The "Carlos Swett affair" [Archive] - Page 2

thatguywhojuggles

21st September 2002, 11:42 PM

Sorry about spamming this thread, but I think it is important to see this list (a combined big list of the other lists and the new one) of all the comments that apparently just bounce off of Carlos and have no effect.

This is my last post on this thread. If you can't get the picture after seeing this list, Carlos, you are truely hopeless.

"What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed." -James Randi

"You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place." -Andrew Harter

"I looked at the "movie". How anyone can classify such a video as "paranormal" is beyond me." -Ipecac

"If you think you can submit a video tape you copied off of television and collect a million dollars, you are an idiot." -Yahzi

"I don't know about anyone else's opinion on this, but I'm very tired of the Carlos Swett malarky." -Sauron

"Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments..." -Smiley01

"Another Paul Bethke/Bigfig/Aforce1 has arrived... The JREF Loonies List(tm) is getting long." -gabriel

"...you do not qualify for the JREF prize!" -rwald

"...has been pointed out by many posters, you simply do not have a claim that satisfies the challenge." -ThirdTwin

"You have not provided any evidence of anything paranormal..." -ThirdTwin

"For the nth time, merely making an observation is not enough for the JREF prize!" -rwald

"...even if Randi believed you, it woudln't matter, since your claim does not qualify for the JREF challange." -rwald

"Randi has no intention of paying you or anyone else money for merely showing that a paranormal event has occured..." -rwald

"Your observation of this supposed "paranormal" event does not qualify you for the million dollar prize." -Mr. Skinny

"Since you do not claim to be able to do anything paranormal, your claim was never valid." -rwald

"...you do not have extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim..." -rwald

"You will not convince anyone here of your veracity without further evidence." -rwald

"S&S. Its time to go away now. People have been polite and patient with you but you refuse to accept the obvious. Your video does not amount to proof of anything. You are wasting your time. now please go away....." -The Fool

"...this has, sadly, turned into a circular argument." -Third Twin

"There's nothing to be tested, there's no valid claim in your application..." -Patricio Elicer

"I think that any skeptic and rational person will find your evidence very weak, and consecuently won't bother to take your claim seriously." -Patricio Elicer

"...in my opinion, your claim is not valid for the challenge." -Patricio Elicer

"Do everybody a favor and stop wasting your time here." -Wyrd1

"...people think you are a loon." -Shaun from Scotland

"...you have nothing upon which to base a claim." -pyrrho2000

"Yet another Troll feeding thread." -Testudo

"It has not been established that what you saw on TV was paranormal activity." -pyrrho2000

"Harter told you that it was not a paranormal event. It follows that your claim is not valid." -pyrrho2000

"You cannot use uncertainty as evidence that your claim is correct." -pyrrho2000

"You still haven't adequately answered the most basic question..." -Wyrd1

"It has been pointed out to you several times that the reason you saw something could be explained by any number of reasonable causes not dependent on supernatural/paranormal events." -Wyrd1

"YOU have to prove it could NOT have been anything but paranormal." -Wyrd1

"You have never made any reasonable reponse to anyone pointing out these things to you." -Wyrd1

"You have got to be one of the biggest, delusional jackasses i have ever read..." -De_Bunk

"You are truly insane...." -De_Bunk

"This has got to be a joke..." -De_Bunk

"you are nothing but another troll.." -De_Bunk

"...you ignored the rules of the challenge, and should be disqualified solely based on that. " -rwald

"...you broke rule #1 of the application rules, and therefore are disqualified automatically." -rwald

"It is you who have made a mistake. The mistake is, your application is not valid. You did not comply with all the rules of the application, and therefore, you cannot be considered an applicant. It doesn't matter what Randi and Harter told you in their letters; if you did not follow their rules, you cannot win." -rwald

"...your application was flawed from the beginning..." -rwald

"Unless you can prove that your application was correct, it doesn't matter what Harter said." -rwald

"Why are you still here....????" -De_Bunk

"This is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've heard all year." -Smiley01

"...you haven't given a straight answer to a single question that anyone has asked..." -Smiley01

"-How is it, that with several million people on the ground, watching the towers, that there wasn't a single eyewitness present? Particuarly those in the path of it's trajectory?" -Smiley01

"-Why can't you come up with any footage of the object from other angles?" -Smiley01

"You complete and utter wanker...." -De_Bunk

"I have never seen such bullsh*t spew from someones brain..." -De_Bunk

"Swett cares nothing for reason or explanation. He is a troll, plain and simple." -Doubt

"The evidence implies that you use neither your brain nor your mind." -rwald

"Either way....Hes a F*ckwit..." -De_Bunk

"Your reply here shows your inability to reason clearly." -Doubt

"You care nothing about reason, logic or proof." -Doubt

"You are a troll." -Doubt

--new stuff-- (but still the same)

"...getting rid of folk like you gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling." -Smiley01

"...I for one am glad to see you off." -Smiley01

"Do I get a little lapel badge with "S&S is a dumbass" on it?" -Shaun from Scotland

"The only "brainless clown" here is you." -rwald

"Man, you are really delusional if you believe everyone here is satisfied." -Smiley01

"You haven't given a straight answer to anyone since this thread started." -Smiley01

"A person would have to explore some kind of hyperspace to find an angle from which your argument hasn't been successfully attacked. Your application simply doesn't pass the sniff test. How many times must one smell **** in order to determine that it is, in fact, ******" -Skeptoid

"ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR GO AWAY!!!" -Shaun from Scotland

"A skeptic requires evidence. You've provided little in that respect." -Skeptoid

"Your claim should have been dismissed out of hand ... I doesn't pass the sniff test." -Skeptoid

"...there are plenty of other possible natural explanations, and until you have disproven them all, you have no evidence to support your claim." -rwald

"Another f*ckwit exposed..." -De_Bunk

"...I will not believe it is paranormal until you provide evidence..." -rwald

"...you are not eligible for the JREF prize." -rwald

"You have no claim. = Your claim is invalid" -DeliveringVito

"...logic (and my experience in video and graphic work) heavily suggests a natural occurance, whether bird, insect, or video glitch." -DeliveringVito

"Since you have always been in violation of rule #1, you have never been considered an applicant. It's that simple." -rwald

"I came here with the hopes that I could help you understand where you made your mistake, and that you would see why you were wrong. Clearly, this will never happen." -rwald

"Your claim did not meet the criteria." -rachaella

Happy Trolling, Carlos.

22nd September 2002, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by S&S
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew's reply made perfect sense to the case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 08-27

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi gave you a poor answer to your application Comment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 09-05

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the correct response from Randi should have been (or at least somewhere in the original response): "Our award is for a demonstration of paranormal activity. A videotape does not constitute a demonstration." End of discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budddyh 08-27

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanz 08-27

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I watch the little GIF of the video on the site that was posted here, I notice that the explosion that is going on when the second airplane strikes hardly moves at all. So obviously the clip is very short (though deceptive because you focus on the movement of the streak, and it seems to move slowly.) If you watch it, and count, you will notice that there are only 5 maybe 6 frames. I am guessing video is around 36 frames per second, so we are watching only .16th of a second of footage. Something that small and that short, sounds like a glitch of some kind in the video.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thatgaywhojuggles 08-27

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The animated GIF contains 5 frames. The first frame has a delay of 0.5 seconds; the other four frames each have a delay of 0.25 seconds. The GIF therefore displays for 1.5 seconds each time it loops. Each delay can be altered in image-editing software. Because of this, it's not possible to tell how much time the original video would have required for this sequence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pyrrho2000 08-27

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that Randi needs to remember when dealing with such people that they are, more likely than not, incapable of being truly rational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThirdTwin 08-27

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I looked at the pictures on the MSN website. You appear to be quite a talented artist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThirdTwin 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, I'm sorry that this was not more cordially explained to you during your initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThirdTwin 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that you are not interested in the money
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThirdTwin 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. Again, I am sorry that Mr. Randi offended you. I hope that is enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThirdTwin 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harter said it's on the internet, but what is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harter was reporting the truth as he saw it,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have found you to be a relatively reasonable person
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. We never really gave you a chance to prove yourself for who you really are. I apologize for this. It is my belief that you should be allowed to again talk on the chat room.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have time right now to translate your notarized application. I will read it tomorrow, and if I find something new or revealing on it I will translate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos believes that he can show evidence that a paranormal event took place on 9/11. I tried telling him that one video does not constitute "proper observing conditions," but because Randi and Andrew did not specifically say this, he does not think this was the reason he was rejected. So, anyway, his misinterpretation of the rules at least has some basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't want to translate because it would be pointless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thatguywhojuggles 09-01

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I have translated the notarized application for the million dollars sent by Carlos Swett to the JREF.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PatricioEliecer 09-01

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harter DID examine the video and offer you an explanation. This is what you asked him to do
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thatgaywhojuggles 09-01

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 08-30

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bird could certainly be the culprit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harter JREF Researcher

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a bird, can I have $1M from the Birdwatcher's Club?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bidlack 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it says "event," it means "event which you cause." I know it doesn't say that. Don't bother telling me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, your application was opened. Yes, you received an official answer from the JREF. And then, your application was closed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rwald 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have just enterd into the "Troll" category in my opinion, and I will no longer comment on this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thatgaywhojuggles 09-03

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the eventComment: according to his e-mail response this is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 09-05

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 09-07

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A small sample taken from this thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thatgaywhojuggles 09-11

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

22nd September 2002, 01:43 PM

Nice collection of quotes. Of course, you still haven't answered what I see as the important questions, but first I can work with these quotes. I will reply both to your quotes of me, and when you blatantly took quotes out of context:

I have found you to be a relatively reasonable person
-- rwald 08-30
We never really gave you a chance to prove yourself for who you really are. I apologize for this. It is my belief that you should be allowed to again talk on the chat room.
-- rwald 08-30

These two were both referring to the fact that I based my opinions of Carlos on what latin/ijral was like. I must admit, overall, Carlos has been more reasonable than latin/ijral. However, after having talked with him much more over the past month, I can no longer say that Carlos is a "relatively reasonable person." Since he has yet to explain how he passed the first rule for applicants, I have come to somewhat doubt his abilities. That's not to say I think you're a bad person, Carlos; I'm just saying your far from rational.

I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you
-- rwald 08-30

Again, I almost wish that Harter had used the better copy, so that you would stop complaining. However, since Carlos and Harter never agreed upon what would constitute a "good method," Carlos can't keep complaining that Harter used a "bad method." How can a "good method" be separated from a bad one? Only by having both parties agree. Since this never happened, it doesn't matter what Harter's method was.

Carlos believes that he can show evidence that a paranormal event took place on 9/11. I tried telling him that one video does not constitute "proper observing conditions," but because Randi and Andrew did not specifically say this, he does not think this was the reason he was rejected. So, anyway, his misinterpretation of the rules at least has some basis.
-- rwald 08-30

Just because I figured out why Carlos was confused, doesn't mean he wasn't confused. The words on the Introduction page may be ambiguous, but the words in the actual rules are not. And Carlos is in blatant violation of the actual rules. If one sentence says he might, just maybe, be right, and 20 others say he must be wrong, should we say he is right, because one sentence supports him? This is exactly what you are doing.

Randi gave you a poor answer to your application Comment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer
-- Patricio Eliecer 09-05
I think the correct response from Randi should have been (or at least somewhere in the original response): "Our award is for a demonstration of paranormal activity. A videotape does not constitute a demonstration." End of discussion.
-- Budddyh 08-27
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.
-- Thanz 08-27
As I watch the little GIF of the video on the site that was posted here, I notice that the explosion that is going on when the second airplane strikes hardly moves at all. So obviously the clip is very short (though deceptive because you focus on the movement of the streak, and it seems to move slowly.) If you watch it, and count, you will notice that there are only 5 maybe 6 frames. I am guessing video is around 36 frames per second, so we are watching only .16th of a second of footage. Something that small and that short, sounds like a glitch of some kind in the video.
-- thatguywhojuggles 08-27
The animated GIF contains 5 frames. The first frame has a delay of 0.5 seconds; the other four frames each have a delay of 0.25 seconds. The GIF therefore displays for 1.5 seconds each time it loops. Each delay can be altered in image-editing software. Because of this, it's not possible to tell how much time the original video would have required for this sequence.
-- pyrrho2000 08-27

As I've said before, I too think that Harter didn't do the best job he could have to analyze the video. However, it doesn't matter. Since Carlos filled out the application incorrectly, he never was an applicant. So, anything Harter did for him was out of the goodness of his heart, not any obligation. Harter could have looked at the 5-frame long GIF, and declared that it was false, if he wanted to. He was under no obligation to do a through analysis of the video.

Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi.
-- Patricio Eliecer 09-07

I love this one. You completely took the quote out of context. Want to see the original version?

Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi. But I repeat for the nth time: "you have no claim, there's nothing paranormal taking place" is the same as "your application is not valid", understand that!, there are different ways to express the same idea, that's a wonderful capability of human languages.
-- Patricio Eliecer 09-07

There's no way you could have "accidentally" misinterpreted that quote; you purposely edited it to make Patricio look bad and you look good. Well, two can play that game:

We will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.
-- latinijral quoting Carl Sagen 09-10
Do you think the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Amstrong was the first man walked on the moon? Have you checked the original tape and video tape recorder to be sure?
-- latinijral 09-12
[completely reposting a post by S&S, without making any sort of addition or comment]
-- latinijral 09-14
[same exact thing again]
-- latinijral 09-14
you really are: nothing, a no no, anonimous clown.
[snip]
Feel free to use your insults instead of reason. Insults are all you really have.
-- IggyK 09-19

Anyway, I've wasted enough of my time on you already. I'll probably waste more in the future. Oh well. Until next time...

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

22nd September 2002, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
S&S...

If what you posted is true about your English...

Then your doing OK...

Hi De Bunk:

In the middle of these last posts of some members, your's seems to me the smarter one.

Thanks, yes it was basically true, I have a long version but I think is enough for you ( about the "english").

Now, if you can do me the same favor I did to you, will you please answer the questions I put to "thatguywhojuggles" and that his only answers were "I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid".
I am sure your brain is not the same size of him (crocodile size :peanut. Sorry for the crocodile) and you will have no troubles in saying the truth.

I really don`t care if they are people of this forum keeping with the same bla, bla, bla, that my application is not valid.I have the only and true version, that`s why I am asking JREF to say something about my real challenge and their poor answer they gave me.

Thanks , again De-Bunk, it was a surprise to me your words (no a single insult), besides we were talking only about "english".

Thanks,
Carlos Swett (S&S)

rwald

22nd September 2002, 02:41 PM

Carlos, could you just say, "I know my application was not valid, but I still think there really was a paranormal object"? If you will just admit that your application was not valid, I'd be glad to discuss exactly what was on the video. But until you do this, I am forced to only debate the technical terms. Please, just admit this, and then we can talk about what you really want to discuss.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

rwald

22nd September 2002, 04:27 PM

Carlos, you want proof that you are the biggest clown? I just posted a poll to see who people think is the biggest clown. It's located at http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7992 . Feel free to vote. We'll see what the results are.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

22nd September 2002, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, you want proof that you are the biggest clown? I just posted a poll to see who people think is the biggest clown. It's located at http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7992 . Feel free to vote. We'll see what the results are.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

Juvenile Rwald :

You are wrong AGAIN. I never told you that you are a clown, that will be a prize.

I always told you you are a bad clown, a brainless clown, a stupid
clown.See the difference?

Is lyke using the brain : the CORRECT way or the BAD way.

Bad brain : Bad clown

Look for help in JREF, and presSure them to do something, you know what.

Thanks.

S&S

P.S.
Being a biggest clown is not a problem, being the brainless lyke you is a problem

Shaun from Scotland

22nd September 2002, 07:31 PM

Nothing worse than a sore loser.

Or are you a winner, seeing as you are ROMPING the poll...???

IggyK

23rd September 2002, 08:26 AM

Carlos, Thank you for posting the new picture on the Skeptic's Forum under your new ID (The Bird. How droll!) It has been deleted and your new ID banned as Wyrd1 said it would be. As it was a picture of Beavis and Butthead I wonder if Mike Judge knows you, a professional artist, is plagerizing his work? Oh well, the evidence has been destroyed. Which one of the other members in the forum is your other secret Identity? When are you going to re invite yourself to forum to post your trash? Only time will tell. Tune in next week for the continueing adventures of "Lost His Mind!" when our hero will once again call his evil protagonists clowns!

23rd September 2002, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by IggyK
Carlos, Thank you for posting the new picture on the Skeptic's Forum under your new ID (The Bird. How droll!) It has been deleted and your new ID banned as Wyrd1 said it would be.

Hi IggyK:

Are you the same "administrator " of the msn Skeptics Forum?
Are you the same I thanked to you and your forum when I started posting here at the JREF?
Are you the same who was worried because I came to the JREF? Are you the same that banned me without a reason?

Now in an excess of your paranoid you are accusing me of "posting a picture under a newID".

People, here and eveverywhere knows that I always identify myself, I am not hiding anything , I am just fighting because I received a poor answer from the JREF of the application I send to
them. That´s all.

And I am now doing the same in the "house of Randi" at the JREF forum with members of a "high degre" as you said (now I see that you all at the Skeptics Forum were members of "low degree").

Control your paranoid, I don't have time to post at your forum now, besides I was banned as you said, so give me a reason to waste my time with you all loosers.

Thanks,
S&S

23rd September 2002, 04:10 PM

----
I am just fighting because I received a poor answer from the JREF of the application I send to
them.
----

So why post here? Harter and Randi, it is safe to say, almost NEVER read these boards, nor should they.

Mail them, call them, stop by their place, etc. etc.

Right now, you sound like you got the answer you didn't want to hear regarding your 'claim'.

1. take it like a man

2. you didn't understand the Challenge as written down

3. go debate with Franko about logical deism

24th September 2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
----
I am just fighting because I received a poor answer from the JREF of the application I send to
them.
----

So why post here? Harter and Randi, it is safe to say, almost NEVER read these boards, nor should they.

Mail them, call them, stop by their place, etc. etc.

Right now, you sound like you got the answer you didn't want to hear regarding your 'claim'.

