The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Wyrd1]

Stubborn Mule

I do believe I have said before that no matter what Carlos will never admit defeat or leave this board. This is a object lesson in Woo Woo Psychology.

Evidence reason and logic mean nothing. Show them how wrong they are and it doesn't do any good. Ask them questions that show exactly how untenable their position is and you're really wasting your own time.

They won't listen and they won't look. The are comfortable with their little worlds where they are never wrong and they are just as smart as everyone else.

Why fiddle with facts? That only opens doors that the demons of doubt may enter through. Carlos really believes he is correct in his assumption that he saw something paranormal and won't consider the mountain of facts threatening to bury him.

Latinijral is just stupid. He is little more than one of those little yapping dogs that girlfriends insist on keeping just to annoy you. Check out his site at msn groups to see just how little he has to say.

 

[davidhorman]

So Carlos has decided to evade the question. Instead he chooses to imply that the object doesn't appear from any other angles because it's paranormal. He implies probably because he knows if he says that outright he'll only look more of a fool to us.

The reason I'm concentrating on this question is because you've totally refused to even consider the BlueMonk's evidence which shows the object in front of the towers. If you're going to ignore evidence, there's no reason for me to pursue that line. The beauty of the question of angles is that you can't claim any of the footage has been faked.

Latin, big deal. The object appears to take on a circular shape in frame 21. Unless you can show another version of frame 21 which looks markedly different to BlueMonk's version (and that should be easy if BM faked it - Carlos says he has access to professional equipment), you should accept it on face value. Either that or discard it entirely - the rest of the frames are more than enough to show that a) the object appears to "flap" just like a bird and b) the object can be seen in front of both towers.

Carlos, you also seem to have a problem with BlueMonk not saying what he personally saw at Teleclip, and yet you've accused him of faking. He's posted images so we can see for ourselves what he saw. What makes you think that he is so bipolar that he can fake those images, but can't bring himself to lie about it to you?

Read read what rwald wrote again:

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.

David

 

[Thanz]

All right, Mr. Swett, a paranormal object breaks scientific rules. If the object on the tape actually does go in one hole and out the other without changing speed or trajectory, yes it would be breaking scientific rules. Unfortunately for your claim, it does not enter the building.

If it did enter and exit the building, it would be shown on other camera angles. But it isn't.

Why is the object not on any other camera angle? Are you claiming that the paranormal nature of your object makes it so that no other camera could record it? Is it somehow invisible?

If this is your theory, why does the one camera have it on tape? Why is it invisible to everyone except this one camera?

Please, Mr. Swett, if you have any honour at all, answer my questions in a straightforward manner.

Thanz

 

[PinkRabbit]

Carlos, we aren't friends (actually, I find myself disliking you more intensely with every passing day), and your "tenderness," comes across as condescending, a not so subtle way of treating me like you consider me to be a foolish child.

Now as to your explanation: So you're basically confirming that in your opinion anything that doesn't support your claim is because it's paranormal.

Yes, I understand the definition of paranormal perfectly well. You, however, have turned that definition into a self-serving semantic nightmare, using it to explain away anything that doesn't support your thesis. You stretch the definition of the word until it has no meaning beyond, "Paranormal is what Carlos Swett says it is."

Barb

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Wait, I think I have it all figured out. It is the video camera itself that is paranormal!!! Think about it. If no other camera caught the images of a blur flying through the building, then it must be the camera that is paranormal!!! We should track down the owner of that camera, and we might be able to video tape some amazing paranormal things like Elvis Presley's spirit puking into a toiled in a Las Vegas hotel! Just think of the possibilities!!

 

[PinkRabbit]

I think you've got it, Walter, I really do.

We've solved the question. It's all the camera's fault.

Barb

 

[Guest]

I AM SURE

I am sure of this:

A)That I made a notarized application to the PARANORMAL challenge.

B) That my application , referential tape and letter to Mr. James Randi was received at the offices of JREF.

C) That Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Randi gave me an answer to my application, based in an "study frame by frame " of a "video" available on INTERNET.

D) That in that answer JREF researcher never said that my application was not valid.

E) That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk.

F)That 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.

G) That NOBODY here at the forum did a correct and certified analysis of THE BROADCAST TAPE

H) That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics.

I) That you all were not able to silent me ., want to know why? Because I am sure when I write something or say something. At the other side some members are full of regrets or insults like arguments.


Thanks,
S&S

 

[davidhorman]

D) That in that answer JREF researcher never said that my application was not valid

Perhaps not. But we have, at the very least, cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation of the footage. The same kind of reasonable doubt Harter and Randi had.

