Carlocita, I find your tendency to screw around with/mock people's names in what you seem to consider is some cutsie fashion really annoying, condescending, and makes you look like a serious jerk. Just had to comment.

And now, on with the show.

We have Blue Monk's word he hasn't screwed with the digital images and latinjrl's screwing with digital images to theoretically prove he has. Why should I take Latinjrl's word over Blue Monk's?

Now on to my question: Why wasn't the object seen by any other cameras. I see you answered it ... sort of.

And your answer is is essentially that anything that doesn't support your thesis is because the object is paranormal. Got it.

Well, it would make science easier if only the evidence one wishes to agree with counted and all else was superfluous.

But, reality check, life doesn't work that way.

Barb

Hi Barbarita:

I love your name , and the "ita" is not a mockery, in spanish is like a diminutive to express tender, that's all.You can ask Patricio Elicer about that.

About paranormal objects:
I send a 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 ALL OF YOU WILL agree that a paranormal object, by
definition, breaks scientific rules.
Or maybe you can ask Randi for some help in the definition , so you will understand the point.

Carlitos

Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

So, Carlos, you think that your object broke the rules of physics? Well, here's a scientific principle that directly relates to that:

When there are two different theories to explain one event, and one theory requires that many of the laws of physics be broken, while the other theory conforms with all the laws of physics, the theory which does not involve breaking many laws of physics is assumed to be correct.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Re: VIVA NUESTRO IDIOMA

Of course all the cards have been dealt by now, and YOU all are still like a bunch of "beleivers" in digitized versions.Remember Blue Monk refused to said what he saw THE TAPE at Teleclip in slow motion and stills ?He didn't say anything that day, he waited to have his OWN digitized versions for fools like you.

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 (Page 24,) 11-14-2002

 

[Guest]

So, Carlos, you think that your object broke the rules of physics? Well, here's a scientific principle that directly relates to that:

When there are two different theories to explain one event, and one theory requires that many of the laws of physics be broken, while the other theory conforms with all the laws of physics, the theory which does not involve breaking many laws of physics is assumed to be correct.

Hi Rwald:

Are you talking about paranormal theories?Or not?


Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

Well, if one theory is paranormal, and the other isn't, the non-paranormal theory is assumed to be correct, until the supporter of the paranormal theory presents a massive load of evidence supporting his side.

And whatever you, Harter, or Randi said does not count as evidence supporting your side.