1. take it like a man

2. you didn't understand the Challenge as written down

3. go debate with Franko about logical deism

Hi Whodini :

Thank you for your advice, but I must clear some interpretations you are making:

1. I didn´t post this thread,was Patricio Elicer who throw the stone and hided his hand.

I asked LINDA if I can post in this thread after 30 messages on it, I thanked her for giving me the chance to make a defense of my honor and name.

I am man enough to debate in any subject you want, but in this case I am the person who challenged JREf and received from them a poor answer based in a poor method. I am sure you are man enough to fight against injustice, too.

2. Yes, I understood the challenge, I did all the requirements, JREf received my application and tape, and based on it Andrew Harter gave me the strange answer in which he NEVER said my application was not valid.

Of course I mailed J. Randi , but the only thing I received from him was insults and the block of my e-mail, also I was acussed of "flooding or something lyke that" (I never did it and I don´t know how) and my last e-mail was closed by hotmail.
I was sure that Randi, Harter and Linda are the moderators of this forum, so only in your interpretation can be that they NEVER read the posts.

I have the hope that someday they will talk about this thread and specially about my notarized application and the answer they gave me, and just because YOU ALL members of this forum deserves that.

3.I never heard about Franko, Is he a product of the multimedia too?

I hope all these clarifications help you in your next judgements.

Thanks again,
S&S

rwald

24th September 2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Yes, I understood the challenge, I did all the requirements

No, you didn't. You didn't understand that only a demonstration of paranormal powers qualifies for the challenge, and you didn't complete the first requirement. It's that simple.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

24th September 2002, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by rwald

No, you didn't. You didn't understand that only a demonstration of paranormal powers qualifies for the challenge, and you didn't complete the first requirement. It's that simple.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

Rwald:

You are most worried on the "stupid poll " you made and in the votes you got on it. As I said before you are not the "biggest clown" , you are the "brainless clown".
Try to be not repetitive, be original if you can.

Thanks,
S&S

Shaun from Scotland

24th September 2002, 03:28 PM

Sore loser/winner

rwald

24th September 2002, 03:31 PM

If you won't listen to a word I say, do I have any choice but to repeat myself?

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps (ABC)

Shaun from Scotland

24th September 2002, 03:38 PM

Notice how he completely avoids the issue Rwald?

25th September 2002, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by latinijral

Charlie in Dayton

25th September 2002, 06:23 PM

If I read it right, latinijral's sig line refers to the question about why Randi hasn't publicized Carlos's claim.

This confirms my thinking to a small degree in my opinion, that this whole thing is nothing more than an attempt for some publicity.

25th September 2002, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
If I read it right, latinijral's sig line refers to the question about why Randi hasn't publicized Carlos's claim.

This confirms my thinking to a small degree in my opinion, that this whole thing is nothing more than an attempt for some publicity.

Charie of Dayton (El Cid) :

Are you really thinking now?

Do you really think that?

Are you the same person that said to me that was going to check the video at some friends that work at a tv broadcast?

Are you the same that I am waiting for your "investigation"?
Publicity of what kind?

Of telling the truth about a poor answer received from the JREF about my application?

Of the silence of Harter and Randi about my challenge and the poor method they used?

I am here at randi's forum "twofaces" Chalie of Dayton", And I am not telling this in another stupid and charlatans web site. I didn't post the thread. I don't have a web page.

Publicity??????? and you think you are thinking.

I hope this case will be expose at the "amazing meeting" using the correct methods, so you all can tell who is afraid.

Thanks,
S&S

Charlie in Dayton

25th September 2002, 10:10 PM

OK, here we go...

Originally posted by S&S

Charie of Dayton (El Cid) :
First of all, get the spelling right on my name.

Originally posted by S&S
Are you really thinking now?

Do you really think that?
Read my post again, Carlos...I said "...This confirms my thinking to a small degree in my opinion...", referring to the signature line. It makes no reference whatever to your claim and video evidence, and it's deliberately misleading to claim that it did.

Originally posted by S&S
Are you the same person that said to me that was going to check the video at some friends that work at a tv broadcast?
Yes, I am the same person. I haven't seen the evidence yet, and on that basis have not ruled out the possibility of changing my mind once I've seen it.

Originally posted by S&S
Are you the same that I am waiting for your "investigation"?
Yes, that's me. As I told you before, one of my sources has family on the Gulf Coast, right in the path of the tropical storm that's coming ashore tomorrow. I'm not going to bother him with this now; he's got more urgent things on his mind. The other source, I've lost touch with over the last couple of years, and it's going to take some time to reestablish that relationship. As far as you waiting, you're going to have to wait. The world doesn't run on your personal schedule.

Originally posted by S&S
Publicity of what kind?
Oh, let's see here...you're running around shouting to whoever will listen that Randi won't publicly speak about your claim...why should he? You're the one who's demanding they speak out about you. That sounds like publicity to me. What kind? Beneficial to you; it makes you look like the injured party.

Originally posted by S&S
Of telling the truth about a poor answer received from the JREF about my application?
Here we go again. An answer you don't agree with is not necessarily a poor one. The answer you got matched the facts. Your claim to the Million Dollar Challenge doesn't match the requirements. I quote in total Section 1 of the Million Dollar Challenge Rules:

1.Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

Okay, what power/ability do you claim? To see an unidentified blur on a videotape? That's normal eyesight, nothing paranormal. What will constitute a positive or negative result of testing? Yup, there's something on the tape, and we're not sure what it is. I see that unidentified blur, too. On that basis, I could file a co-claim with yours and apply for a fast half-million...of course, everyone who reads this will get in on the act, and by the time it's over, we're goint to get about $1.35 apiece...
Face it, Carlos, you haven't personally claimed abilities out of the ordinary...and claiming that the unidentified blur is something paranormal is something that you haven't proved.

Originally posted by S&S
Of the silence of Harter and Randi about my challenge and the poor method they used?
Why are they obligated to speak out in public about this claim? They responded to you, and that was all that was required. Why do you want them to proclaim to the world that your application is not valid (or however they phrased it)? Why do you want them to publicize this matter? Why do you want publicity?

Originally posted by S&S
I am here at randi's forum "twofaces" Chalie of Dayton", And I am not telling this in another stupid and charlatans web site. I didn't post the thread. I don't have a web page.
Again, get the name right.
Why do you constantly refer to me in the IRC chat room, and again above, as two-faced/twofaces/etc?
I agreed to listen to what you had to say, and to view the tape (assuming I could find it). As far as who posted the thread, their opinion is their opinion. My posting or not posting to it says nothing about whether I agree with them or not. You make an unwarranted presumption. And while you don't have a web page, apparently you have no objection if others establish them for you, complete with inflammatory page names such as "Is James Randi A Liar?".

Originally posted by S&S
Publicity??????? and you think you are thinking.
Yes, I am thinking, and what I'm thinking is that your actions to this point have nothing to do with researching the paranormal, but have much to do with publicizing you.

Originally posted by S&S
I hope this case will be expose at the "amazing meeting" using the correct methods, so you all can tell who is afraid.
I hope the same thing, Carlos. Let's get it out in the open. Come to Florida. Bring your evidence. Play the tape. Let everyone make up their mind.
If you were truly interested in doing this, your efforts would have been focused in that direction instead of whining about how you've been mistreated.

Originally posted by S&S
Thanks,
S&S

Your post was quoted in total, unedited. I responded.

Now, I'm going to take you to task for how you've treated me. Insults, both here and in the chat room (and I've logged what was posted there; it's available as a text file for anyone who wants it, from session opening to close); insults in English, and apparently in Spanish. You decide to have little side conversations in another language at my expense with latinijral; my Spanish is very poor, but I do recognize a few words, and they were uncomplimentary at best.

Speaking of latinijral, it would be best for your cause if you reined your sock puppet in. He's not helping you prove your case. The establishment of that aforementioned web page Is James Randi A Liar? (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/) has pictures of the documentation sent to the Foundation, but nothing from them in response. The pictures of "The Association of Brainless Clowns" is a nice little Photoshop essay, but otherwise detracts from the cause; there's no other defense of the claim than to make fun of those who don't agree? Not professional in any case.

Carlos, your smug, self-righteous, intellectually superior attitude is taxing at best. Your constant demands for answers to questions without specifying what the questions are is irritating. Your refusal to answer questions posed to you is rude. Your insistence that things happen on your schedule is insufferable.

Your claim to the Million Dollar Challenge has been ruled invalid, by those who administer the Challenge, and according to the rules of the Challenge.

Your claim that something paranormal is occuring on the videotape is extremely if not fatally weak.
You have to do better than this.

Shaun from Scotland

26th September 2002, 05:20 AM

That is a very poor post Charlie, considering the nature of this thread. It is:

A/ Rational and considered

B/ Deals with points in a clear and coherant manner

S&S wont understand a word of it...................

Lucifuge Rofocale

26th September 2002, 09:12 AM

I just received this email. I couldn't stop laughting. My original email is below

Saludos peruano maricòn:

Como te daràs cuenta he dejado pasar el tiempo para contestarte como te mereces mediocre perro de farsantes mentirosos como James Randi y Andrew Harter.

Fui yo, Guillermo Swett, quien decidiò compartir la informaciòn del reto oficial de mi hermano Carlos Swett utilizando mi email, no el de èl.
Me sorprende que tù no estabas en la lista de correo que elaborè, lo que significa que algùn otro perro te fue con el chisme y como puedo apreciar tu firmas como miembro de la fundaciòn JREF, deduzco que Randi te diò como tarea desmentir el reto de mi hermano.

Como experto en computaciòn hiciste 2 porquerìas dignas de una gallina sin cerebro:
1. Eliminar el email de mi hermano Carlos aduciendo que hizo "spamming", recuerda que el email se hizo desde mi email, y asì evitar que se contacten con mi hermano personas interesadas en el tema. Te saliò mal tu jugarreta porque igual se han contactado con èl a su nuevo email.
2. Enviarme un virus a mi computadora con el fin de elminar mi outlook express y mi conexiòn a internet, lo que lograste con èxito, pero como soy prevenido, respaldè mi informaciòn.

Para confirmar que eres gallina, el tema de mi hermano lo publicò una gallina chilena llamada Patricio Elicer en los foros de Randi, y de ahì el tema ha sido tratado en extenso. Para sorpresa tù apareces como miembro del foro, pero como eres ahuevado, no te atreves a escribir ahì.

Se confirma tambièn que tus ìdolos de barro, Randi y Harter, no tienen el valor de escirbir algo razonable, mejor dicho no dicen nada, y peor, no van a tener las agallas de poner en su comentario semanal el reto de mi hermano Carlos, debido a que han demostrado ser pobres profesionales en resolver un simple reto, pero sì han demostrado ser excelentes profesionales para recibir donaciones al por mayor de tarados como tù.

Guillermo Swett

P.D: **** you JREF member, mofletudo

-------Original Message-------

From: Lucifuge Rofocale
Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:46:08 AM
To: Guillermo Swett
Subject: Re: THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT JREF, JAMES RANDI AND A ONE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE

I feel very sorry for James Randi. To have to deal with this kind of lunatics every day would give me a terrible headache.
You have answered your own question:

>I AM GLAD THAT NOW YOU CAN SEE "THE DARK OBJECT" AT >SOME POINTS AGAINST THE
>SMOKE, WITH SOME DIFFICULTS, BUT IT IS THERE. THOSE ARE >YOUR WORDS.

>YOU SAID: A BIRD COULD CERTAINLY BE THE CULPRIT.
>¿WHY A BIRD, AND NOT AN INSECT?
>¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
>¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?
>REMEMBER THAT I TOLD YOU ON MY DEMAND THAT IT CAN NOT BE A BIRD OR AN
INSECT, BECAUSE THE IMAGE OF IT DOESN`T LAY ON TOP THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE
>HOLE OF THE FIRST TOWER AND "SEEMS" TO APPEARS FROM BEHIND THE TOWER.

>YOU SAID: YOU HAVE NO CLAIM???????????????????????????
>YOU SAID: THERE IS SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL TAKING >PLACE??????????????'
>I SAY: ¿WHO ARE YOU?
>I SAY: YOU ARE NOT A REALLY RESEARCHER, YOU DIDN`T DEMONSTRATE NOTHING, YOU
ARE LIAR. YOU DON`T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OR YOU CAN NOT SAY THE TRUTH. YOU
ARE THINKING IN THE MONEY. FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY IF THAT IS YOUR REAL
PROBLEM.

Are you so stupid? You are asking Randi to prove the supposed paranormal effect for you!. What a moron you are. When the frame by frame image shows that you are plain wrong you ask him to look at it in a TV studio!
And, BTW can you READ the Million dollar challenge specifications? You have to past a pre-test and then the real test and the conditions of the test would be worked in agreement with both parties. You have made your setup, defined your test procedure by yourself and then bitching like the delusional lunatic you are. Randi is too politely to tell you what you really deserve: **** You.

Lucifuge Rofocale

rwald

26th September 2002, 12:47 PM

Could you post an English translation of that here? I could try to translate it myself, but it's easier to ask you to do it than to do it myself ;-).

Lucifuge Rofocale

26th September 2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Could you post an English translation of that here? I could try to translate it myself, but it's easier to ask you to do it than to do it myself ;-).

I tought that every american speak spanish :D

Here it goes

Greetings, peruvian faggot.

As you can see I have waited to answer as you deserve, mediocre dog of liers like JR and AH.

It was me, Guillermo Swett, who decided to share info about the official challenge of my brother Carlos using my email, not his.

I'm surprised because you weren't in the distribution list I made, wich means that some other dog told you the gadget. And, AFAIKS, i deduct that Randi gave you the job to debunk my brother's challenge.

As computer expert you did 2 evil acts like a brainless chicken:

1.- Eliminate my brothers email claiming that it is spamming , remember that it was send from my email address, so you can avoid people interested in that affair contact him. Your trick went wrong because people has contacted him at his new email.

2.- Send a virus to my computer to eliminate Outlook and my internet conection, what you succeded. But as I'm such a smart person, I had backups.

To confirm that you are a chicken, my brother's challenge was published by a chilean chicken named Patricio Elicer on Randi's forums, and was heavily debated. My surprise is that you appear as member of the forum, but you didn't dare to write there like the ******* you are.

It's also confirmed that your mud Idols, Randi and Harter, dont have the guts to write something reasonable, and worse they won't put the challeng in his weekly column because they have shown that they are poor profesionals into solving a simple challenge, but excellent profesional to get massive donations from stupids like you.

Guillermo Swett

P.D: **** you JREF member, mofletudo

:D :D :D
--------------------

Saludos peruano maricòn:

Como te daràs cuenta he dejado pasar el tiempo para contestarte como te mereces mediocre perro de farsantes mentirosos como James Randi y Andrew Harter.

Fui yo, Guillermo Swett, quien decidiò compartir la informaciòn del reto oficial de mi hermano Carlos Swett utilizando mi email, no el de èl.
Me sorprende que tù no estabas en la lista de correo que elaborè, lo que significa que algùn otro perro te fue con el chisme y como puedo apreciar tu firmas como miembro de la fundaciòn JREF, deduzco que Randi te diò como tarea desmentir el reto de mi hermano.

Como experto en computaciòn hiciste 2 porquerìas dignas de una gallina sin cerebro:
1. Eliminar el email de mi hermano Carlos aduciendo que hizo "spamming", recuerda que el email se hizo desde mi email, y asì evitar que se contacten con mi hermano personas interesadas en el tema. Te saliò mal tu jugarreta porque igual se han contactado con èl a su nuevo email.
2. Enviarme un virus a mi computadora con el fin de elminar mi outlook express y mi conexiòn a internet, lo que lograste con èxito, pero como soy prevenido, respaldè mi informaciòn.

Para confirmar que eres gallina, el tema de mi hermano lo publicò una gallina chilena llamada Patricio Elicer en los foros de Randi, y de ahì el tema ha sido tratado en extenso. Para sorpresa tù apareces como miembro del foro, pero como eres ahuevado, no te atreves a escribir ahì.

Se confirma tambièn que tus ìdolos de barro, Randi y Harter, no tienen el valor de escirbir algo razonable, mejor dicho no dicen nada, y peor, no van a tener las agallas de poner en su comentario semanal el reto de mi hermano Carlos, debido a que han demostrado ser pobres profesionales en resolver un simple reto, pero sì han demostrado ser excelentes profesionales para recibir donaciones al por mayor de tarados como tù.

Guillermo Swett

P.D: **** you JREF member, mofletudo

Patricio Elicer

26th September 2002, 02:29 PM

Well, I had remained silent on all this stuff since the day I realized it was pointless to continue. In my opinion the debate became circular long ago, and it's very likely that no positive insight will ever come out of it.

And even worse, we have now entered the "insult stage". It's obvious that nothing interesting or positive will ever result from an insult exchange.

But now a new element has been added. It seems that Swett and Lucifuge Rofocale have been holding a private mail exchange since the early days of this thread or perhaps even before it was born. I really don't know what's been hapenning on this regard, Lucifuge should clear things up for us.

Swett is obviously annoyed and he's shooting insults in every direction. Just to illustrate this fact, let me translate part of his letter to Lucifuge:Para confirmar que eres gallina, el tema de mi hermano lo publicò una gallina chilena llamada Patricio Elicer en los foros de Randi, y de ahì el tema ha sido tratado en extenso. Para sorpresa tù apareces como miembro del foro, pero como eres ahuevado, no te atreves a escribir ahì.would translate as: To confirm that you are a chicken, [notice that] my brother's subject was published on Randi's forums by a Chilean chicken named Patricio Elicer, and has extensively been treated there. Surprisingly enough you are a forum member, but because you are an *******, you don't dare to write in thereSee?, I got a free insult out of nothing. I have never used any bad word or had any bad intention against him, and certainly will never do, and yet I was also insulted.. LOL! :)

And a final wondering: is latinijral Carlos Swett's brother?

26th September 2002, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
OK, here we go...

Yes, I am the same person. I haven't seen the evidence yet, and on that basis have not ruled out the possibility of changing my mind once I've seen it.