That NOBODY here at the forum did a correct and certified analysis of THE BROADCAST TAPE

Well what if I said that I don't believe you did a correct analysis, because you weren't there? You didn't see the event happen, all you have is a tape.

We have done enough analysis to show that the object flaps, and that it passes in front of both towers (analysis which you've dismissed as fraud, with no evidence).

Even if you did accepted that the object appears in front of the towers, you would just say it's a paranormal object, implying that it can take on the exact of a bird and appear to be in front of the towers while simultaneously flying through the hole in the building.

Hey, Carlos, here's a link to a picture of an alien spaceship caught by a webcam in Seattle:

http://www.frg.org/frg/images/320x/jpgs/spider.jpg

Of course, BlueMonk would analyse this and say it's a spider, but I know he's wrong. The explanation? It's paranormal.

Now, do you see the similarity between your claim and my (admittedly facetious) one?

David

 

[Thanz]

Re: I AM SURE

I am sure of this:

A)That I made a notarized application to the PARANORMAL challenge.

B) That my application , referential tape and letter to Mr. James Randi was received at the offices of JREF.

C) That Andrew Harter with the aprooval of Randi gave me an answer to my application, based in an "study frame by frame " of a "video" available on INTERNET.

D) That in that answer JREF researcher never said that my application was not valid.

E) That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk.

F)That 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.

G) That NOBODY here at the forum did a correct and certified analysis of THE BROADCAST TAPE

H) That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics.

I) That you all were not able to silent me ., want to know why? Because I am sure when I write something or say something. At the other side some members are full of regrets or insults like arguments.


Thanks,
S&S

Okay, I'll bite.

Point by point:

A) No one is denying this. The fact that you sent an application to JREF is not a big deal.

B) No one is denying this either. They got your application, and responded.

C) Yes, Harter analysed a video on the internet. He also said that he had seen the video before, and he responded to you.

D) NO, Harter said that you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place.

E) I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that some people believe that Blue Monk obtained a copy of the tape, and put a version of that on the internet (stills and video), then yes. If you mean to imply that the digitized version is different from the tape (altered by Blue Monk) than no.

F) This seems to be a common sense definition. From the Oxford English Dictionary (online version):

Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;

G) Absolutely incorrect. Blue Monk examined the broadcast tape at at least 3 different places, and concluded that the object can be seen in front of the towers at all times.

H) I don't know what you mean by this. Blue Monk went out and found all of the evidence available to explain the phenomena, including the tape you rely on and other angles shot of the same event. The methods used are quite acceptable. You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence at all, other than the one tape, which has been explained.

I) True, we have not silenced you. You keep posting. But you haven't actually said much - just the same things over and over.

I have answered your post point for point. Please do me the courtesy of answering my post above.

Thanz

 

[Guest]

DAVID HORMAN ABOUT BLUE MONK`S TRICKED PICTURE

Latin, big deal. The object appears to take on a circular shape in frame 21.


David

Yes, because Blue Monk try to erase the object and show it different.

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]

 

[Wyrd1]

Gee, Carlos, NOBODY? Are you ignoring Blue Monk's efforts? Of course you are. You ignore everything and everyone who doesn't agree with your notarized application (which is everybody except you, your brother Guillermo, and Latinijral. ) Why am I not surprised?

Maybe if Carlos behaves himself Santa Claus will bring him a Clue for Christmas. Too bad Latin will be getting another lump of coal. Bad, bad. bad Latinijral.

 

[Guest]

Are you ignoring Blue Monk's efforts

Please James Randi and Andrew Harter don`t ignore Blue Monk`s effort. You can publish his "amazing" pictures on your week`s commentary with Carlos`s notarized challenge.



P:S. Who is the owner of the Super VHS?

 

[Wyrd1]

I am you dummy. Since you aren't able to keep up with the grownups you go nappy bye. Nite nite.

 

[Guest]

THANZ IS NOT SURE

Okay, I'll bite.

Point by point:

C) Yes, Harter analysed a video on the internet. He also said that he had seen the video before, and he responded to you.

D) NO, Harter said that you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place.

E) I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that some people believe that Blue Monk obtained a copy of the tape, and put a version of that on the internet (stills and video), then yes. If you mean to imply that the digitized version is different from the tape (altered by Blue Monk) than no.

