The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

THEORY??????

What makes your theory better than mine? What evidence do you have?


As for the quote, I have told you specifically that I do not believe that Andrew's investigation was shoddy. By continuing to quote me you are simply lying.

Hi Thanz:

I am not making theories, I made a notarized application that cleary say the reason why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers. I also received an answer from Harter with the aprooval of James Randi that was based in a study frame by frame on an unknown video of internet.

About your quote and your regrets to that quote, can you please answer me if you agree or not with this part:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanz , please answer me , is that true or not?(now that _Zilla refuses to answer)
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?

Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.
Remember also I DID study the broadcast tape at a tv studio and network(JREF also have in my referential tape that recording session that was transmitted in my nation)

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove YOUR quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between those kind of videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

 

[Guest]

FRAME 17 IS THIS OBJECT



Originally posted by Thanz 08-27-02
"Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality. I haven't seen the whole video - I just saw the short thing linked to in this thread. But Andrew seems to be saying that it didn't come from behind the tower, so therefore it is not paranormal. Huh? There must be more to this.The apparent speed of the object (again, I just saw the crappy thing linked to) seems to go against the 'bird' hypothesis.

 

[PinkRabbit]

Yes, he manipulated the shot.
I agree with you that Blue Monk`s digitized video has a poor quality.
Motion blur in all the frames?????? NO, only on frame 21 because he try to erase the object.

[/B]

Look again. There is some degree of blur around the wings of the bird in every shot. It varies considerably, and is more blurred in that shot. The texturing is never altered in the area you're indicating on shot 17. There is no sign of either color added or subtracted from the image.

Meanwhile, your manipulations of the shot prove nothing except that a dark blur becomes light blur when you use the negative filter. That is meaningless information. The fact that you believe this proves something proves you know very little to almost nothing about digital images.

What is important is that the texturing that comes from converting a video signal to a bitmap form is constant and unaltered. I work constantly with video grabs as a graphic artist. I know what I'm looking at. Clearly, you don't.

You've proven nothing.

Moreover, it makes absolutely no sense for him to try and erase the figure in frame 17. There is no argument that the object is there at that point from anyone in this discussion, including Blue Monk. If he were going to do anything to manipulate the image, the logical thing to do if he were desperate enough to cheat to prove his point would actually be to add information on frame 12, where the object is just barely visible in front of the towers. Luckily, he doesn't have to do so. The object is distinctly there, and again the texturing is constant.

In short, you, like Carlostroll, are completely and utterly wrong about absolutely everything.

Barb

 

[Guest]

Look again. There is some degree of blur around the wings of the bird in every shot.

IS THIS A BIRD?????????????

 

[PinkRabbit]

IS THIS A BIRD?????????????

Given that it flies, is constantly visible, moves in a manner consistent with the flapping of wings, and follows a predictable trajectory for a bird, my guess is yes.

A blurry bird, I'll grant, but a bird.

I note you have no logical argument to counter my comments about your attempts to "prove" digital manipulation. Don't actually know enough to argue, do you?

Next question.

Barb

 

[Guest]

Next question.

Barb

Barbarita:

Are you really:::::.???
I mean I don't trust you in that point.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

GRAPHIC WORKERS

You can use this frame to make the study that will show you the form of the "bird".

Blue Monk`s frame 17 - Ah! Now it's starting to look like a 'paranormal hat shaped form.'

Barb or Pink rabbit (I prefer Barb or Barbarita):

Since you work on graphics design and you are arguing about digitized versions with latinijral, why don't you do your OWN study at your equipments about the form of"your bird" on Blue Monk's frame 17 and compare with the one latin is posting?

Carlitos

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

WHERE??????You mean the red arrow?