Oh, let's see here...you're running around shouting to whoever will listen that Randi won't publicly speak about your claim...why should he? You're the one who's demanding they speak out about you. That sounds like publicity to me. What kind? Beneficial to you; it makes you look like the injured party.

Why are they obligated to speak out in public about this claim? They responded to you, and that was all that was required. Why do you want them to proclaim to the world that your application is not valid (or however they phrased it)? Why do you want them to publicize this matter? Why do you want publicity?

I hope the same thing, Carlos. Let's get it out in the open. Come to Florida. Bring your evidence. Play the tape. Let everyone make up their mind.
If you were truly interested in doing this, your efforts would have been focused in that direction instead of whining about how you've been mistreated.

Your claim that something paranormal is occuring on the videotape is extremely if not fatally weak.
You have to do better than this.

Two faces Charlie of Dayton:

If MY CLAIM is extremely - fatally weak ( without seeing the evidence as you said) Why you are going to waste your time "looking for the video" if you also said there is not possibility to change your mind? Is an real sceptic talking or a two faced sceptic?

YES I AM THE INJURED PART. I received a poor answer based in a poor method from the JREF about my challenge , with the agravant that there were not a single word telling me that my a pplication was invalid. That's the only reason why I am fighting for. Nobody in the world has the right to tell me lies or assumptions in a case that is clearly demonstrate( I don't care if his name is JAMES RANDI), if you want to be blind is your problem , not mine.

Publicity is for you to fight for my rights and honor, and you are asking me why you are twofaced. I ALWAYS identify myself, I am Carlos Swett the one that makes Randi be in silence about my challenge, the only one in the history of JREF.

You want me to come to Florida? Yes , is easy ; I live in the same block of the "amazing meeting".
Ask Randi if I can go and expose the case, I want the "invitation" (not the tickets) write by Randi, don't forget he blocked me.But that time of the meeting you are suppose to have the tape either and with your friends of the tv you can do the same I did, but if you don't get the tape ask Randi again, he has the one I send to the JREF. Or ask Harter to expose the "internet tape" or the link where he studied it "frame by frame". Yes he studied it (WHY if my application was not valid ? )

Where are the results of the "studied phenomenon" of the Swett affair? In what commentary of Randi? you will only find the same trash about SYlvia and Uri, that's publicity for me.

Thanks,
S&S

26th September 2002, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Well, I had remained silent on all this stuff since the day I realized it was pointless to continue. In my opinion the debate became circular long ago, and it's very likely that no positive insight will ever come out of it.

And even worse, we have now entered the "insult stage". It's obvious that nothing interesting or positive will ever result from an insult exchange.

But now a new element has been added. It seems that Swett and Lucifuge Rofocale have been holding a private mail exchange since the early days of this thread or perhaps even before it was born. I really don't know what's been hapenning on this regard, Lucifuge should clear things up for us.

Swett is obviously annoyed and he's shooting insults in every direction. Just to illustrate this fact, let me translate part of his letter to Lucifuge:would translate as: See?, I got a free insult out of nothing. I have never used any bad word or had any bad intention against him, and certainly will never do, and yet I was also insulted.. LOL! :)

And a final wondering: is latinijral Carlos Swett's brother?

Fast Patricio:
I can see how fast you are in translating , but when I asked to do it with my notarized application you were extremely slow, Why?
Why in your first post of this Thread ( you are the author of this Thread , not me) you also insulted me without my presence in the forum? Have you noticed that after I enter the forum and solved all your questions you began to think different?
Do you remember what you told me in a private message?
Can I put that message in the forum (asking for your permission)?

Why you try to confuse the members by posting :"Swett is obviously annoyed and he's shooting insults in every direction. Just to illustrate this fact, let me translate part of his letter to Lucifuge:"

You are using SWETT and trying to lie to the forum as I were that person. I was not and you knew it . You must said Guillermo Swett :Carlos's brother. That's the difference.

For your convenience I support now every word my brother said, especially in the part that concerns to you.I am still waiting you.

That stupid of Lucifuge (even his nick is) is a big chicken that was in silence all this time. He knew about the challenge before you posted this thread, and was in the ostrich silence like Randi and the JREF, and just came here to post a letter of MY BROTHER .
I am the one ( CARLOS SWETT)who made the challenge , I am the one that received a poor answer from the JREF, I am the one that
wants Randi to say a word and put my notarized application and the answer they gave me.

Very fast Patricio;very fast

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. Salúdame al peruano con una yuca.(you can translate this)

Charlie in Dayton

26th September 2002, 05:21 PM

...not that I think this will do much good, but I can use the practice with my debate and logic skills...

Originally posted by S&S

Two faces Charlie of Dayton:
Again with the name calling...Carlos, your personal attacks show a lack of confidence in your claims. If you need to bolster your position by playing childish games, then your position wasn't that solid to start with.

Originally posted by S&S
If MY CLAIM is extremely - fatally weak ( without seeing the evidence as you said) Why you are going to waste your time "looking for the video" if you also said there is not possibility to change your mind? Is an real sceptic talking or a two faced sceptic?
I'm not wasting my time examining the evidence THE FIRST TIME, which hasn't happened yet (the little internet video doesn't count, because the way it was created, information was left out). And by the way, I said "...and on that basis have not ruled out the possibility of changing my mind once I've seen it...". You've misquoted what I said, Carlos. And of course, the paragraph ends with the obligatory name calling again...

Originally posted by S&S
YES I AM THE INJURED PART.
Injured how? Financially? What money did they take from you? Personally? How did your reputation suffer?

Originally posted by S&S
I received a poor answer based in a poor method from the JREF about my challenge , with the agravant that there were not a single word telling me that my a pplication was invalid.
The answer you received was factually valid. Whether or not it was personally unsatisfying is a matter of personal opinion. And you most certainly were told by Andrew Harter that your claim was invalid; you yourself said he told you that. This is deliberate misrepresentation on your part.

Originally posted by S&S
That's the only reason why I am fighting for. Nobody in the world has the right to tell me lies or assumptions in a case that is clearly demonstrate( I don't care if his name is JAMES RANDI), if you want to be blind is your problem , not mine.
You believe that your case is clearly demonstrated; get some authorities on the subject to state publicly that your claim is demonstrated clearly. You have not done so thus far. All you have shown is that there's an unidentified blur on a videotape. That does not automatically make it a paranormal event. Might I also remind you that this incident does not qualify as a valid claim under section 1 of the Challenge rules?
And anyone anywhere any time most certainly does have the right to disagree with you. That's where the third party evaluation comes in. Your ego is getting in the way here. And, oh yes, by all means let's end the paragraph with more name-calling...

Originally posted by S&S
Publicity is for you to fight for my rights and honor, and you are asking me why you are twofaced. I ALWAYS identify myself, I am Carlos Swett the one that makes Randi be in silence about my challenge, the only one in the history of JREF.
********. Absolute unadulterated unmitigated ********. Publicity is for ME to fight for? WHY? Tell me why I am obligated to take up your cause!
There is no reason whatsoever that I MUST fight for you. What rights of yours have been violated? What honor has been impugned? You're the one who started the insults and name-calling; why are you surprised when no one takes you seriously? "I am Carlos Swett...". Big deal. What makes you so special? What sets you above the rest of us?
"...the one that makes Randi be in silence about my challenge...". Garbage...there is a difference between making someone be silent, and them determining that the issue is not worth wasting any more of their time on.
"...the only one in the history of the JREF..." Double garbage...you think you're the only one in the entire history of the JREF who didn't get their case splashed all throughout the media? You think that this is a conspiracy on the part of the JREF to deny you your place in history? Paranoia...rampant paranoia...

Originally posted by S&S
You want me to come to Florida? Yes , is easy ; I live in the same block of the "amazing meeting".
That makes it extremely easy for you to show up then, doesn't it?

Originally posted by S&S
Ask Randi if I can go and expose the case, I want the "invitation" (not the tickets) write by Randi, don't forget he blocked me.
Horse manure in its most exquisite form. Do your own work. Don't expect me to be your secretary. You live that close to the hotel? Then you are close to the Foundation offices. Get off your couch and go make your own arrangements, if you believe that strongly in your case. And don't even try that excuse about him having blocked your email. Show up in person, if you're that close and believe that much in your case. Stop expecting the rest of the world to do your bidding.

Originally posted by S&S
But that time of the meeting you are suppose to have the tape either and with your friends of the tv you can do the same I did, but if you don't get the tape ask Randi again, he has the one I send to the JREF. Or ask Harter to expose the "internet tape" or the link where he studied it "frame by frame". Yes he studied it (WHY if my application was not valid ? )
As I said, Carlos, I'll make every effort to obtain a copy of the tape and examine it. If for some reason I can't get one from the TV stations here, is your offer to supply me with a copy still open?
"...Yes he studied it (WHY if my application was not valid ? )...". Think, Carlos...how is he going to make a determination of the tape IF HE DOESN'T STUDY IT? Did you expect him to rule on the evidence if he doesn't look at it?

Originally posted by S&S
Where are the results of the "studied phenomenon" of the Swett affair? In what commentary of Randi? you will only find the same trash about SYlvia and Uri, that's publicity for me.

Thanks,
S&S

The results of the 'studied phenomenon' were sent to you. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't make the results invalid. "The Swett Affair"...you make it sound like the Pentagon Papers. It's not in Randi's commentary most likely because he felt it wasn't worth commenting on. And your last lime about "...that's publicity for me..." simply reinforces my opinion (and I do have the right to one, no matter what you may think) that you are in this for publicity. If you spent 10% of the effort in getting your claim validated (by qualified individuals who are willing to state their support for you IN PUBLIC) that you have on whining about how you've been mistreated and victimized by the JREF, by now you'd be the featured guest on every talk TV and radio show in the Western Hemisphere.

Carlos, every time you complain about how everyone is against you on this, you take away that much more from your claim. You are doing this to yourself. Your actions are doing you and your case much more harm than good.

Stop complaining, stop expecting everyone else to kowtow to your demands, stop expecting everyone to believe you automatically, get up, get out, and do your own work proving what you say.

To this point you haven't done it.

By the way, I only have one face. If I had another, believe me when I say I wouldn't be using this one. :D

Lucifuge Rofocale

26th September 2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by S&S

That stupid of Lucifuge (even his nick is) is a big chicken that was in silence all this time. He knew about the challenge before you posted this thread, and was in the ostrich silence like Randi and the JREF, and just came here to post a letter of MY BROTHER .

Can you understand that your challenge is too stupid to waste time in it? I wrote the original letter to show you how stupid it is but I don't have more time to spend with morons like you. I posted the letter in the forum because it was very funny and shows clearly what a delusional monkeys you and your *********** brother are.

P.S. Salúdame al peruano con una yuca.(you can translate this)

Metete la yuca al culo y muevete :D :D :D

Lucifuge Rofocale

26th September 2002, 05:55 PM

26th September 2002, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Can you understand that your challenge is too stupid to waste time in it? I wrote the original letter to show you how stupid it is but I don't have more time to spend with morons like you. I posted the letter in the forum because it was very funny and shows clearly what a delusional monkeys you and your *********** brother are.

Metete la yuca al culo y muevete :D :D :D

Now you are showing your ass , because you can't show your face.

Where were you before "member of the JREF" as you originally posted in an e-mail before this thread, farsant.

You came here now to join the only members left in this thread: the clowns ,that their only arguments are the insults.
You and your stupidities represent well your summision, lameculo de Randi.,

For you is Ok that Harter studied the tape "frame by frame" on the internet because you have **** in your brain.
"
"The world is little"

Carlos Swett

P.S.
La yuca no quiere salir de tu culo, chupamedias gallina llorona.

Wyrd1

26th September 2002, 09:27 PM

Yo! Carlos, I banned your loser BEHIND from the Skeptic's Forum, not Iggy. You keep claiming to have answered people in this Forum's questions. You, sir, are a liar. You have yet to answer Smiley01's questions, you have not reasonably answered even one question from anyone. If IJRAL is your brother it would explain how he got ahold of your "notharized" application. It would also explain how he knew what Randi and Andrew said to you. Of course that may be a lie as well but who really cares if you are IJRAL, Latin, or Latinijral. I will ask one question of you now, even though I know you won't answer it any more than you have answered any other questions.
If the so called paranormal object is passing OUT of the hole in WTC Tower Two then why is it no SMOKE follows in it's wake? You say it must be a large object so it should have created enough of a vortex to pull a trail of smoke with it. Since it did not, in my opinion, it could not have come out of the hole in the tower. Since it was out of focus it must have been much closer to the camera than any part of the tower. Go ahead and insult me. Go ahead and call me a clown. Deflect criticism any way you can for your lost cause. You have lost your challenge and thanks to your behavior in this forum you have lost your dignity. Any man with honor would apologize to this group for what YOU have said and wasting time.

Patricio Elicer

26th September 2002, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by S&S
I can see how fast you are in translating , but when I asked to do it with my notarized application you were extremely slow, Why?Because I was busy by then.
Originally posted by S&S
Why in your first post of this Thread ( you are the author of this Thread , not me) you also insulted me without my presence in the forum?Well, I can't let this pass. Carlos, please tell me where in my first post I did insult you. If I did, I'll have no problem in making a public apology to you, because it's not within my style to insult people.

27th September 2002, 01:52 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wyrd1
Yo! Carlos, I banned your loser BEHIND from the Skeptic's Forum, not Iggy. [/QUOTE

Wird:

So you miss me.
You are the one that is following me.
THIS IS MY AFFAIR so I am banning you now, DOUBLE LOSER.

Thanks,
S&S

Wyrd1

27th September 2002, 02:01 PM

That was quite some comeback Carlos. What about the smoke? Why doesn't it follow your paranormal object out the hole?

Hellbound

27th September 2002, 02:21 PM

Well, he's at the point now where he won't even release the evidence.

The company I work for specializes in graphics, so I have the equipment needed to digitize the tape and do a very good frame-by-frame analysis of it on a computer.

In the chat last night, I posted him two addresses to which he could send me the tape (an offer he made earlier, saying if we gave him an address he woudl send it).

He then refused, because I wouldn't give my full name, instead giving only a first name and a last initial.

So, Carlos, how about it? You can send the tape to:

(Address removed for privacy reasons. Request for evidence was refused by S&S)

Let's see it.

:)

27th September 2002, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Because I was busy by then.
Well, I can't let this pass. Carlos, please tell me where in my first post I did insult you. If I did, I'll have no problem in making a public apology to you, because it's not within my style to insult people.

Patricio:

On 08/27/2002 you put this thread on the forum with MY NAME on the title.

Here is a part of what you said that day, according to a talk with IJRAL on the chat the day before:

Patricio 08/27/02 :
"We had a long and calmed exchange in Spanish, and he said he was pissed with Randi, because in his opinion he (Randi) had lied to a claimant. I'd like to share my findings about the whole thing with all of you who still don't know about it"

As you see Patricio, again you were very fast translating a private talk with him in spanish, and posting the e-mails between the foundation and Carlos Swett.

The "ONLY THING" you forgot to translate was MY NOTARIZED APPLICATION,.

How can people in any forum of the world can emit judgements without looking to what "the other part is really claming?"

Well YOU did it, without posting the translated application, that's is an BIG insult for MY NAME .
Here are again your words in that same initial post of the thread:

Patricio 08/27/02:
"But first, my apologies to everyone who were in the room at that moment for not making an instant translation of the exchange. I was just unable to, because everything went too fast .
Mr. Swett repeatedly calls Randi a liar, but I really fail to see where Randi or Andrew may have lied on their replies. IMO Andrew's reply made perfect sense to the case.
I think this is another example of how badly a person (two persons in this case) can delude himself when strong emotions come "

How badly?, I asked YOU if I can post here what YOU wrote me in a private message, so people of THIS FORUM can see how YOU changed your mine about me, HARTER and RANDI. Can I ?

Was easy for YOU when I was not present at the forum, and your bad example of prejudgements gave other members (NOT ALL) the chance to insult me.

So you were busy by that time?
Was my enter in the forum (after 30 quotes of differents members) and was my insistence to YOU to do "FIRST THE FIRST" the motive that forced you to do the translation of my notarized application. In the "betweens " you had enough time to post several messages.(BUT NOT WHAT AN HONEST DEBATER MUST DO).

Now , you finally appears like a "saint" who had been "insulted", and crying and looking for mama.

Be man enough.

I, Carlos Swett (my real name) had been insulted by Randi, received a bunch of lies from Harter, insulted and banned with no reasons at the msn Skeptics Forum, answered ALL the questions in this forum, received insults from the clowns of ABC, entered the JREF chat, debate with anyone, support THE BIG SILENCE OF RANDI(is not a written word from him) about my application and his poor answer , my wife and children want the time I spend in this, etc., etc,BUT I AM STILL FIGHTING HERE.

In the middle of that "caos"exists persons of this forum that are really with the "inquietud" of analize the proper way the tape.

Those "FEW" persons are the main reason to see me keep on going, and I give them my thanks, and to all of the viewers of this thread.
Perhaps, those few members are who voted for Rwald in his "brainless" poll

Sorry Patricio, you asked and I just answer.

Thanks,
S&S

27th September 2002, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Well, he's at the point now where he won't even release the evidence.

The company I work for specializes in graphics, so I have the equipment needed to digitize the tape and do a very good frame-by-frame analysis of it on a computer.

In the chat last night, I posted him two addresses to which he could send me the tape (an offer he made earlier, saying if we gave him an address he woudl send it).

He then refused, because I wouldn't give my full name, instead giving only a first name and a last initial.

So, Carlos, how about it? You can send the tape to:

Thad B., Technology Dept.
11601 Otter Creek Road South
Mabelvale, AR 72103
USA

Let's see it.

:)

Who are you ? an initial? a nick name?
I give you a tip: ask JREF FOR MY TAPE, is mine and I am giving you my permission(CARLOS SWETT) to receive it in my name, besides the "amazing duo" are in silence about my application.

But that's not the big point : you are correct, THAT IS THE WAY or the correct method to analize the image: proffesional equipments.
I did it, HARTER DID NOT See now the difference?

But you are still failing in one point: "digitize the tape".
Is that a proof? I did it , too.
Rwald did it too ,BUT INSERT ON IT "HIS GALLOW HUMOR", so a digitize tape can be tricked.
The ONLY way is to go to your nearest tv station, ask for THEIR TAPE of the same shot and analize it with their own tv equipments. My tape is just a reference of the COMPLETE SEQUENCE, as I told JREF.