F) This seems to be a common sense definition. From the Oxford English Dictionary (online version):

Paranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;

G) Absolutely incorrect. Blue Monk examined the broadcast tape at at least 3 different places, and concluded that the object can be seen in front of the towers at all times.

H) I don't know what you mean by this. Blue Monk went out and found all of the evidence available to explain the phenomena, including the tape you rely on and other angles shot of the same event. The methods used are quite acceptable. You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence at all, other than the one tape, which has been explained.

I) True, we have not silenced you. You keep posting. But you haven't actually said much - just the same things over and over.

I have answered your post point for point. Please do me the courtesy of answering my post above.

Thanz

Hi Thanz:

I guess that you are happy now with my signature, your quote just says the main point about the quality of tapes, that's a fact.

About your respond to my quote "I am sure of this" seems that YOU are almost "with me" in my arguments, some points you are not sure of what I mean so I will help you.

C) Yes Harter analyzed a video "FRAME BY FRAME" on an unknown link of internet, Your comment about this point is also on my signature(I agree with that)

D) Is possible that you missunderstand this point.They NEVER wrote in their answer that my application was not valid.
David horman in his comments about this point wrote:"Perhaps not. But we have, at the very least, cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation of the footage"

So I am sure that there is not a single word that my application was not valid in Harter's answer, only Harter wrote as YOU said :
"you have no claim because nothing paranormal was taking place." Well he was based in the study "frame by frame on the unknown link of internet, the "preety dodgy method" according to your quote.

E) When I am sure of this "That the members of this forum "beleive " in a "digitized version" of Blue Monk."

I mean that HE DID that digitized version, so is up to you to "beleive or not" in HIS digitized version.
Can "digitized versions" be tricked?
I have one too, but I refused to send it to the JREF, is explained in my letter to Mr.James Randi.

G)You forgot that he saw FIRST the TAPE in slow motion and stills at the equipments ofTELECLIP . The only thing is that he NEVER told us what he saw there, and he was prepared enough to look at determined frames.His conclusions are based on "HIS" digitized version, not in the tape.

H) I am sure of this :" That you all are a bunch of "beleivers " and defenders of methods that are not accepted by REAL skeptics."

Yes YOU are still defending "blue monk's digitized version".
About why not in the other cameras angles? here is your answeraranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known;

________________________-

Thanz,I am just helping you in the points you had doubts, the others points you agreed wiyh me.Thanks for that.


Thanks,
S&S

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Re: THANZ IS NOT SURE

G)You forgot that he saw FIRST the TAPE in slow motion and stills at the equipments ofTELECLIP . The only thing is that he NEVER told us what he saw there, and he was prepared enough to look at determined frames.His conclusions are based on "HIS" digitized version, not in the tape.

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

Lies again!

Nobody here believes you. You are wasting your time.

Edited to add:
Carlos, you are such an idiot, that I should probably explain in simple words what Blue Monk stated (quoted above.)

He retrieved a copy of the tape and annalyzed it in the following manners BEFORE digitizing it to show us.
1. Brief viewing at Teleclip
2. Viewed at video station at Fine Arts Microcomputer Lab
3. Viewed at communications building at The Center for Advance Studies in the Arts on equipment "tuned precisely for video" with a monitor with a resolution that "far exceeds that of the videotape."

Now, lets see if your simple mind can understand this. He viewed your tape as you requested at Teleclip. But he went further than that. He analyzed it at two other places as well.

The CONCLUSION was, after viewing all three methods:

"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."

My conclusion:
Get a life, moron!!

 

[susheel]

With special mention to Blue Monk for the pains he is taken and all the others (Thanz, thatguywhojuggles, davidhorman, and others) who have (sadly to no avail) achieved little where S&S's beliefs are concerned, let us now declare this horse oficially dead.

As of now S&S and Latinjral are truly trolling and any discussion with them is going to be nonproductive.

However, I think this thread can be a benchmark for how ordinary members of the forum, in spite of distances can sit around a common problem and thrash it out.

Kudos to all.

 

[Blue Monk]

Is possible that you missunderstand this point.They NEVER wrote in their answer that my application was not valid.

Yes he does.

From Harter's response.
You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.

Duh! How the hell was he supposed to know you couldn't understand this? What do you think? People aren't going to waste their time investigating something so easily disproved just because you can spell your own name right?

And as if that was clear enough after another brief email exchange, Randi apparently looks into it personally and tells you….

Randi's response to Carlos.
Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious.

Your application is closed.

How dumb can you be? How clearer can that be?

Originally posted by S&S
Yes YOU are still defending "blue monk's digitized version".