Did you notice that Blue Monk *did* post a picture of the bird to the right side of the hole? It is frame 12. Here, I'll even include it below:

Where is the "bird"???????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Yes that frame is the reason why I said in my notarized application is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the tower, is the frame after the "object" entered in the hole.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Enough already with the individual frames. The original claim dealt with the moving image on a video tape, and to cite individual frames with a blurred image on each for the object's identity is wrong. It only demonstrates lack of experience with video imaging. Individual frames can be used to determine where an object may be at any particular time, but to claim that since the blurred image in any particular frame is unrecognizable, the object is paranormal, is just flat wrong. Something plainly recognizable in a moving image may not be recognizable in individual frames because of the method of recording. The video camera's shutter speed has been quoted here by experienced individuals as just under 1/30th of a second. Anything with a faster shutter speed (movie/fast motion video/still cameras) may very well have frozen that object perfectly, leaving no room for alternative explanations of what it may be in a single frame of media.

By the way...

originally posted by S&S from his application
It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it.

Not correct part one. Go here The Referential Tape and step through it frame by frame. The object may not be particularly recognizable as anything in the individual frames, but its location from frame to frame as an object can be tracked -- and the object most certainly does pass in front of the leftmost tower, just crossing an uppermost corner of the building as it enters the frames from above. The object is moving diagonally across the screen, not horizontally across it. The object passes in front of both towers.

Not correct part two. Claiming this object is paranormal just because it wasn't in a particular EXPECTED place at a particular time is faulty logic. All it means is, the viewer's expectations were incorrect -- and if the viewer goes and looks for the object, it will be found, in a perfectly logical place. It's not over to the left, it's up toward the top.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

SERIOUS NOTE

Folks

I would encourage you to stop posting on this thread. I think we have already reached the limits. At this point, the debate has become pointless, fruitless and boring, and I'm afraid it's beginnig to disturb many people.

Thanks

 

[PinkRabbit]

Carlostroll,

Look more closely at frame 12 and compare it with frames 11 and 13. There is a dark shadow in frame 12 where the object should be during that period in time, that is not present in either 11 or 13. I realize you don't want to see it, but it's there.

Now, you demanded I do my own study of the form. Okay, just for the hell of, I took yet another a look. Motion blur alters the shape somewhat, and I'm not sure of the exact angle of the bird, but if you look closely at the moving version, you can see the motion of the wings. It's subtle, but given the speed the bird is moving, the relatively slow shutter speed of video cameras (for clear shots of birds in flight, one generally wants a shutter speed much higher than 1/60th of a second), the distance, and the relatively low color depth, contrast, and the painfully poor resolution of video cameras, what we see is about what I'd expect to see of a bird moving across the field of the camera's vision.

Now, let's sort of reverse engineer this question, and consider that New York is absolutely lousy with your basic pigeon. They roost everywhere as everyone who's ever been there well knows. They often fly at the faintest disturbance, swooping from point to point in short arcing flights. However, they never go far and typically have a comparatively small territory. I would expect them to fly when the first plane hit, then settle again, then take startled flight again when the second plane hit (they are dumb as rocks, in my experience). So, we see from this, the timing is right. Plane hit, startles bird, bird flies, camera catches it, but since it's focused well past the bird, and the shutter speed is too slow to capture it clearly, plus the fact that something that small only takes up a very few pixels worth of resolution, it's a very blurred image.

Now, let's consider pigeons. I was actually thinking about this the other day and went out watching our local pigeon population. They're not as big as the New York variety, but otherwise much the same. They roost near the end of the runway of the nearby AF base. We just got in these very noisy F-117's that the birds are very unused to and which make much more noise than the A-10's they're used to. When the planes are doing touch and goes, the pigeons take off, quickly settle again, then take off the moment the next one goes by, then quickly settle again. So the pattern of behavior fits.

Now, let's consider something else I noticed during my sojourn of bird watching. Something I really hadn't thought about before, and which I haven't seen mentioned.

Pigeons appear to be very dark when one sees their back and the top of their wings. Almost a purplish color that reads as dark grey from a distance or to anything that isn't sensitive to color (which video cameras are not). But the underside of their wings is white.

In watching them fly, I found that, depending on the angle of attack, they can shift from appearing nearly black to appearing nearly white and back again in an instant.

Guess what color the twin towers are?