Who are you?Are you afraid of what?
You have my private e-mail

Thanks,
S&S

Patricio Elicer

27th September 2002, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by S&S
As you see Patricio, again you were very fast translating a private talk with him in spanishI did not translate anything the IJRAL said in the chat that night. I started the theard just to explain who IJRAL was, why he was so angry and what the whole issue was about, because people were confused about it.Originally posted by S&S
The "ONLY THING" you forgot to translate was MY NOTARIZED APPLICATION,.

How can people in any forum of the world can emit judgements without looking to what "the other part is really claming?"Well, you should have submitted your application in English in the first place. I'm not a translator and it's not an easy task for me to translate a long and technical document. I didn't forget to translate it, I just didn't consider it was worth the effort to do it, because I explained the case and posted a link to a self-explanatory animation. I also posted a link to your application, so that any really interested person could translate it.Originally posted by S&S
Well YOU did it, without posting the translated application, that's is an BIG insult for MY NAMEHmmmm... weird, I don't follow your rationale here. I didn't post your application on the internet, it was already there, I just linked it. If you were so interested in people knowing its details, you should've posted a translated version in the first place. As I said before, I explained what your case was, and considered it was sufficient for the people to understand it.Originally posted by S&S
I asked YOU if I can post here what YOU wrote me in a private message, so people of THIS FORUM can see how YOU changed your mine about me, HARTER and RANDI. Can I ?Oops, sorry I missed that request. Of course you can post here what I said to you in PM. I don't see where I changed my mind however.Originally posted by S&S
So you were busy by that time?
Was my enter in the forum (after 30 quotes of differents members) and was my insistence to YOU to do "FIRST THE FIRST" the motive that forced you to do the translation of my notarized application. In the "betweens " you had enough time to post several messages.(BUT NOT WHAT AN HONEST DEBATER MUST DO)Yes, I translated the application because you asked me to do it. Again, I didn't do it before because I didn't think it was so necessary for the people of the forum to understand your claim.Originally posted by S&S
Sorry Patricio, you asked and I just answer.Don't feel sorry, you just answered my question.

27th September 2002, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I I'm not a translator and it's not an easy task for me to translate a long and technical document. I didn't forget to translate it, I just didn't consider it was worth the effort to do it, because I explained the case and posted a link to a self-explanatory animation.

Hi Patricio: You are the official translator of this thread.

Don't forget what you said in your very first post:

Patricio 08/27/02:
"But first, my apologies to everyone who were in the room at that moment for not making an instant translation of the exchange. I was just unable to, because everything went too fast .

-----------------------------

You just DID a prejudgement without puting My notarized application, was your mistake. Is a fact chileno llorón.
You just are as Randi : AFRAID of the truth.

The "amazing silence" is getting bigger and bigger.

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

27th September 2002, 08:33 PM

Speaking of the "amazing silence"...

Last night, I emailed Randi's radio show about Carlos Swett. Randi mocked Carlos, and said, "Carlos, you're wrong, you're an idiot." He also commented that if Carlos had above a 3rd grade reading level, he might have been able to understand the rules. Now, I agree that Randi was insulting Carlos. There's no question about that. The key point is, Randi certainly was not silent about Carlos. So, all of Carlos's arguments about Randi's silence are completely unfounded.

Just like all the rest of Carlos's arguments.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps

Patricio Elicer

27th September 2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Last night, I emailed Randi's radio show about Carlos Swett. Thanks rwald for clarifying that point. I heard Randi's response, but I kept wondering about who sent the e-mail

27th September 2002, 09:10 PM

Please read.... This is Randi (09-27-2002 until 10-28-2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys, this is Randi - on Linda's nickel.

I don't get the time to check in here, but when I do, I'm pretty annoyed at some of what's going on. I refer to matters of good taste and consideration.

One example is "Franko." I've read posts in which half of his modifiers are vulgar and obscene. This doesn't shock me, because I take it as an indication that Franko just doesn't have the ability to express himself in more acceptable language, but it does annoy me, especially when I realize that others may be shocked and may resent it.

The LAST thing we want to do is to censor this forum. We also want to avoid the necessity of throwing anyone off. However, we may have to do some housekeeping if the situation continues as it is presently. PLEASE don't make this necessary.

We're about to post (or is it already up?) a set of guidelines that we believe to be very reasonable and acceptable. It's common sense: you're welcome here, to exchange ideas and thoughts --- but good manners and thoughtfulness count. Arguing can be done reasonably and soberly, without being nasty or cruel. We must do just that.

An added thought, while I have the floor: it seems to me that if someone avers that he or she simply "believes" something to be true or false, why should you spin your wheels carrying on that there's no "proof" for the belief? Blind belief, in my opinion, is dangerous and illogical, but that's one of the things we stand for: freedom of thought and belief. Disagree as much as we might, anyone can believe that God is a cabbage, lives in Duluth, and speaks French. We have to accept that statement of belief, though we may not endorse it. BUT: if that person states that he or she can PROVE it, let the fur fly.

Let's try to remember: "I believe this to be true, as a matter of faith, without any supporting evidence" is a statement that just can't be argued with; yes, you can argue with the logic of HAVING this kind of belief, but if it's "blind," it's unassailable.

That's just a suggestion to those who enter into fruitless harangues with persons who are satisfied and content with their beliefs. Wheel-spinning is a waste of intellect and time, in my opinion.

Oops. Been on too long. Just haven't the time to spend here, and I'm sorry that I won't be able to answer responses or comments on the above. Just not enough time. And you might consider sparing Jeff much of the avalanche of comments....?

I assume that EVERYONE here is going to be with us in January for the Amazing Meeting.....?

Make nice, folks.

James Randi.

Skeptoid

28th September 2002, 12:19 AM

I can't for the life of me figure out why you would expect Randi to say anything at all about Swett in this post. The topic of Randi's post was how he expects us to conduct ourselves on his forum. Besides, Randi has said all he needs to say about Swett's application.

You have no claim. Case closed. You and Swett are delusional and in denial. Do you really want to go to your graves with the words "poor answer" on your breath? Is Swett's pride hurt so badly that he must continue this charade in order to save face? This is how school children act. Drop this obsession of yours and go back to living a normal life.

Wyrd1

28th September 2002, 02:31 AM

Banned for no reason? With comments like these:
"insulted and banned with no reasons at the msn Skeptics Forum, answered ALL the questions in this forum, received insults from the clowns of ABC" YOU began the insults when we didn't post the answers you wanted and you were banned for the big lie "answered al questions in this forum..." You have still failed to answer my last question or any questions. Randi is right about his assessment of your mental state at the beginning of his dealings with you and since. You are nothing but a lying troll. You will not answer questions because you CANNOT and you lie because you have to. You have no answers you have no case. This whole idea you have cooked up is about the dumbest pile of crap I have ever seen. Of that you can be proud but no matter what else happens you aren't going to get your way. The biggest reason you were banned from the Skeptics Forum is because you will not understand that simple fact. Iggy told you many times that we couldn't help you talk to Randi even if we believed you and I doubt if any of the members of this forum, except the moderators perhaps, can help you either. By this time Randi is convinced, I'm sure, that you are just another crazy person. They answered your challenge and they are finished with you. Too bad you are too stupid and too immature to realize that and go away. Until then you're candidate for insults and derision. Have a nice day.

28th September 2002, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by rwald
Speaking of the "amazing silence"...

Last night, I emailed Randi's radio show about Carlos Swett. Randi mocked Carlos, and said, "Carlos, you're wrong, you're an idiot." He also commented that if Carlos had above a 3rd grade reading level, he might have been able to understand the rules. Now, I agree that Randi was insulting Carlos. There's no question about that. The key point is, Randi certainly was not silent about Carlos. So, all of Carlos's arguments about Randi's silence are completely unfounded.

Just like all the rest of Carlos's arguments.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps

Hi Rwald :

So now you became Randi's voice.

Is he afraid?Can be man enough to put that in words with his sign on it?

I Carlos Swett , I am not afraid, I told him FIRST directly to HIM that HE is a CHICKEN and a LOSER(in my case), that he has a poor - liar researcher like Andrew Harter, that they (both) used the most stupid method to analize the tape, THAT THEY NEVER TOLD ME THAT MY APPLICATION WAS NOT VALID, and that don't be worry for the MONEY, that the main reason is to find the TRUTH.

See the difference? I AM FRONTAL.

If all Randi's commentaries at SWIFT are about charlatans, IDIOTS, trolls and similars, WHY I am not there?

Randi : When are you going to put my notarized application and the poor answer you gave me, with your sign on it?
What are you afraid of?

You Rwald and similars ,told before that Randi NEVER read the posts at the forum, well is another lie from ABC.(Assiociation of Brainless Clowns).

Thanks,
S&S (Carlos Swett)

P.S.
Rwald , I know you are worry because of your 5 votes in the stupid poll you did.
You "think " that IJRAL and I voted for you.
And the others 3 votes?
I "think" were votes from Randi, Harter and Linda .
Investigate

Martin

28th September 2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by S&S

THEY NEVER TOLD ME THAT MY APPLICATION WAS NOT VALID

'You have no claim' - Andrew Harter

'Your application is closed' - James Randi

'Swett, you are a complete and utter moron' - MartinM

Doubt

28th September 2002, 10:29 AM

Swett,

You keep saying that they never told you your claim was not valid. Many people here have told you that the phrase “You have no claim” means the same thing. What about this don’t you understand? The word “valid” is not needed to convey the meaning.

There are many ways to express an idea in English. Here are a few others that Randi could have used. Many are informal.

Your claim amounts to nothing.
Your claim is invalid.
Your claim is not worth the paper it is written on.
Your claim is garbage.
Your claim and 50 cents could get you a cup of coffee.
Your claim will be stored in the circular file. (Circular file is a slang expression for garbage can.)
Your claim does not meet the rules of the challenge.
Your claim cannot be taken seriously.
Your claim does not amount to a hill of beans.
Your claim does not meet the criteria for the prize.

Do you still think Randi never told you your claim was invald? Or are you just playing semantic games?

Pyrrho

28th September 2002, 10:29 AM

Ahem. Carlos, at this time I would guess that Randi no longer gives a damn.

http://www.creakyjoints.com/graphics/

28th September 2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Ahem. Carlos, at this time I would guess that Randi no longer gives a damn.

http://www.creakyjoints.com/graphics/

Hi member of ABC:

Is he afraid?Can be man enough to put that in words with his sign on it?

I Carlos Swett , I am not afraid, I told him FIRST directly to HIM that HE is a CHICKEN and a LOSER(in my case), that he has a poor - liar researcher like Andrew Harter, that they (both) used the most stupid method to analize the tape, THAT THEY NEVER TOLD ME THAT MY APPLICATION WAS NOT VALID, and that don't be worry for the MONEY, that the main reason is to find the TRUTH.

See the difference? I AM FRONTAL.

If all Randi's commentaries at SWIFT are about charlatans, IDIOTS, trolls and similars, WHY I am not there?

Randi : When are you going to put my notarized application and the poor answer you gave me, with your sign on it?
What are you afraid of?

Thanks.
S&S (Carlos Swett)

Hellbound

28th September 2002, 10:39 AM

Let the record show that S&S aka Carlos Swett has again refused to make use of the address I provided, has asserted that it is not his responsibility to prove the claim he put forth or to provide evidence of it, and has resorted to simple name-calling and stalling tactics.

At this point, I will edit my previous post to remove my address. It is still available to him should he choose to use it.

RichardR

28th September 2002, 10:47 AM

Does S&S stand for Stubborn & Stupid? Simple & Shitforbrains? You have NOTHING. Repeating the same old crap ad infinitum doesn't make it valid. Go away you moron - it's over.

28th September 2002, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Let the record show that S&S aka Carlos Swett has again refused to make use of the address I provided, has asserted that it is not his responsibility to prove the claim he put forth or to provide evidence of it, and has resorted to simple name-calling and stalling tactics.

At this point, I will edit my previous post to remove my address. It is still available to him should he choose to use it.

Hi Huntman:

I already answered you. Is not my fault if you did not understand, my email is : swettcarlosluis@hotmail.com . I don´t have nothing to hide. I am really glad of your curiosity, is one of the few persons of this thread who is not worried if my application was valid or not.
That's the key of the question: see the complete unedited shot(the same that was transmmited live)

But I am going to remind you what I told you before:

"Who are you ? an initial? a nick name?
I gave you a tip: ask JREF FOR MY TAPE, is mine and I am giving you my permission(CARLOS SWETT) to receive it in my name, besides the "amazing duo" are in silence about my application.

But that's not the big point : you are correct, THAT IS THE WAY or the correct method to analize the image: PROFFESIONAL EQUIPMENTS.
I did it that way, HARTER DID NOT See now the difference?

But you are still failing in one point: "digitize the tape".
Is that a proof? I did it , too.
Rwald did it too ,BUT INSERT ON IT "HIS GALLOW HUMOR", so a digitize tape can be tricked.
The ONLY (unlest you recomend another)way is to go to your nearest tv station, ask for THEIR TAPE of the same shot and analize it with their own tv equipments. My tape is just a reference of the COMPLETE SEQUENCE, as I told JREF.

Who are you?Are you afraid of what?"

You have my private e-mail now

Thanks (and I mean it)
S&S

rwald

28th September 2002, 11:11 AM

Why should the JREF send Huntsman a copy of the tape? It's your claim. You need to prove it. The JREF has no responsibility in this matter.

And for the upteenth time, I agree that my "gallows humor" proved that a digital version of the tape can be corrupted. But still, if Huntsman had a full, 30-frame-per-second copy of the tape we could all look at, we could make some general assumptions from it. You could tell us if it were corrupted in any major way.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps

28th September 2002, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by rwald
Why should the JREF send Huntsman a copy of the tape? It's your claim. You need to prove it. The JREF has no responsibility in this matter.

And for the upteenth time, I agree that my "gallows humor" proved that a digital version of the tape can be corrupted. But still, if Huntsman had a full, 30-frame-per-second copy of the tape we could all look at, we could make some general assumptions from it. You could tell us if it were corrupted in any major way.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps

Hi Rwald(again):

Are You the official voice of Randi or the JREF?

You are just the secretary of ABC(ASSIOCIATION of Brainless Clowns).

Randi and Harter's answer ARE ALREADY CORRUPTED.

They used the incomplete INTERNET video to make a study and gave me a CORRUPTED ANSWER.
Is a fact.

Let Huntsman make his own decissions, he is smarter than you.
You are just a Randi's beleiver.

Thanks,
S&S

RichardR

28th September 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Rwald(again):

Are You the official voice of Randi or the JREF?

You are just the secretary of ABC(ASSIOCIATION of Brainless Clowns).

Randi and Harter's answer ARE ALREADY CORRUPTED.

They used the incomplete INTERNET video to make a study and gave me a CORRUPTED ANSWER.
Is a fact.

Let Huntsman make his own decissions, he is smarter than you.
You are just a Randi's beleiver.

Thanks,
S&S
http://www.barbneal.com/graphics/bugsani.gif
(Chews carrot.) What a maroon. :rolleyes:

28th September 2002, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by RichardR

http://www.barbneal.com/graphics/bugsani.gif
(Chews carrot.) What a maroon. :rolleyes:

Hi RichardR:

Joining the ABC? ......That's all ? insults?

I have seen some kinds of animals talking at this thread.The rabbit was missing.

I saw also Randi speaking through or using your secretary Rwald.

I am still waiting for HIM. I am not hurry.
Time is on my side.

Don't waste your time here , you are missing "the Looneytoons".

Thanks,
S&S

Shaun from Scotland

28th September 2002, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi RichardR:

Joining the ABC? ......That's all ? insults?

I have seen some kinds of animals talking at this thread.The rabbit was missing.

I saw also Randi speaking through or using your secretary Rwald.

I am still waiting for HIM. I am not hurry.
Time is on my side.

Don't waste your time here , you are missing "the Looneytoons".

Thanks,
S&S

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...................

Wheres my lapel badge by the way?

Pyrrho

28th September 2002, 02:27 PM

Folks, it is clear that Carlos will continue with the same arguments, insults, etc.

I suggest that we all abandon this thread. It serves no purpose other than to provide a platform for Carlos to spew endlessly.

As a Brilliant Chap, I'm smart enought to know when I'm dealing with the impossible.

So, I'm done with this jerk.

Don't feed the troll...

Shaun from Scotland

28th September 2002, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Folks, it is clear that Carlos will continue with the same arguments, insults, etc.

I suggest that we all abandon this thread. It serves no purpose other than to provide a platform for Carlos to spew endlessly.

As a Brilliant Chap, I'm smart enought to know when I'm dealing with the impossible.

So, I'm done with this jerk.

Don't feed the troll...

Does that mean we are going to disband?

Sniff, its the end of an era...its been great guys......sob

28th September 2002, 02:46 PM

Randi`s comments on the forum: Friday 27, September

Originally posted by latinijral
Please read.... This is Randi (09-27-2002 until 10-28-2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys, this is Randi - on Linda's nickel.

I don't get the time to check in here, but when I do, I'm pretty annoyed at some of what's going on. I refer to matters of good taste and consideration.

One example is "Franko." I've read posts in which half of his modifiers are vulgar and obscene. This doesn't shock me, because I take it as an indication that Franko just doesn't have the ability to express himself in more acceptable language, but it does annoy me, especially when I realize that others may be shocked and may resent it.

The LAST thing we want to do is to censor this forum. We also want to avoid the necessity of throwing anyone off. However, we may have to do some housekeeping if the situation continues as it is presently. PLEASE don't make this necessary.

We're about to post (or is it already up?) a set of guidelines that we believe to be very reasonable and acceptable. It's common sense: you're welcome here, to exchange ideas and thoughts --- but good manners and thoughtfulness count. Arguing can be done reasonably and soberly, without being nasty or cruel. We must do just that.