No one has to take my word for anything. I'll send anyone, including you a copy of the tape.

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.

Originally posted by S&S
About why not in the other cameras angles? here is your answeraranormal: Applied to observed phenomena or powers which are presumed to operate according to natural laws beyond or outside those considered normal or known.

There are buildings visible on some angles and not others. What you're saying would prove these buildings are paranormal.

Everything I have shown is consistent with something passing in closely in front of the camera in that shot, probably a bird.

from Carlos' application

<Q>
CONCLUSION: THERE EXISTS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY THAT PASSED AT A SUPERSONIC SPEED THROUGH THE HOLE LEFT BY THE FIRST PLANE ON THE OVEN-LIKE FIRST TOWER, AND EASILIY GOT OUT THE OTHER SIDE IN A RAPID DESCENDING TRAJECTORY, WITHOUT ENOUGH ROOM TO MAKE A TURN TO AVOID A COLLISION WITH THE GROUND.</Q>

I don't see anywhere where you say it is paranormal because it only shows up on your 'magic' camera.

Something flew close by in front of the camera. From that angle it looks as if it swoops from the heavens and through the tower. The tape I have, which I am more than happy to share with anyone, clearly shows it in front of the towers.

You guys just want your names in Randi's column. Grow the hell up.

 

[Guest]

SLOW MOTION AND STILLS

I have found Carlos' tape!

I was able to review the tape in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice. I'll take it over to the Communications building at the University and use their equipment where I'll have the time to do it properly.

Blue Monk did not find MY tape. He find a tape with the same shot I send in a REFERENTIAL tape to the JREF.

Blue Monk was able "to review the TAPE in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice."

He already knew what specific FRAME (1) must look at it . He had time enough, slow motion and stills, but NEVER said what he saw.

Justice for who? TO HARTER or RANDI?

Then he went to do HIS own "digitized version". He posted that "version" and YOU all beleive in that "digitized version".
Blue Monk made "justice " to the forum.


Thanks,
S&S

 

[PinkRabbit]

Actually, speaking for myself, the version I believe is the one I saw at the local news station.

The one in which the object was visible in every single frame and clearly passed in front of the twin towers.

True, it happens to correspond with what Blue Monk digitized and posted, but it's what I saw on a good tape and a medium quality monitor.

As for your accusations that Blue Monk tried to manipulate any of those shots, I'd have to disagree. I'm a computer graphics artist, so I downloaded all of the frames and took a close look. I saw no sign of the smudging and smoothing that typically happens when one starts digitally manipulating a video capture. With video captures, there's always texturing from the translation from the tv signal to standard bitmap form. That texturing is almost impossible to duplicate by hand, and it's easy to spot it when someone has started airbrushing over it because it smooths things out. Same with using an eraser tool. In the shots I looked at, nothing breaks that pattern.

There is some blurring around the object, but that's motion blur and visible around the object in all of those frames to varying degrees. What Latinjrl insists is digital manipulation is just a product of the rather poor quality that typically comes from screen grabs.

In short, sorry, Carlos. You lose again.

Barb

 

[Blue Monk]

Blue Monk did not find MY tape. He find a tape with the same shot I send in a REFERENTIAL tape to the JREF.

Well Duh!

Originally posted by S&S
Blue Monk was able "to review the TAPE in slow motion and in stop action on their equipment at Teleclip but it was not enough to do it justice."

So are so damn slow. You have to hear everything a millions times to get it right.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Does Teleclip have some sort of 'magical' equipment that I don't know about.

The whole point is you've been lying all along about even having a tape haven't you. I know you and you're not very bright.

You looked at the tape at the studio and then they made you a copy. You, not being very bright, sent that tape to JREF without making another copy. I'm right aren't I.

So in between all of your childish whining why don't you simply PM me with an address and I'll send you a copy free of charge. I'll even pay the postage. It may not be as good as the one you say but at least you'll have something.

Originally posted by S&S
He already knew what specific FRAME (1) must look at it . He had time enough, slow motion and stills, but NEVER said what he saw.

Is this going to be one of those questions that you are too slow to understand unless it's repeated over and over because I don't have the time. If you're going to get all miffed because I had the audacity to view your stupid tape on better equipment than what Teleclip provided then you can kiss my butt.

Originally posted by S&S
Then he went to do HIS own "digitized version". He posted that "version" and YOU all beleive in that "digitized version".

Of course. How else are you going to present a video via the web?

I am glad you finally admit that the object is not on the other videos. It's probably a bird.