Seems highly probably to me that during the brief moment when the bird is seen, but does not appear to be nearly as dark as it does in other frames, that it's tipped so that we're seeing the white underside of its wings, then it turns again and we see the dark again. White on white makes it hard to see, but if you look carefully, it is there.

Can I absolutely prove it's a bird? No. But given a whole myriad of facts, and contrary to your insistence, then, yes, I think it's safe to conclude it's a bird. I do not think it's safe to conclude it's in the least bit paranormal.

The fact that you think it should be a sharp image of a bird merely shows that you, like Latinjrl, know nothing about the subjects you're discussing.

Your ignorance of the subject is actually rather painful to behold. You should quit while you're way behind.

Btw, I have no idea what you don't believe about me. Sorry, not a mindreader.

Oh, and I like my name as is, and don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what you like.

Barb

P.S. Asterisks my own so they don't do it for me, and can I just say this is one of the few times in my life that I really hate not being able to curse. Damn asterisks really cost the sentiment some impact.

 

[Guest]

MOST SERIOUS NOTE

Folks

I would encourage you to stop posting on this thread. I think we have already reached the limits. At this point, the debate has become pointless, fruitless and boring, and I'm afraid it's beginnig to disturb many people.

Thanks

Specially YOU


Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

"THE BIRD"

Carlostroll,

Look more closely at frame 12 and compare it with frames 11 and 13. There is a dark shadow in frame 12 where the object should be during that period in time, that is not present in either 11 or 13. I realize you don't want to see it, but it's there.

Now, you demanded I do my own study of the form.

Oh, and I like my name as is, and don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what you like.

Barb

P.S. Asterisks my own so they don't do it for me, and can I just say this is one of the few times in my life that I really hate not being able to curse. Damn asterisks really cost the sentiment some impact.

Hi Barb (are you happy now?):

The Famous "frame 12" with "your bird " on it (???) . Hard to see it?
Yes it is the frame after the object entered in the hole and before appears at the other side of the hole giving the false impression that passed behind the tower as I said in my application

Just do the study of the "form" of "your bird" at Blue Monk´s frame !7 and compare with the form Latinijral posted.Ask him for the steps and the program.

Just do it , you work in graphic design, don't go with bla bla bla.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

 

[PinkRabbit]

Re: "THE BIRD"

Hi Barb (are you happy now?):

The Famous "frame 12" with "your bird " on it (???) . Hard to see it?
Yes it is the frame after the object entered in the hole and before appears at the other side of the hole giving the false impression that passed behind the tower as I said in my application

Just do the study of the "form" of "your bird" at Blue Monk´s frame !7 and compare with the form Latinijral posted.Ask him for the steps and the program.

Just do it , you work in graphic design, don't go with bla bla bla.

Carlitos,

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos, you make zero sense when you say:

Yes it is the frame after the object entered in the hole and before appears at the other side of the hole giving the false impression that passed behind the tower as I said in my application

The English is so bad as to make it almost completely incomprehensible, and I can't tell whether you're denying that the object is there, or confirming it and trying to incorporate that into your crackpot theory.

Just answer this question, if the object is visible in every single frame of the video, how on earth, can it possibly have simultaneously gone through the tower?

Because when you look at it with the proper equipment, it does not appear to go behind the tower. It appears to go in front of the tower, appearing in every single frame of the video.

I have zero intention of asking Latinjrl for any advice when it's painfully obvious that he knows as little about these subjects as you do. He doesn't understand that blowing up an image distorts it, that simply using a negative filter can't prove whether or not a video capture has been altered, that if the information isn't in the original shot, then it cannot be made clearer by a program, or even the most basic facts about how bitmaps act when you work with them.

Neither one of you understands motion blur, shutter speed, resolution, color depth, or the fact that cameras have no depth perception. Meanwhile, you consider no information, opinion or view but your own, despite your woeful ignorance. You simply repeat the exact same claims over and over as though by repitition you can somehow make it true, while accusing anyone who disagrees of lying or being stupid.

Barb

 

[Thanz]

Re: THEORY??????