An added thought, while I have the floor: it seems to me that if someone avers that he or she simply "believes" something to be true or false, why should you spin your wheels carrying on that there's no "proof" for the belief? Blind belief, in my opinion, is dangerous and illogical, but that's one of the things we stand for: freedom of thought and belief. Disagree as much as we might, anyone can believe that God is a cabbage, lives in Duluth, and speaks French. We have to accept that statement of belief, though we may not endorse it. BUT: if that person states that he or she can PROVE it, let the fur fly.

Let's try to remember: "I believe this to be true, as a matter of faith, without any supporting evidence" is a statement that just can't be argued with; yes, you can argue with the logic of HAVING this kind of belief, but if it's "blind," it's unassailable.

That's just a suggestion to those who enter into fruitless harangues with persons who are satisfied and content with their beliefs. Wheel-spinning is a waste of intellect and time, in my opinion.

Oops. Been on too long. Just haven't the time to spend here, and I'm sorry that I won't be able to answer responses or comments on the above. Just not enough time. And you might consider sparing Jeff much of the avalanche of comments....?

I assume that EVERYONE here is going to be with us in January for the Amazing Meeting.....?

Make nice, folks.

James Randi.

Rwald and Patricio Elicer about Randi`s comments on the radio: Thursday 26, September:

Speaking of the "amazing silence"...

Last night, I emailed Randi's radio show about Carlos Swett. Randi mocked Carlos, and said, "Carlos, you're wrong, you're an idiot." He also commented that if Carlos had above a 3rd grade reading level, he might have been able to understand the rules. Now, I agree that Randi was insulting Carlos. There's no question about that. The key point is, Randi certainly was not silent about Carlos. So, all of Carlos's arguments about Randi's silence are completely unfounded.

Just like all the rest of Carlos's arguments.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps

Thanks rwald for clarifying that point. I heard Randi's response, but I kept wondering about who sent the e-mail

Patricio Elicer

Who are the liars and the chickens?????????????????????????????????????????? ????

Skeptoid

28th September 2002, 02:48 PM

Awww shucks. I came late to the game and Carlos hasn't called me a clown yet. But it would be an interesting experiment to see if a troll in the wild begins to talk to himself when abandoned. That'll be the working hypothesis. The only control this little experiment needs is self-control. In the interest of science, don't feed the troll and let's sit back and see what happens.

28th September 2002, 02:55 PM

Randi`s page:

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

CSSMariner

28th September 2002, 06:31 PM

I ran into Senor Carlos_Swett in the Chat Room this week, and he claimed he was coming to the Amazing Meeting. With such nuts around we may have to look into beefing up security, which is the reason I will be there all three days in order to deal with nut cases if the need arises.

Shaun from Scotland

28th September 2002, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by latinijral
Randi`s page:

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

My page:

STFU

CSSMariner

28th September 2002, 07:20 PM

Is what true?

My post, or the quote about the JREF? I was sparring with no sweat with Swett. He split.

I will be there all three days, and watching for the Swett geek. I know you from the Emails you send in to the Radio Show, I'm Ken, sometimes "The Arm," and sometimes at the forum table when one of the prime movers is missing.

28th September 2002, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner
I ran into Senor Carlos_Swett in the Chat Room this week, and he claimed he was coming to the Amazing Meeting. With such nuts around we may have to look into beefing up security, which is the reason I will be there all three days in order to deal with nut cases if the need arises.

Hi CSS Mariner :

Asking for help?
Are you also afraid of me?
are you Randi's bodyguard ?
Are you a wrestler of WWA?
Are you a mafia's member?
Does the CSS in your nick stands for Carlos Swett Salas (CSS) ?
Do you have a brain or are you just a "gorilla"? Sorry for the reals gorillas.

I am still waiting .I am not afraid: losers.

Thanks,
S&S

CWL

29th September 2002, 09:08 AM

Wyrd1

29th September 2002, 09:10 AM

"and that don't be worry for the MONEY, that the main reason is to find the TRUTH."
This is a lie. The truth was explained to you many times and you ignore it. You can only be interested in the money. At this time I will follow the advice of others and stop feeding the Troll. Goodbye Carlos Swett. Goodbye latinijral, also Carlos Swett. You boys have fun.

rwald

29th September 2002, 09:28 AM

Actually, some of us theorize that Carlos is interested in publicity. Remember, he always insists that Randi write about him in the commentary.

CSSMariner

29th September 2002, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi CSS Mariner :

Asking for help?
Are you also afraid of me?
are you Randi's bodyguard ?
Are you a wrestler of WWA?
Are you a mafia's member?
Does the CSS in your nick stands for Carlos Swett Salas (CSS) ?
Do you have a brain or are you just a "gorilla"? Sorry for the reals gorillas.

I am still waiting .I am not afraid: losers.

Thanks,
S&S

"Help?" Not necessary
"Afraid?" Hardly
"Bodyguard?" If necessary
"Wrestler?" Ha!
"Mafia's?" ???
"CSS" = Confederate States Ship
"Gorilla Brain?" We are all decendents of a common ape, but some nut cases have experienced retarted development somewhere in their genetic background. The old world monkeys still live in the southern American continent.

I said I would be there, and that is all that is necesary for the nut cases to know.

29th September 2002, 01:13 PM

I took this picture from the screen when i visited a local tv station on my country Chile. I follow Swett`s instructions.
I see the paranormal object traveling inthru the smoke and get in the first tower(dissapears) and then get out(appears again) with an incredible speed.

rwald

29th September 2002, 01:15 PM

OH MY GOD!!! Did latinijral actually type new material? Did he not just quote someone else? I didn't think it was possible!!! At this rate, we should have Carlos convinced of reality in no time!

29th September 2002, 01:30 PM

I POSTED THIS MESSAGE AGAIN BECAUSE THE OFICIAL SPEAKER OF RANDI IS IN SILENCE TOO.

Originally posted by latinijral
I took this picture from the screen when i visited a local tv station on my country Chile. I follow Swett`s instructions.
I see the paranormal object traveling inthru the smoke and get in the first tower(dissapears) and then get out(appears again) with an incredible speed.

CSSMariner

29th September 2002, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by latinijral
I took this picture from the screen when i visited a local tv station on my country Chile. I follow Swett`s instructions.
I see the paranormal object traveling inthru the smoke and get in the first tower(dissapears) and then get out(appears again) with an incredible speed.

What an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1. We have action, as it happened, pictures of the two aircraft flying into the buildings. Two Boeing 767 airplanes caused the fires and the fires caused the buildings to collapse.

#2. The buildings were already burning when the supposed "Paranormal object," what ever the hell that means, was captured on digital cameras "flying through the buildings." The buildings were already on fire. If the "Paranormal object" did the damage, the smoke got into the air in anticipation of the object.

#3. The object is a bird flying through the range of the camera and very close to the photographer and creating the black streak. We can duplicate the phenomena. The same crap was presented by other equally gullible individuals for "Rods" that flew through pictures. There is nothing paranormal about it, other than the idiotic ideas of believers in same.

#4. Randi and the JREF are not "silent" about Swett's claim, it was further ridiculed on the internet radio show last Thursday. I know because I was there participating. When the archives are posted, I am "Ken." We all got a good laugh out of Senor Swett's claim.

#5. Now let's depart from reality into the paranormal for a nanosecond, no more, and say that Senor Swett actually saw what he claims. That means he had nothing to do with the paranormal object, as he only saw it on TV. Now we all know that everything we see on TV is real, HA! BS!!!!!!. That means that Senor Swett did not have any part in the action, did not cause them to fly through the buildings, did not direct them, in fact did nothing. So why is he in anticipation of winning anything????

Get a life folks!!!!!

The only thing you deserve is ridicule and laughter, but you do provide some entertainment on this end, we all need a good laugh at times.

29th September 2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner

What an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1. We have action, as it happened, pictures of the two aircraft flying into the buildings. Two Boeing 767 airplanes caused the fires and the fires caused the buildings to collapse.

#2. The buildings were already burning when the supposed "Paranormal object," what ever the hell that means, was captured on digital cameras "flying through the buildings." The buildings were already on fire. If the "Paranormal object" did the damage, the smoke got into the air in anticipation of the object.

#3. The object is a bird flying through the range of the camera and very close to the photographer and creating the black streak. We can duplicate the phenomena. The same crap was presented by other equally gullible individuals for "Rods" that flew through pictures. There is nothing paranormal about it, other than the idiotic ideas of believers in same.

#4. Randi and the JREF are not "silent" about Swett's claim, it was further ridiculed on the internet radio show last Thursday. I know because I was there participating. When the archives are posted, I am "Ken." We all got a good laugh out of Senor Swett's claim.

#5. Now let's depart from reality into the paranormal for a nanosecond, no more, and say that Senor Swett actually saw what he claims. That means he had nothing to do with the paranormal object, as he only saw it on TV. Now we all know that everything we see on TV is real, HA! BS!!!!!!. That means that Senor Swett did not have any part in the action, did not cause them to fly through the buildings, did not direct them, in fact did nothing. So why is he in anticipation of winning anything????

Get a life folks!!!!!

The only thing you deserve is ridicule and laughter, but you do provide some entertainment on this end, we all need a good laugh at times.

Hi CSS Mariner:

You said you were a member of Randi's bodyguard.
As I know bodyguards have a job to do: laugh when his boss laugh, cry when his boss tell them to do it, but mainly protect the boss.

But YOU mariner , just entered in this thread and made a big mistake : or you didn't read the application and Harter¡s poor answer or you read but you didn't understand your reading.

Let your boss write about Swett's challenge because what you are assuming tells what your really job is about: protection and the use of violence. I know is a well paid job and legal, but please concentrate in your "instint"like a real bodyguard.
Or if you can , read again and don't forget that the best part is to understand my application.

Thanks (or thank you)
S&S

rwald

29th September 2002, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by S&S
you didn't read the application and Harter¡s poor answer or you read but you didn't understand your reading.
You don't understand how ironic it is for you to say this, Carlos. You apparently haven't ever read the rules, or if you have, you "didn't understand your reading." But still, you think you can blame someone else for being unable to read! This is hilarious!

Dr. Imago

29th September 2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by S&S
But YOU mariner , just entered in this thread and made a big mistake : or you didn't read the application and Harter¡s poor answer or you read but you didn't understand your reading.
...

Thanks (or thank you)
S&S

Phil? Is this Phil Hendrie? Come on "Carlos", 'fess up! :D

Nonetheless... Hasn't this been going on long enough? What satisfaction do you hope to get by continuing this sad debacle? It's not even funny anymore. Do you think you're winning? Or, are you having a fantastically good laugh at all our expense? Either way, enough is enough. I left this discussion, it seems like, weeks ago and you still haven't gotten anywhere. This is no longer humorous, entertaining, or even worthwhile. It's just pathetic. And, you're wasting precious server space.

CSSMariner

29th September 2002, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi CSS Mariner:

You said you were a member of Randi's bodyguard.
As I know bodyguards have a job to do: laugh when his boss laugh, cry when his boss tell them to do it, but mainly protect the boss.

S&S I am a volunteer at the JREF, therefore if I have a "Boss" it is myself. I am not a hired bodyguard, but if the occasion should arise, I have no problem performing the function. I laugh so much that I cry at such stupidity as the claim of "Paranormal" things flying through the WTC Towers.

But YOU mariner , just entered in this thread and made a big mistake : or you didn't read the application and Harter¡s poor answer or you read but you didn't understand your reading.

I understand that claims of "Paranormal" things are pure BS!!!!!

Let your boss write about Swett's challenge because what you are assuming tells what your really job is about: protection and the use of violence. I know is a well paid job and legal, but please concentrate in your "instint"like a real bodyguard.
Or if you can , read again and don't forget that the best part is to understand my application.

Thanks (or thank you)

As I said, I am a volunteer, and a paid member of the JREF, and receive no compensation other than the pleasure of Randi's company and friendship of other like-minded people at the JREF. If I am well paid, it is from my own company, and none of your business. What is "instint" by the way? I don't have to read such nonsense to know from the very start that the writer is a fool.

RichardR

29th September 2002, 05:14 PM

(Don't feed the trolls.)

This was a public service announcement.

29th September 2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin

Phil? Is this Phil Hendrie? Come on "Carlos", 'fess up! :D

Nonetheless... Hasn't this been going on long enough? What satisfaction do you hope to get by continuing this sad debacle? It's not even funny anymore. Do you think you're winning? Or, are you having a fantastically good laugh at all our expense? Either way, enough is enough. I left this discussion, it seems like, weeks ago and you still haven't gotten anywhere. This is no longer humorous, entertaining, or even worthwhile. It's just pathetic. And, you're wasting precious server space.

Hi Third Twin:

You are correct. I repect you. YOu made me reasonable questions before and all of them were answerd by me.

You NEVER used the insult as an arm and I did the same to you and to the members that were in that position.

But try to understand me now, all I receive is a bunch of insutts and no reasonable or debating arguments as you did.
The one who started this PATHETIC kind of debate at this thread was "thatguywhojuggles" and was followed by the guys of who I named as the ABC. Is a fact , I only respond them with their same arms.

BUT the real person who started this PATHETIC kind of debate, was JAMES RANDi , and you know he FIRST started the insults at his first e-mail, the second person was ANDREW HARTER with his answer fuull of lies and how he used a poor method to aanalize the tape.

I am the first person dissapointed of the kind of persons (not all) I met at this thread, their low culture and education, not arguments to make a real debate, no objectives, more concerned in the rules than in wactching debate if what I was claiming is true or not. That is really PATHETIC.

The MAIN REASON for being still here is that is demostrated that HARTER gave me a n answer full of lies , JAMES RANDI insulted me first with no reason.
At least what a man who lies to another one and that presumes to be honest can do, is GIVE ME PRIVATE OR PUBLIC EXCUSES.
That is what honor is about .
How can we start to idealize a new world?
BE HONEST FIRST.

Thanks Third twin for your mature words, I am tired too, I miss the hours I should be spending with my family, but when you fight for the honor of your name you can sacrifice time.
The money means nothing to me, and you know it.

Thank YOU (thanks)

S&S

P.S. Who is Phil Hendrie?

CSSMariner

29th September 2002, 06:48 PM

Good idea Richard, not to feed the trolls that is. Piss off Carlos et all. You are not wirth the sweat, or Swett that is, from my cajones.

29th September 2002, 07:04 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ThirdTwin

Phil? Is this Phil Hendrie? Come on "Carlos", 'fess up!

Nonetheless... Hasn't this been going on long enough? What satisfaction do you hope to get by continuing this sad debacle? It's not even funny anymore. Do you think you're winning? Or, are you having a fantastically good laugh at all our expense? Either way, enough is enough. I left this discussion, it seems like, weeks ago and you still haven't gotten anywhere. This is no longer humorous, entertaining, or even worthwhile. It's just pathetic. And, you're wasting precious server space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third Twin:

You are correct. I repect you. YOu made me reasonable questions before and all of them were answerd by me.

You NEVER used the insult as an arm and I did the same to you and to the members that were in that position.

But try to understand me now, all I receive is a bunch of insutts and no reasonable or debating arguments as you did.
The one who started this PATHETIC kind of debate at this thread was "thatguywhojuggles" and was followed by the guys of who I named as the ABC. Is a fact , I only respond them with their same arms.

BUT the real person who started this PATHETIC kind of debate, was JAMES RANDi , and you know he FIRST started the insults at his first e-mail, the second person was ANDREW HARTER with his answer fuull of lies and how he used a poor method to aanalize the tape.

I am the first person dissapointed of the kind of persons (not all) I met at this thread, their low culture and education, not arguments to make a real debate, no objectives, more concerned in the rules than in wactching debate if what I was claiming is true or not. That is really PATHETIC.

The MAIN REASON for being still here is that is demostrated that HARTER gave me a n answer full of lies , JAMES RANDI insulted me first with no reason.
At least what a man who lies to another one and that presumes to be honest can do, is GIVE ME PRIVATE OR PUBLIC EXCUSES.
That is what honor is about .
How can we start to idealize a new world?
BE HONEST FIRST.

Thanks Third twin for your mature words, I am tired too, I miss the hours I should be spending with my family, but when you fight for the honor of your name you can sacrifice time.
The money means nothing to me, and you know it.

Thank YOU (thanks)

S&S

P.S. Who is Phil Hendrie?

__________________
" We never said that it must have been a bird, or that Harter's guess must have been correct. All we're saying is that it was almost certainly a natural phenomanon, not a paranormal one". Rwald

CWL

30th September 2002, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by S&S
Thanks
Originally posted by S&S
Thanks (or thank you)
Originally posted by S&S
Thank YOU (thanks)

Great, you're definetely making progress! I would say that you're getting there... however, still not 100 % accurate. A simple "Thank you" will suffice - no signature. Like so:

Thank you.

30th September 2002, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by latinijral
Randi`s comments on the forum: Friday 27, September

Rwald, Patricio Elicer and CSS Mariner about Randi`s comments on the radio: Thursday 26, September:

Speaking of the "amazing silence"...

Last night, I emailed Randi's radio show about Carlos Swett. Randi mocked Carlos, and said, "Carlos, you're wrong, you're an idiot." He also commented that if Carlos had above a 3rd grade reading level, he might have been able to understand the rules. Now, I agree that Randi was insulting Carlos. There's no question about that. The key point is, Randi certainly was not silent about Carlos. So, all of Carlos's arguments about Randi's silence are completely unfounded.

Just like all the rest of Carlos's arguments.

rwald
Corresponding Secretary of the Association of Brilliant Chaps

Thanks rwald for clarifying that point. I heard Randi's response, but I kept wondering about who sent the e-mail

Patricio Elicer

Randi and the JREF are not "silent" about Swett's claim, it was further ridiculed on the internet radio show last Thursday. I know because I was there participating. When the archives are posted, I am "Ken." We all got a good laugh out of Senor Swett's claim.

Apication recieved: april 4 Randi open his mouth: september 26(???)
Who are the liars and the chickens?????????????????????????????????????????? ????

I POSTED THIS MESSAGE AGAIN BECAUSE THE OFICIAL SPEAKER OF RANDI IS IN SILENCE TOO.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral
I took this picture from the screen when i visited a local tv station on my country Chile. I follow Swett`s instructions.
I see the paranormal object traveling inthru the smoke and get in the first tower(dissapears) and then get out(appears again) with an incredible speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30th September 2002, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by CWL

[/b]
[/b]

Great, you're definetely making progress! I would say that you're getting there... however, still not 100 % accurate. A simple "Thank you" will suffice - no signature. Like so:

Thank you. [/B]

Hi CWL:

I "think" you are most worried of my english. I appreciate your advice at that point. But remember english is not my native language. I already explained that in a reply to DE-BUNK

When I wrote in all my posts "thanks" was directed to ALL THE MEMBERS who read this thread, not to a specific one.

Is that correct or I should said it in another way?

I "supposed " also, that you have a definition about the legal part but mainly to what I am claiming on the video, and the poor answer Harter gave me with the aprooval of James Randi.

Thank you CWL, or

Thanks,

S&S

CWL

30th September 2002, 09:51 AM

"Thank you" will work fine for those purposes as "you" is in fact both singular and plural. The phrase "Thank you" would thus certainly qualify as a sign of gratitute directed to any and all members of this forum. Not only that, but in addition thereto the phrase would add a certain - let's call it - "quality stamp" as to your assertions, well know to the readers of this thread who will recall the postings of a certain Japanese claimant.

Thank you.

30th September 2002, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by CWL
"Thank you" will work fine for those purposes as "you" is in fact both singular and plural. The phrase "Thank you" would thus certainly qualify as a sing of gratitute directed to any and all members of this forum. In addition thereto the phrase would add a certain - let's call it - "quality stamp" as to your assertions, well know to the readers of this thread who will recall the postings of a certain Japanese claimant.

Thank you.

Hi again CWL:

So I was not wrong , I said "thanks" because Is directed to "all the members", besides this thread have MY NAME on it.

I fight only for my honor, I don´t like lies or insults that have my name involved on it. And that goes specially to ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI.

That was the way I was educated and that is the way I educate my children. We can debate with reasonable arguments but if someone uses the "troll method" I have a fine irony to beat them also.

No. I am not japanese. I am proud to be from a peaceful country :ECUADOR, and from a city that opens his port to everyone in the world: GUAYAQUIL.
And I will more proud the day the frontiers, wars and ignorance dissappear from this still beautiful planet.

Thank you CWL

Thanks.

S&S

30th September 2002, 10:12 AM

----
I don´t like lies or insults that have my name involved on it. And that goes specially to ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI.
----

Andrew saw the video earlier than you did. Maybe he gets the million dollars?

IggyK

30th September 2002, 10:25 AM

Latin, did you take any pictures that show the object as it exits the hole where it it appears to be half in and half out of the hole. If you can post pictures showing that it would help us see what you are talking about. I've searched the net and cannot find such pictures. If you still have your original tape can you try to get those pictures.

CWL

30th September 2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Thank you CWL

Thanks.

S&S

Thank you.

30th September 2002, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Whodini
----
I don´t like lies or insults that have my name involved on it. And that goes specially to ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI.
----

Andrew saw the video earlier than you did. Maybe he gets the million dollars?

Hi Whodini:

Perhaps you are a little wrong : Millions of people around the world saw it, remember was transmmited "live" THE EVENT even to my country.

The point is that I made the OBSERVATION of the "paranormal activity", the SAME WEEK of that tragic day, and I was interviewd by a tv channel ,in their own set , with their proffessional equipments and analizing their OWN 3/4 tape, and giving THEM the notice of the phenomenon on their NEWS program. That interview was ALSO on the tape I send to JREF.

How do you know that Harter analize the video before? Do you have any proof? Where are his commentaries about it?

What Andrew Harter said in his answer to me was :
"I studied it "frame by frame" from a video that is available on the INTERNET , a bird could certainly be the culprit, there is nothing supernatural taking place"

As YOU all agree He , ANDREW HARTER (JREF) used a poor, poor method of analisis.

Do you know the date the video of that shot was introduced at the internet?

Have you compare the videos?

Is the internet video with the complete scene ( just before the plane crashed the building)?

Did you compared the resolution of the video on internet with the 3/4 or betacam video the tv networks have?

Have you seen the scene in a wide screen television?

Have you used proffessional equipments to see the shot?

And I am not talking about the lies of HARTER or the insults of Randi.

And you Whodini are worried about the million papers.

Thank you Whodini

Thanks.

S&S

30th September 2002, 12:23 PM

----
Perhaps you are a little wrong : Millions of people around the world saw it, remember was transmmited "live" THE EVENT even to my country.
----

Oh yes, but see, it happened in the US, in NY, so maybe the person with the video camara should get your money?

----
The point is that I made the OBSERVATION of the "paranormal activity", the SAME WEEK of that tragic day,
----

You just assume it is a 'paranormal event', but this hasn't been shown to be true.

----
and I was interviewd by a tv channel ,in their own set , with their proffessional equipments and analizing their WN 3/4 tape, and giving THEM the notice of the phenomenon on their NEWS program. That interview was ALSO on the tape I send to JREF.
----

You can see the video on any tv, any number of times, with whoever you want to. -That won't make it a paranormal event, nor make it eligible for the JREF challenge.

----
How do you know that Harter analize the video before? Do you have any proof? Where are his commentaries about it?
----

I'm not sure Andrew is into looking at videos that way ...

----
What Andrew Harter said in his answer to me was :
"I studied it "frame by frame" from a video that is available on the INTERNET , a bird could certainly be the culprit, there is nothing supernatural taking place"

As YOU all agree He , ANDREW HARTER (JREF) used a poor, poor method of analisis.
----

No, I do not agree. You can look at it on any video and the hypothesis of a bird passing infront of the camera close at a high speed makes sense, and the results can be duplicated.

----
And you Whodini are worried about the million papers.
----

I'm worried about it never being won.

rwald

30th September 2002, 02:48 PM

It doesn't matter if we say it was a "poor method." As you've pointed out frequently, the only thing that matters is what Randi and Harter think. And apparently, Andrew thought it was a good method. If you disagree, you need to bring it up with him.

30th September 2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Perhaps you are a little wrong : Millions of people around the world saw it, remember was transmmited "live" THE EVENT even to my country.
----

Oh yes, but see, it happened in the US, in NY, so maybe the person with the video camara should get your money?

----
The point is that I made the OBSERVATION of the "paranormal activity", the SAME WEEK of that tragic day,
----

You just assume it is a 'paranormal event', but this hasn't been shown to be true.

----
and I was interviewd by a tv channel ,in their own set , with their proffessional equipments and analizing their WN 3/4 tape, and giving THEM the notice of the phenomenon on their NEWS program. That interview was ALSO on the tape I send to JREF.
----

You can see the video on any tv, any number of times, with whoever you want to. -That won't make it a paranormal event, nor make it eligible for the JREF challenge.

----
How do you know that Harter analize the video before? Do you have any proof? Where are his commentaries about it?
----

I'm not sure Andrew is into looking at videos that way ...

----
What Andrew Harter said in his answer to me was :
"I studied it "frame by frame" from a video that is available on the INTERNET , a bird could certainly be the culprit, there is nothing supernatural taking place"

As YOU all agree He , ANDREW HARTER (JREF) used a poor, poor method of analisis.
----

No, I do not agree. You can look at it on any video and the hypothesis of a bird passing infront of the camera close at a high speed makes sense, and the results can be duplicated.

----
And you Whodini are worried about the million papers.
----

I'm worried about it never being won.

Hi Whodini:

Thank you for bringing and come back to the "the old style" of this thread, no insults and real debating points.

Well. I just came from home watching an interview to one of my favorites USA film makers : JOHN WATERS , at channel FILM AND ARTS.
I know that doesn't have to do with this thread but I am going to answer your reply with another respectable reply of a respectable member of this forum : RWALD; and I will try to "shot two birds with one bullit"(please don't get this litterally)
--------
Rwald : "It doesn't matter if we say it was a "poor method." As you've pointed out frequently, the only thing that matters is what Randi and Harter think. And apparently, Andrew thought it was a good method. If you disagree, you need to bring it up with him."
-------

Well, I Carlos SWETT don't care what Harter and Randi "think".
The "truth" is about something else, no about what "the amazing duo " thinks.
They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that. And I am not talking now about their lies and insults

Thank you Whodini
Thank you Rwald
Thanks,
S&S

rwald

30th September 2002, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by S&S
They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that.
Who says that their method wasn't "correct and proper"? Did they ever agree with you about what a "correct and proper" method would be? According to the rules:
Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. (emphasis added)
Did the JREF ever agree upon what would be demonstrated? Did they ever agree upon what would constitute both a positive and a negative result? If they did, please tell us all. If they didn't, admit once and for all that you never followed the rules to become an applicant, and therefore, you never were an applicant. Once you do that, we may discuss your tape.

30th September 2002, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by rwald

Who says that their method wasn't "correct and proper"? Did they ever agree with you about what a "correct and proper" method would be?

Hi Rwald:

Thank you for quiting that stuff of the ABC.

Well, I am going to answer you with posts of members of this forum , from the real origins of this thread, before I joined the forum:

Originally posted by BUDDDYH 08-27-2002
"I think the correct response from Randi should have been (or at least somewhere in the original response): "Our award is for a demonstration of paranormal activity. A videotape does not constitute a demonstration." End of discussion.

Originally posted by THANZ 08-27-2002
"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."

There are more examples Rwald, but I just put 2 of them that were send the same day 08-27-2002
Remember I started writing in this forum at 08-29-2002

I am here fighting for my honor and my name. I've been lied and insulted by Andrew Harter and James Randi.
They lost . Is a fact. I only want their public excuses.
That's all (....?)

Thank you Rwald
Thanks,
S&S

rwald

30th September 2002, 06:14 PM

It doesn't matter what BUDDDYH thinks. It doesn't matter what THANZ thinks. It doesn't even matter what I think. If Andrew thought that his method was "correct and proper," then that's all that matters.

Actually, a few times, when people asked you for copies of the video, you said that you didn't need to prove yourself to us; you only needed to prove yourself to Randi. Well, if you don't want to prove yourself to us, then clearly our opinions don't matter.

If you want me to find an actual quote, I'd be glad to.

30th September 2002, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by rwald
It doesn't matter what BUDDDYH thinks. It doesn't matter what THANZ thinks. It doesn't even matter what I think. If Andrew thought that his method was "correct and proper," then that's all that matters.
.

Hi Rwald:

I will tell you what "I think":

I "think" you are doing well in a position as a Randi's beleiver, but this is a forum to debate ideas and give facts.
Well, I Carlos SWETT don't care what Harter and Randi "think".

The "truth" is about something else, no about what "the amazing duo " thinks.

They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that. And I am not talking now about their lies and insults

Thank you again Rwald
Thanks,
S&S

rwald

30th September 2002, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by S&S
They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that.
Who defines what a "correct or proper" method is? Not the members of this forum. A "correct and proper" method is worked out as an agreement between you and Randi. Since you never made an agreement, there is no definition of a "correct and proper" method.

RichardR

30th September 2002, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by rwald

Who defines what a "correct or proper" method is? Not the members of this forum. A "correct and proper" method is worked out as an agreement between you and Randi. Since you never made an agreement, there is no definition of a "correct and proper" method.

Again Hi, Rwald:

I told JREF in my notarized application what is the correct method to analize the tape. I did it.
Harter did not, he USED THAT STUPID AND POOR METHOD OF STUDY THE TAPE ON INTERNET, and made a poor conclution based on that poor method and gave me a poor answer based in lies and with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI.

Only thanks,

S&S

Charlie in Dayton

1st October 2002, 12:50 AM

I must say, the night's session on IRC was a real rasslin' match. Carlos Swett was there, along with his sidekick LatinIjral (sporting the chat room nick 'yes_james_randi_is_a_liar'...how clever...). I've determined to adopt the position of the calm and dispassionate individual in this particular go-round. I've seen the little Internet video of the incident in question, and I have to say there's not enough data to make any sort of conclusion on...I'm going to have to see a regulation video tape of things.

There was one particular thing that pickled me tink tonight, though. I asked Carlos the following:
i don't expect an immediate answer, as the question will require some reflection. what evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?

Friends and neighbors, you should have seen the ducking, dodging, wiggling, squirming, and evading that followed that question. Over the course of the evening, Carlos tried changing the subject, he put the Internet moves on MaryThierry, accused me of being an abused child, of being mentally ill, of being homosexual, of having already answered the question (which he hadn't), hollered for Sauron and darin to help him as I'd lost control, and a few other things, all to avoid answering the question.

He never answered.

I didn't let him go. Over the course of the evening, I asked him the question again and again, eventually asking/typing out the question TWENTY SEPARATE TIMES, and countless other times telling him to stop evading and answer the question.

He never did.

He demanded I post the question here numerous times. I refused, stating that he and I were there in real time, and that he should answer it right there.

He never did.

Eventually, he just signed off, without answering the question.

Someone taught me how to enable the log files of my IRC program, so I have the entire session saved. I've separated out tonight's session IN ITS ENTIRETY, from when I logged on to when I logged off, and saved it as a simple text file. It is rather long at 94kb, and covers a long conversation with a few of us hangers-on on a couple other subjects, but to preserve the integrity of things I have it from my logon to my logoff, with each end time-stamped. Other than to copy tonite's session in total from the master log, it has not been edited in any way.

Anyone who wishes a copy of this session can simply pm me with their email address, and I'll send you a copy. Or, maybe some kind soul will temporarily put it up as a page on their website for some little while, so we can all read Carlos's antics.

By the way...I intend to show up on IRC again, and ask the question again, with the non-response count starting at 21.

rwald

1st October 2002, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by S&S
I told JREF in my notarized application what is the correct method to analize the tape. I did it.
Harter did not, he USED THAT STUPID AND POOR METHOD OF STUDY THE TAPE ON INTERNET, and made a poor conclution based on that poor method and gave me a poor answer based in lies and with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI.
Did Randi and Harter ever agree to your method? Just because you told them what you think is the "correct method" doesn't count; they need to agree with you. Did they?

And RichardR: Do you realize how hard that is?

1st October 2002, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
I must say, the night's session on IRC was a real rasslin' match. Carlos Swett was there, along with his sidekick LatinIjral (sporting the chat room nick 'yes_james_randi_is_a_liar'...how clever...). I've determined to adopt the position of the calm and dispassionate individual in this particular go-round. I've seen the little Internet video of the incident in question, and I have to say there's not enough data to make any sort of conclusion on...I'm going to have to see a regulation video tape of things.

There was one particular thing that pickled me tink tonight, though. I asked Carlos the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't expect an immediate answer, as the question will require some reflection. what evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friends and neighbors, you should have seen the ducking, dodging, wiggling, squirming, and evading that followed that question. Over the course of the evening, Carlos tried changing the subject, he put the Internet moves on MaryThierry, accused me of being an abused child, of being mentally ill, of being homosexual, of having already answered the question (which he hadn't), hollered for Sauron and darin to help him as I'd lost control, and a few other things, all to avoid answering the question.

He never answered.

I didn't let him go. Over the course of the evening, I asked him the question again and again, eventually asking/typing out the question TWENTY SEPARATE TIMES, and countless other times telling him to stop evading and answer the question.

He never did.

He demanded I post the question here numerous times. I refused, stating that he and I were there in real time, and that he should answer it right there.

He never did.

Eventually, he just signed off, without answering the question.

Anyone who wishes a copy of this session can simply pm me with their email address, and I'll send you a copy. Or, maybe some kind soul will temporarily put it up as a page on their website for some little while, so we can all read Carlos's antics.

By the way...I intend to show up on IRC again, and ask the question again, with the non-response count starting at 21.

Hi Charlie in Dayton (CID at the chat) :

It "seems"to me that all this "headache" you got yesterday could be avoid if you just post your "QUESTION" here as I told you yesterday 21 separate times plus two answers yuo "didn't" found in that confused chat.

Who do you think you are ? A special member? all the members of THIS FORUM deserves to know my answer.That's all.

I told YOU yesterday the answer is at my translated application,
I am going to do a special favor to you because it "seems" to me you got a kind of trauma with this thread, you are acting like a "child" crying for his "teta"

My application clearly says :

"....In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.

We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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.

If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth..

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.
---------------------------------------------------

As you can see your question is already answered. You must read it slowly and you will find the reasons that are disturbing your mind.

Is not my fault that YOU can not analize that in the stupid internet video, but perhaps consoles you that even ANDREW HARTER (JREF RESEARCHER) did that stupid and poor method and was based in that to give ME an answer full of lies.

I hope you will find your friend who works at a tv station , as you told me in a P.M. you send me before. You are in the correct way to analize the video, just relax.

As people knows I usually use the chat to relax me, to talk preferible of another subjects : religion, egiptians, mind and brain, plants, science, art, culture, sex , etc., I have even debate with LUCIFUGE in best terms, to whom I recognized I had personal insulted replies(with "reasons" on it)

But if you insists to me 21 times of a thing I have already answer, even I that have patient to deal with several "minds" and "brains" at this threat, sometimes like yesterday I asked myself "what 's wrong with EL CID?"

Thank you Charlie,

Thanks,
S&S

1st October 2002, 07:40 AM

Dragon I am waiting your post

S&S

Dragon

1st October 2002, 07:43 AM

But if you insists to me 21 times of a thing I have already answer, even I that have patient to deal with several "minds" and "brains" at this threat, sometimes like yesterday I asked myself "what 's wrong with EL CID?"

If you have an answer to Charlie's question, lets have it.

To help (with apologies to Charlie) here it is again -

"What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?"

1st October 2002, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Dragon
[QUOTE]But if you insists to me 21 times of a thing I have already answer, even I that have patient to deal with several "minds" and "brains" at this threat, sometimes like yesterday I asked myself "what 's wrong with EL CID?"[quote]

If you have an answer to Charlie's question, lets have it.

To help (with apologies to Charlie) here it is again -

"What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?"

hi DRAGON :

I hope you don't vomit fire.

Are you unable to read and understand , too.?

The answer is at MY notarized application.

I am supposed to be debating with people who analize first, take their time before writing, make new kind of replies, but some of them ,really I think are based in the stupid "curriculum" this stupid computer does in this forum like : newbie, student, schoolar, rational thinker, etc. based in the amounts of quotes you made here and not in the quality of the replies.