Hi Thanz:

I am not making theories, I made a notarized application that cleary say the reason why is not a bird or an insect crossing between the cameraman and the towers. I also received an answer from Harter with the aprooval of James Randi that was based in a study frame by frame on an unknown video of internet.

About your quote and your regrets to that quote, can you please answer me if you agree or not with this part:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanz , please answer me , is that true or not?(now that _Zilla refuses to answer)
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?

Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.
Remember also I DID study the broadcast tape at a tv studio and network(JREF also have in my referential tape that recording session that was transmitted in my nation)

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove YOUR quote from my signature.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between those kind of videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

Mr. Swett, you do have a theory, and your application was based on that theory.

Saying "I made an application" means nothing. So what? Did you think that just making an application means you get the money? Do you think that if you apply for a job you automatically get it? No - the application gets reviewed, and in your case, rejected.

Now, you made an application. That application was based on your theory that the object was paranormal. The theory that is the basis of your application is incorrect. You do not adequately explain why the object is not a bird or an insect. The object is in view the entire time - it does not enter the building. This is confirmed by a review of the tape of the object and by reviewing all other tapes of the event, none of which show an object going through the building.

You have not explained why your theory is correct.

You have not answered any of my five questions.

As to my quote, I ask you again to remove it. I do not think that Andrew's investigation was dodgy. If you really want me to answer your questions, simply answer mine. Once you answer the five questions in my last post I will answer your questions.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: JUST ANSWER

Hi -Zilla:

So you are refusing to answer my question .
I am posting that again:
I have a question to you about this quote:

"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Rikzilla, please answer me is that true or not?
I mean are both the same quality or not?
I mean do they have the same amount of frames?
I mean can a "digitized video" be tricked?
Remember the BROADCAST TAPE was transmitted live.

Please prove me I am wrong and I will remove Thanz quote from my signature.
You know is a direct question and is part of this context, or you also agree with the quote?
"We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S I don't "beleive " in that quote, I AM SURE of that.
NOW if you "think" there is a difference between videos, then Harter's method was preety dodgy.

Mr. Swett,

This is the 3rd post I have made to this thread. It will be my last.
You are obviously a self-deluded victim of "true believer" syndrome. As such there is no one you will listen to and no evidence you will believe if it does not support your wild claims. Therefore it is fruitless for anyone to engage you.

You need to increase your dosage of Zoloft.

Good day,
zilla

 

[alfaniner]

Re: SERIOUS NOTE

Folks

I would encourage you to stop posting on this thread. I think we have already reached the limits. At this point, the debate has become pointless, fruitless and boring, and I'm afraid it's beginnig to disturb many people.

Thanks

My last post here as well. I realize that this idiotic claim has trivialized a world-changing tragedy. I'm afraid that every time I see a video of the incident from now on I will be reminded of the idiots Carlos (S&S) and latinjral and their paranormal hat, instead of the tragic deaths of thousands of people.

 

[Supercharts]

Attention Moderators!!!

Please move this entire thread to "The Million Dollar Challenge" where it properly belongs.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

I decided to do a little paranormal investigation myself. I had no idea that Photoshop was so capable of bringing out the truth in what we "believe" we see in everyday life. I was truely shocked by the results! I may start a campaign!

I took latinjral's paranormal hat (his favorite image,) and ran some filters over it. I can only assume that what I have uncovered is some kind of weird life form that lives in some alternate universe that parallels ours, and can only be seen by using photoshop on a blurry image of a bird!!!

Do you guys think I should claim the million dollars??

I'm serious!

 

[Guest]

B . CLOWN

I decided to do a little paranormal investigation myself. I had no idea that Photoshop was so capable of bringing out the truth in what we "believe" we see in everyday life. I was truely shocked by the results! I may start a campaign!

I took latinjral's paranormal hat (his favorite image,) and ran some filters over it. I can only assume that what I have uncovered is some kind of weird life form that lives in some alternate universe that parallels ours, and can only be seen by using photoshop on a blurry image of a bird!!!

Do you guys think I should claim the million dollars??

I'm serious!

YES I DO! But don't forget to wear your best dress.
You can put this on your "diary"

Thanks,
S&S