I remark that I am saying "stupid" to the computer or the software , or to the man who programed it.

Take your time again , dragon , read the application, and find the answer,

Remember Harter used the stupid method. I also saying the method is the stupid one, no Harter. He is just a liar.

Thank you, Dragon

Thanks,
S&S

1st October 2002, 08:15 AM

THIS IS MY NOTARIZED APPLICATION:

My application clearly says :

"....In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.

We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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.

If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth..

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.
---------------------------------------------------
SIGNED by CARLOS SWETT

Thanks.
S&S

P.S.
This is the translated version did by Patricio Elicer. The original was made in spanish , before J. Randi changed the rules about the language.(?)
I say that is a more or less a well translated version.

Dragon

1st October 2002, 08:21 AM

Carlos,
I have read the application.
It's obvious you don't understand the question.

It's not your fault that English is not your first language so get some help with this.

1st October 2002, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Dragon
Carlos,
I have read the application.
It's obvious you don't understand the question.

It's not your fault that English is not your first language so get some help with this.

Hi Dragon:(again):

Too fast Dragon

I will help you and El CID :

At my application:

"......giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”.
It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.
....... 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."
------------------------
See, Dragon, was easy:" the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower (north) while passing by it ....giving THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT IT "PASSES BEHIND THE TOWER"

If you can demonstrate the opposite is the answer to your question. That's all Dragon. But use a correct method , not the one used by Harter.

And I am not talking now about the lies that Harter gave me in his answer to my application, perhaps he did make mistakes with the language (was in spanish)

Thank you DRAGON
Thanks,
S&S

1st October 2002, 12:14 PM

Last night, at the same chat EL CID was with his headache, "we" were honored by the visit of the "MONKEYBOY", I "guess" he is the administrator of the chat. and another "voice" of Randi at this forum.

Well, I did some questions to him.

He was at Harter's department preparing a kind of radio show.
I asked him if he can tell Harter to come to the chat and debate personally with me, but he said Harter was in another room (?) and was not able to do it.

I asked Monkeyboy if he works for the JREF; he told me that not initially, that he works for a corporation that do some work to JREF. But he admmited that were close friends to Harter and have some internal work at the JREF.

I also asked him if Randi said at the internet radio last thursday that I was an idiot, troll, etc. He said : No, I didn't hear that.

About my question if he had look at the video or knows the link of the internet video where Harter did the "study" , he also respond that NO,

About a question of "latin ijral" if he knows that I am going to the "amazing meeting", Monkeyboy said :"I hope not", and after my request he just said :Well, pay the bill.

I recognize here that I was very incisive or kind or rude or upset by his precence at the chat.

I am giving him my public excuses . MONKEYBOY , I thought you were a member of JREF, and because of JREF silence , I did the mistake of pressure you with my questions.
I apologize to you.

I also remember Monkeyboy I was expulsed of the chat by the days I entered in this forum; I was accused of flooding or something like that.
I never did, Rwald knows and wrote about that at this thread, but I still can connect to the chat from my computer.

In your future presences at the chat , and if we are at the same time, I promise to don't disturb you with questions about my application. I hope we will debate on another subject.

Keep on going,

Thank you,

Carlos Swett

rwald

1st October 2002, 01:17 PM

Good job, Carlos! You've told us some important things. To recap, the answer to El Cid's question is:
See, Dragon, was easy:" the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower (north) while passing by it ....giving THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT IT "PASSES BEHIND THE TOWER"

If you can demonstrate the opposite is the answer to your question. That's all Dragon. But use a correct method , not the one used by Harter.
I still object to demanding the "correct method" when no one has agreed that Carlos's method is "correct" (or more accurately, Randi and Harter havn't agreed that Carlos's method is "correct"), but this is progress.

Also, to fix some misquotes of what MonkeyBoy said:
He was at Harter's department preparing a kind of radio show.
I asked him if he can tell Harter to come to the chat and debate personally with me, but he said Harter was in another room (?) and was not able to do it.
He said he was in Andrew's apartment. The impression I got was that Andrew was hosting a radio show in the next room, and couldn't just stop to talk to Carlos.

I asked Monkeyboy if he works for the JREF; he told me that not initially, that he works for a corporation that do some work to JREF. But he admmited that were close friends to Harter and have some internal work at the JREF.
He said his firm does some of the web design work for the JREF. So don't get any weird ideas about what "internal work" could mean.

I also asked him if Randi said at the internet radio last thursday that I was an idiot, troll, etc. He said : No, I didn't hear that.
What he actually said was more along the lines of, "I never listen to the radio show, so no, I didn't hear that." He wasn't saying Randi didn't say anything; he was just saying that he didn't know.

About my question if he had look at the video or knows the link of the internet video where Harter did the "study" , he also respond that NO,
Well, this is true, but remember, there's no reason MonkeyBoy would know about this. So, MonkeyBoy's ignorance does not imply guilt on anyone's part.

Anyway, Carlos, you've helped us all a great deal with this information. Still, there's no denying that your challenge was flawed (because Randi and Harter never agreed that your method was the "correct" method). If you will just admit this, we can continue talking about what was on the video.

RichardR: Do you have any idea how hard it is to not post to this thread? It's hard to describe, but I just can't stop.

Charlie in Dayton

1st October 2002, 01:21 PM

Carlos, it's rather obvious to everyone but you that what's in your application DOES NOT answer the question I asked you.

I'm not asking what's on the tape, or what you interpret it to be, or any conclusions you have drawn from the image.

I'm asking what would have to be demonstrated to you to convince you that what's on the tape is something normal, everyday-of-this-world, not unusual, not paranormal. The words in your application do not answer that question.

Dragon, no apologies necessary. The more the merrier, I say.

For the 21st time, Carlos: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?

And by the way...someone has volunteered to post the log of last night's IRC session so everyone can read it. As soon as I get the URL, I'll post it in this thread.

Tick tock, Carlos...tempus is fugiting. Answer the question.

rwald

1st October 2002, 01:33 PM

Actually, Carlos did answer this. If we could prove to his satisfaction using the "correct method" that the "paranormal object" is seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by, that would be enough. Right, Carlos?

Charlie in Dayton

1st October 2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Actually, Carlos did answer this. If we could prove to his satisfaction using the "correct method" that the "paranormal object" is seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by, that would be enough. Right, Carlos?

??????????????
Carlos did answer this? When and where? And just to be specific, did he answer the following question: "What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?"

And by the way, it's not our job to prove that there's something paranormal on the tape, it's HIS responsibility...

This is a moot point, though, considering that this tape is not a valid claim for the Million Dollar Challenge. Carlos has claimed no paranormal abilities, or the ability to perform in a paranormal manner, which are covered in sections 1 and 2 of the Challenge Rules:

1.Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.
2.Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.

So...the only thing Carlos has claimed is that he can see an unidentified blur on a videotape. That is not paranormal ability, so his claim to the $1 million prize is not valid.

But I'm intrigued, and I repeat...when and where has Carlos answered this question: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

This is quoted from Carlos's notarized application:
If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth..

Fine..."if we are able to prove...that it is a normal and natural occurrence...".
What evidence would constitute proof? All he says in the application is that we have to prove it's normal. Well, aside from the fact that it's CARLOS who has to PROVE that IT IS PARANORMAL, not the JREF that has to prove that it isn't, I repeat the request for what constitutes proof.

Carlos, for the 22nd time: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

1st October 2002, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton

??????????????
Carlos did answer this? When and where? And just to be specific, did he answer the following question: "What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?"

And by the way, it's not our job to prove that there's something paranormal on the tape, it's HIS responsibility...

This is a moot point, though, considering that this tape is not a valid claim for the Million Dollar Challenge. Carlos has claimed no paranormal abilities, or the ability to perform in a paranormal manner, which are covered in sections 1 and 2 of the Challenge Rules:

So...the only thing Carlos has claimed is that he can see an unidentified blur on a videotape. That is not paranormal ability, so his claim to the $1 million prize is not valid.

But I'm intrigued, and I repeat...when and where has Carlos answered this question: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

This is quoted from Carlos's notarized application:

Fine..."if we are able to prove...that it is a normal and natural occurrence...".
What evidence would constitute proof? All he says in the application is that we have to prove it's normal. Well, aside from the fact that it's CARLOS who has to PROVE that IT IS PARANORMAL, not the JREF that has to prove that it isn't, I repeat the request for what constitutes proof.

Carlos, for the 22nd time: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

Hi Cid:
Now you are with the "rule arguments" . That's OkK to Rwald. remember he lives at the chat and belongs to RANDI, He is an employee, so has to defend his salary.
But YOU , Charlie of Dayton, are suppossed to be different.
Let the rules part to the lawyers of the JREF when they will open their mouth (if they have the honesty to do it); you just concentrate in the video, remember you have afriend of the media,use the correct and technical method to analize and THEN tell me whatever you want.

My application is clear enough.
Harter (JREF) answered it with lies on it.
Harter used the most stupid method to analize it.
Harter and Randi NEVER said on their answer that my application was not valid .

Those are facts that YOU and Nobody can not refuse.
Just ask yourself why the "amazing duo" are still on silence, no a single commentarie with their sign on it. Suspicious?

I am fighting for my honor and my name.
If they lied to me , means that didn't respect me, and I am a really gladiator.so, let the rules for the trial, concentrate in the shot of the video, ask for help, I know that you are an sceptic as I am, But I go further, I am sceptic of the sceptics.

Relax, and act like one, the rest for the lawyers.

RESPECT , that's all JAMES RANDI.

Thank you Charlie

Thanks,
S&S

Charlie in Dayton

1st October 2002, 06:00 PM

Carlos, for right now all I'm after is one simple answer, which you have not yet given me.

For the 23rd time: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

Supercharts

1st October 2002, 06:08 PM

There are no words to express how *********** BORED I am with this thread. Bored beyond belief. BEYOND even caring about opinion and refutation.
Oh Almighty Ed_God may this thread DIE! Kill the participants! Blind them for all eternity. There is NO POINT being made here. May they all be "Gerrifiied".

In Ed_God's name we pray.

Charlie in Dayton

1st October 2002, 06:12 PM

Lighten up, 'charts...

Last night it only took 4 hours or so to get Carlos to run off, shrieking something about my being an out-of-control abused-as-a-child homosexual...

I want to see if I can break that record...:D

1st October 2002, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Supercharts
There are no words to express how *********** BORED I am with this thread. Bored beyond belief. BEYOND even caring about opinion and refutation.
Oh Almighty Ed_God may this thread DIE! Kill the participants! Blind them for all eternity. There is NO POINT being made here. May they all be "Gerrifiied".

In Ed_God's name we pray.

Wow supercharts:

Your reply is the most representative of the culture and power of debate of this forum.

You are right, some partners specially that "charlie of dayton" are really bored, not originals, and with a kind of trauma or insanity.
Poor guys.

You are also wasting your time reading this thread, but some kind of morbous effect are focused in your mind though.

Is easy "supercharts" try like "zapping" on tv, just pass fast in this thread.
Besides you know the reasons why I am fighting for, the lies of Harter, the silence of Randi, the poor replies of some members, etc.

You have the category of an SKEPTIC, be proud that this computer or server gave you that designation based on the NUMBER of replies you have made and not in the quality of them.
Your God bless this forum.

Thank you Supercharts

Thanks. S&S

2nd October 2002, 07:26 AM

The HISTORY of the E-mails between Carlos Swett and JREF with DATES on it.
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

From: Carlos Swett

Date: date Month="4" Day="12" Year="2002">Friday, April 12, 2002:time Hour="20" Minute="50">08:50:55 PM

To: jref@randi.org

Cc: randi@randi.org

Subject: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)

I SEND YOU A CHALLENGE.

YOU RECIEVED IT ON :date Month="4" Day="4" Year="2002">APRIL 4, 2002:date>, THURSDAY´S MORNING.
I HAVE THE GUIDE OF FEDERAL EXPRESS THAT COMFIRMS THAT IS WAS RECIEVED ON THE FOUNDATION.

IF YOU THINK THAT I AM THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE THAT YOU OFTEN TALK IN YOUR REPPORTS, YOU ARE WRONG. I DON´T BELIEVE IN UFOS OR OTHERS. I AM RATIONALISTIC AND I DEMAND AND ANSWER FROM YOU, THE AUTHORS OF THE CHALLENGE.

DON´T TELL ME THAT YOU DON´T UNDERSTAND MY CONCLUSIONS ( I REMEMBER YOU THAT IN FLORIDA THE SPANISH IS THE SECOND LANGUAGE, IT IS NOT JAPANESSE ). IT IS
MORE DIFFICULT TO ME TO WRITE YOU IN ENGLISH, BUT I DO MY BEST EFFORT, I GUESS THAT YOU CAN DO THE SAME.

I REMEMBER YOU THE WORDS THAT JAMES RANDI SAID ON A TV PROGRAM: " ES MI DEBER DEMOSTRAR QUE ACONTECIMIENTOS QUE PARECEN SER REALES, EN REALIDAD NO LO SON".

DON´T FORGET TO LOOK IN THRU THE SMOKE THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY AND THAT WILL SHOWS YOU THE REAL "TRAYECTORIA" OF IT.

FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY.......IF THAT IS YOUR REAL PROBLEM.

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: "James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
>Reply-To: "James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
>To: "Carlos Swett" <swettcarlos54@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: Sat, Month="4" Day="13" Year="2002">13 Apr 2002:time Hour="10" Minute="0">10:00:56< -0400
>
>Who are you, and what in hell are you raving about?
>
> James Randi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JREF" <jref@randi.org>
>To: "Carlos Swett" <swettcarlos54@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: date Month="4" Day="15" Year="2002">Mon, 15 Apr 2002 Hour="15" Minute="0">15:00:44</st1:time> -0400
>
>We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
>
>You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.
>
>Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower.
>This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.
>You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.

>Andrew Harter
>Researcher
>James Randi Educational Foundation
>201 SE 12th Street:City>Fort Lauderdale</st1:City>:State>FL
>Phone (954) 467-1112
>Fax (954) 467-1660
>www.randi.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carlos Swett

Date: date Month="4" Day="16" Year="2002">Tuesday, April 16, 2002:time Hour="0" Minute="55">12:55:15 AM

To: jref@randi.org

Cc: randi@randi.org

Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (12 DAYS)

I AM VERY GLAD AND HAPPY THAT YOU FINALLY ANSWERED MY APPLICATION TO THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE. THAT MEANS THAT YOU RECIEVED AND ACCEPTED IT, WITH NO OBJECTIONS AS LANGUAGE, NOTARIZED FORMS, ETC., BUT THE CONCLUSIONS YOU MADE ARE VERY POOR AND DEFICIENT.
YOU ARE A LIAR, MR. ANDREW HARTER(JREF RESEARCHER).I HOPE YOU PUT YOUR ANSWER AND MY DEMAND OR CLAIM(THE WHOLE THIRD PAGE OF MY APLICATION THAT EXPLAIN MY DEMAND AND DEMOSTRATION OF THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY), SO THE
PEOPLE THAT VISIT YOUR WEB PAGE CAN TELL WHO IS LYING.

YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THIS TAPE BEFORE AND POINTED OUT WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE TO OTHERS. ¿WHEN,TO WHO,WHERE, AND WHAT?

YOU SAID THAT I MADE 2 ASSUMPTIONS, ONE FOLLOWING THE OTHER,BOTH INCORRECT.........YOU ARE A LIAR.
I DON`T MADE ASSUMPTIONS, I TOLD YOU ABOUT A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY WITH HAT FORM, THAT IN ITS TRAVELLING AND ITS PATH ACROSS THE SMOKE ENTRY IN THE HOLE OF THE FIRST TOWER AND GET OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOWER.

YOU SAID THAT MY FIRST ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE OBJECT COMES FROM BEHINDTHETOWER..........YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. I TOLD YOU IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF MY DEMAND THAT THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY GIVES A WRONG FIRST IMPRESSION
THAT CAMES FROM BEHIND THE FIRST TOWER.

YOU SAID THAT YOU STUDIED FRAME BY FRAME TO A COPY OF THIS VIDEO THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET................WRONG METHOD. I TOLD YOU THAT MY
TAPE IS A REFERENCIAL GUIDE, SO YOU MUST COMPARE WITH THE IMAGES OF TV NETWORKS IN YOUR COUNTRY. I GIVE YOU A HELP: VISIT TELEMUNDO(FLORIDA) OR THE TV NETWORK THAT YOU PREFER, SO YOU CAN SEE THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ON A BIG SCREEN, WITH A BEST RESOLUTION, AND THE BEST TECNOLLOGY EQUIPMENT. YOUR METHOD OF WATCHING THE IMAGE ON A LITTLE COMPUTER OF AN UNKNOWN VIDEO OF THE
INTERNET IS NOT THE APPROPIATE.

I AM GLAD THAT NOW YOU CAN SEE "THE DARK OBJECT" AT SOME POINTS AGAINST THE SMOKE, WITH SOME DIFFICULTS, BUT IT IS THERE. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

YOU SAID: A BIRD COULD CERTAINLY BE THE CULPRIT.
¿WHY A BIRD, AND NOT AN INSECT?
¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?
REMEMBER THAT I TOLD YOU ON MY DEMAND THAT IT CAN NOT BE A BIRD OR AN INSECT, BECAUSE THE IMAGE OF IT DOESN`T LAY ON TOP THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE OF THE FIRST TOWER AND "SEEMS" TO APPEARS FROM BEHIND THE TOWER.

YOU SAID: YOU HAVE NO CLAIM???????????????????????????
YOU SAID: THERE IS SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL TAKING PLACE??????????????'
I SAY: ¿WHO ARE YOU?
I SAY: YOU ARE NOT A REALLY RESEARCHER, YOU DIDN`T DEMONSTRATE NOTHING, YOU ARE LIAR. YOU DON`T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OR YOU CAN NOT SAY THE TRUTH. YOU
ARE THINKING IN THE MONEY. FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY IF THAT IS YOUR REAL PROBLEM.

DID YOU GAVE THE PERSONAL LETTER TO MR. JAMES RANDI? I GUESS NOT.IT DOESN`T MATTER, NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY MR. RANDI FIRST SEND ME TO HELL, THEN ASKED ME
WHO I AM, THEN HE WANTS TO MAKE A DEAL WITH ME TO SHUT ME UP.

WHAT KIND OF DEAL?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

THE CLOCK IS TICKING AGAIN..........................................

I THOUGHT THAT JAMES RANDI AND HIS PEOPLE WERE
RATIONALISTIC, BUT I AM BEGGINNING TO THINK DIFFERENT. I SUPPORT YOUR WORK, BUT DON`T LOOSE ENERGY
FIGHTING WITH PERSONS THAT DON`T WANT TO CHALLENGE WITH YOU, LIKE SYLVIA BROWNE. USE THAT ENERGY GIVING ME SMARTS ANSWERS.

I GIVE YOU MY EXCUSES FOR MY POOR ENGLISH, BUT I AM DOING MY BEST EFFORT.

REMEMBER, I DON`T BELIEVE IN MAGIC, I DON`T BELIEVE IN UFOS, I DON`T BELIEVE
IN "BLACK BIRD", I JUST BELIEVE IN TRUTH.

I AM NOT ALONE............................................. ........

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PUT MY ANSWERS OF YOUR CONCLUSION IN YOUR WEB PAGE. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE HONESTY TO DO IT.

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR-SOUTHAMERICA-EARTH

POSTDATA: MR RANDI IF YOU DON`T UNDERSTAND MY CHALLENGE, YOU CAN CALL A REAL TRANSLATOR. I AM GIVING YOU A SECOND CHANCE. I AM NOT HURRY.IF YOU WANT I
CAN SEND YOU A COPY OF THE LETTER YOU NEVER RECEIVED.

-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------

Now people of this forum, make your own conclutions. I am giving you the DATES of the e-mails (Patricio Elicer "forgot to did that ")
By that time I did'nt know how to write in a keyboard, and the "rules" about using capitals letters, just was easy for me did it that way. I apologize now for that mistake.
Now you can tell if Randi insulted me first and if Harter did lie to me in his answer to my application., or if he used a poor antitechnical method.
Those are facts.

Thanks,

S&S

alfaniner

2nd October 2002, 09:46 AM

Dear S&S,

Who are you, and what in hell are you raving about?

2nd October 2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by alfaniner
Dear S&S,

Who are you, and what in hell are you raving about?

Hi dear alfaniner(thinker):

I am Carlos Swett, I challenged JREF, they received my notarized application at april 4, 2002.
James Randi at april 13 , 2002 (9 days after) wrote me the same words you smartly posted here.(?)
Andrew Harter at april 15, 2002 wrote me giving the poor and stupid answer you also knows.

When a person LIES to me, specially in a case where you clearly notice that the money is not the main polnt to me, must be prepare to resist and I will not stop untll they (the amazing duo) give me private or public excuses. I fight for my honor and name.

You "thinker" , can notice too, that they are afraid , they are still on silence. They don't have the honesty to put my notarized application and their stupid answer at the week's commentary with the sign of James Randi on it.

This is not an easy trick, that "your magician" is able to solve. Is not a tricky spoon, or death talks. That's the difference, They were not prepared enough, they didn't even use a correct method to analize the tape.

Think about it, thinker.

Thank you alfaniner,
Thanks,
S&S

alfaniner

2nd October 2002, 04:07 PM

No response

Charlie in Dayton

2nd October 2002, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by S&S
The HISTORY of the E-mails between Carlos Swett and JREF with DATES on it.
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

From: Carlos Swett

Date: date Month="4" Day="12" Year="2002">Friday, April 12, 2002:time Hour="20" Minute="50">08:50:55 PM

To: jref@randi.org

Cc: randi@randi.org

Subject: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)

I SEND YOU A CHALLENGE.

YOU RECIEVED IT ON :date Month="4" Day="4" Year="2002">APRIL 4, 2002:date>, THURSDAY´S MORNING.
I HAVE THE GUIDE OF FEDERAL EXPRESS THAT COMFIRMS THAT IS WAS RECIEVED ON THE FOUNDATION.

IF YOU THINK THAT I AM THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE THAT YOU OFTEN TALK IN YOUR REPPORTS, YOU ARE WRONG. I DON´T BELIEVE IN UFOS OR OTHERS. I AM RATIONALISTIC AND I DEMAND AND ANSWER FROM YOU, THE AUTHORS OF THE CHALLENGE.

DON´T TELL ME THAT YOU DON´T UNDERSTAND MY CONCLUSIONS ( I REMEMBER YOU THAT IN FLORIDA THE SPANISH IS THE SECOND LANGUAGE, IT IS NOT JAPANESSE ). IT IS
MORE DIFFICULT TO ME TO WRITE YOU IN ENGLISH, BUT I DO MY BEST EFFORT, I GUESS THAT YOU CAN DO THE SAME.

I REMEMBER YOU THE WORDS THAT JAMES RANDI SAID ON A TV PROGRAM: " ES MI DEBER DEMOSTRAR QUE ACONTECIMIENTOS QUE PARECEN SER REALES, EN REALIDAD NO LO SON".

DON´T FORGET TO LOOK IN THRU THE SMOKE THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY AND THAT WILL SHOWS YOU THE REAL "TRAYECTORIA" OF IT.

FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY.......IF THAT IS YOUR REAL PROBLEM.

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: "James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
>Reply-To: "James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
>To: "Carlos Swett" <swettcarlos54@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: Sat, Month="4" Day="13" Year="2002">13 Apr 2002:time Hour="10" Minute="0">10:00:56< -0400
>
>Who are you, and what in hell are you raving about?
>
> James Randi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JREF" <jref@randi.org>
>To: "Carlos Swett" <swettcarlos54@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: date Month="4" Day="15" Year="2002">Mon, 15 Apr 2002 Hour="15" Minute="0">15:00:44</st1:time> -0400
>
>We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
>
>You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.
>
>Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower.
>This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.
>You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.

>Andrew Harter
>Researcher
>James Randi Educational Foundation
>201 SE 12th Street:City>Fort Lauderdale</st1:City>:State>FL
>Phone (954) 467-1112
>Fax (954) 467-1660
>www.randi.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carlos Swett

Date: date Month="4" Day="16" Year="2002">Tuesday, April 16, 2002:time Hour="0" Minute="55">12:55:15 AM

To: jref@randi.org

Cc: randi@randi.org

Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (12 DAYS)

I AM VERY GLAD AND HAPPY THAT YOU FINALLY ANSWERED MY APPLICATION TO THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE. THAT MEANS THAT YOU RECIEVED AND ACCEPTED IT, WITH NO OBJECTIONS AS LANGUAGE, NOTARIZED FORMS, ETC., BUT THE CONCLUSIONS YOU MADE ARE VERY POOR AND DEFICIENT.
YOU ARE A LIAR, MR. ANDREW HARTER(JREF RESEARCHER).I HOPE YOU PUT YOUR ANSWER AND MY DEMAND OR CLAIM(THE WHOLE THIRD PAGE OF MY APLICATION THAT EXPLAIN MY DEMAND AND DEMOSTRATION OF THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY), SO THE
PEOPLE THAT VISIT YOUR WEB PAGE CAN TELL WHO IS LYING.

YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THIS TAPE BEFORE AND POINTED OUT WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE TO OTHERS. ¿WHEN,TO WHO,WHERE, AND WHAT?

YOU SAID THAT I MADE 2 ASSUMPTIONS, ONE FOLLOWING THE OTHER,BOTH INCORRECT.........YOU ARE A LIAR.
I DON`T MADE ASSUMPTIONS, I TOLD YOU ABOUT A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY WITH HAT FORM, THAT IN ITS TRAVELLING AND ITS PATH ACROSS THE SMOKE ENTRY IN THE HOLE OF THE FIRST TOWER AND GET OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOWER.

YOU SAID THAT MY FIRST ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE OBJECT COMES FROM BEHINDTHETOWER..........YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. I TOLD YOU IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF MY DEMAND THAT THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY GIVES A WRONG FIRST IMPRESSION
THAT CAMES FROM BEHIND THE FIRST TOWER.

YOU SAID THAT YOU STUDIED FRAME BY FRAME TO A COPY OF THIS VIDEO THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET................WRONG METHOD. I TOLD YOU THAT MY
TAPE IS A REFERENCIAL GUIDE, SO YOU MUST COMPARE WITH THE IMAGES OF TV NETWORKS IN YOUR COUNTRY. I GIVE YOU A HELP: VISIT TELEMUNDO(FLORIDA) OR THE TV NETWORK THAT YOU PREFER, SO YOU CAN SEE THE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ON A BIG SCREEN, WITH A BEST RESOLUTION, AND THE BEST TECNOLLOGY EQUIPMENT. YOUR METHOD OF WATCHING THE IMAGE ON A LITTLE COMPUTER OF AN UNKNOWN VIDEO OF THE
INTERNET IS NOT THE APPROPIATE.

I AM GLAD THAT NOW YOU CAN SEE "THE DARK OBJECT" AT SOME POINTS AGAINST THE SMOKE, WITH SOME DIFFICULTS, BUT IT IS THERE. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

YOU SAID: A BIRD COULD CERTAINLY BE THE CULPRIT.
¿WHY A BIRD, AND NOT AN INSECT?
¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?
REMEMBER THAT I TOLD YOU ON MY DEMAND THAT IT CAN NOT BE A BIRD OR AN INSECT, BECAUSE THE IMAGE OF IT DOESN`T LAY ON TOP THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOLE OF THE FIRST TOWER AND "SEEMS" TO APPEARS FROM BEHIND THE TOWER.

YOU SAID: YOU HAVE NO CLAIM???????????????????????????
YOU SAID: THERE IS SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL TAKING PLACE??????????????'
I SAY: ¿WHO ARE YOU?
I SAY: YOU ARE NOT A REALLY RESEARCHER, YOU DIDN`T DEMONSTRATE NOTHING, YOU ARE LIAR. YOU DON`T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OR YOU CAN NOT SAY THE TRUTH. YOU
ARE THINKING IN THE MONEY. FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY IF THAT IS YOUR REAL PROBLEM.

DID YOU GAVE THE PERSONAL LETTER TO MR. JAMES RANDI? I GUESS NOT.IT DOESN`T MATTER, NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY MR. RANDI FIRST SEND ME TO HELL, THEN ASKED ME
WHO I AM, THEN HE WANTS TO MAKE A DEAL WITH ME TO SHUT ME UP.

WHAT KIND OF DEAL?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

THE CLOCK IS TICKING AGAIN..........................................

I THOUGHT THAT JAMES RANDI AND HIS PEOPLE WERE
RATIONALISTIC, BUT I AM BEGGINNING TO THINK DIFFERENT. I SUPPORT YOUR WORK, BUT DON`T LOOSE ENERGY
FIGHTING WITH PERSONS THAT DON`T WANT TO CHALLENGE WITH YOU, LIKE SYLVIA BROWNE. USE THAT ENERGY GIVING ME SMARTS ANSWERS.

I GIVE YOU MY EXCUSES FOR MY POOR ENGLISH, BUT I AM DOING MY BEST EFFORT.

REMEMBER, I DON`T BELIEVE IN MAGIC, I DON`T BELIEVE IN UFOS, I DON`T BELIEVE
IN "BLACK BIRD", I JUST BELIEVE IN TRUTH.

I AM NOT ALONE............................................. ........

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PUT MY ANSWERS OF YOUR CONCLUSION IN YOUR WEB PAGE. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE HONESTY TO DO IT.

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR-SOUTHAMERICA-EARTH

POSTDATA: MR RANDI IF YOU DON`T UNDERSTAND MY CHALLENGE, YOU CAN CALL A REAL TRANSLATOR. I AM GIVING YOU A SECOND CHANCE. I AM NOT HURRY.IF YOU WANT I
CAN SEND YOU A COPY OF THE LETTER YOU NEVER RECEIVED.

-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------

Now people of this forum, make your own conclutions. I am giving you the DATES of the e-mails (Patricio Elicer "forgot to did that ")
By that time I did'nt know how to write in a keyboard, and the "rules" about using capitals letters, just was easy for me did it that way. I apologize now for that mistake.
Now you can tell if Randi insulted me first and if Harter did lie to me in his answer to my application., or if he used a poor antitechnical method.
Those are facts.

Thanks,

S&S

Carlos, Carlos, Carlos...done in by your own words...

Look at the dates, and look who said what when.

Andrew is the researcher who examined your tape, right? Have you even considered the possibility that Randi was not consulted on this, that Andrew in his capacity made a legitimate decision that did not require Randi's input, and that until your loud and insulting email, that Randi may not have even heard of you? Now, I know that may be a shock for someone of your ego level, but consider it...you may not have been known in any way, shape, or form here.

Randi's return email to you seems to indicate that. If he knew who you were, I seriously doubt that he'd have responded in than manner.

The email you got on the 15th was sent and signed by Andrew, not Randi. Again...Randi may very well not have even been aware of your existence. Think about it.

In your next email, you call Andrew a liar five times, in addition to other insults, and a demand for publicity, so everyone can make up their mind. It's not the job of the JREF to provide publicity, and the only mind that needs to be made up is the preliminary examiner, in this case Andrew. You might have had better luck if you'd understood and followed the Challenge rules...but if you understood them, you wouldn't have submitted the claim in the first place, because what you claim isn't applicable to the Challenge.

Carlos, your constant insults, your inflated sense of ego, your demands that your honor be satisfied, your inability to understand what's required of you, your demands for free publicity, and your demands that everyone else do your work for you, among other things, are all extremely tiring.

Before you go off into the jungle fuming and raving about how unfairly us Yanquis have treated a man of such stature and honor, please do me one small favor. Answer the question.

For the 24th time, Carlos: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

Shaun from Scotland

2nd October 2002, 04:52 PM

If ever a thread needs locked its this one. Its like arguing with an eggplant.

Charlie in Dayton

2nd October 2002, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
If ever a thread needs locked its this one. Its like arguing with an eggplant.

Not so. Eggplants have a more appealing appearance, and in the end have nutritive value when sliced open, roasted properly, and eaten piece by piece.

Eggplant 1, Carlos 0. Game, set, and match to the eggplant. :D

Shaun from Scotland

2nd October 2002, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton

Not so. Eggplants have a more appealing appearance, and in the end have nutritive value when sliced open, roasted properly, and eaten piece by piece.

Eggplant 1, Carlos 0. Game, set, and match to the eggplant. :D

Don't forget that once you have battered the eggplant into submission, with say a big fork, it wont get back up again.

2nd October 2002, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton

Carlos, Carlos, Carlos...done in by your own words...

Look at the dates, and look who said what when.

Andrew is the researcher who examined your tape, right? Have you even considered the possibility that Randi was not consulted on this, that Andrew in his capacity made a legitimate decision that did not require Randi's input, and that until your loud and insulting email, that Randi may not have even heard of you? Now, I know that may be a shock for someone of your ego level, but consider it...you may not have been known in any way, shape, or form here.

Randi's return email to you seems to indicate that. If he knew who you were, I seriously doubt that he'd have responded in than manner.

The email you got on the 15th was sent and signed by Andrew, not Randi. Again...Randi may very well not have even been aware of your existence. Think about it.

In your next email, you call Andrew a liar five times, in addition to other insults, and a demand for publicity, so everyone can make up their mind. It's not the job of the JREF to provide publicity, and the only mind that needs to be made up is the preliminary examiner, in this case Andrew. You might have had better luck if you'd understood and followed the Challenge rules...but if you understood them, you wouldn't have submitted the claim in the first place, because what you claim isn't applicable to the Challenge.

Carlos, your constant insults, your inflated sense of ego, your demands that your honor be satisfied, your inability to understand what's required of you, your demands for free publicity, and your demands that everyone else do your work for you, among other things, are all extremely tiring.

Before you go off into the jungle fuming and raving about how unfairly us Yanquis have treated a man of such stature and honor, please do me one small favor. Answer the question.

For the 24th time, Carlos: What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is NOT an image of a paranormal event?

Hi Charlie in Dayton (CID) :
You are correct , I also "thougt " that Randi didn't knew who I was or that the liar of Harter made his own stupid analisis, but perhaps YOU are forgeting this e-mail that I received the 16 of april.
That's the reason why I am posting this again with the dates on it.
Read this and interpretate it however you want:
----------------------------------------------------------

>From: "James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
>Reply-To: "James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
>To: "Carlos Swett"
>CC: "Andrew Harter" <jref@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: REFRESHING YOUR MEMORY
>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:47:19 -0400
>
>Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is
>nothing mysterious.

>Your application is closed.

> James Randi

----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie........done by your own words, JAMES RANDI gave Harter his aprooval.
The right decission was based on the most stupid method on Randi's history, analize the shot "frame by erame" on a video of the internet, and aprooving an answer full of lies about what I was claiming. IT IS A FACT

Even YOU , charlie, always are telling here that the internet video, can give you the chance to do a right anlisis and besides that , can you tell me were are the" two assumptions" I made, as Harter said?

Did James Randi Had the reason to insult me? I was only demanding an answer for that time(9 days after my application was received at the JREF)

I demand a private or public excuse from both of them : ANDREW HARTER AND JAMES RANDI. Or to put my notarized application with their poor answer at the week's commentary with their sign on it.

Thank you Charlie.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. About your "famous " traumatic question, go ahead until number 5000, besides I am here and have receive more than 5000 visits and I do have patient.
Or just , read again, slowly and you will find the answer,or ask Rwald if I did or not answer you.
Don't forget your friend of the tv station.

Charlie in Dayton

2nd October 2002, 09:00 PM

Friends of the forum, you have my sincerest apologies for taking up space on this thread. I thought that by assuming a calm and dispassionate manner, I might get a straight answer out of Carlos now and then. Such has not been the case.

As you can plainly see in his posts here, and in the IRC log that Falk has graciously hosted, (http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jray/Swettlog.txt), Carlos specializes in ducking, dodging, evading, deliberately misrepresenting, and insulting, along with attempting amateur psychoanalysis and trying to impress the world with his exhortations about his honor.

I've reached my limit with this individual.
Thank you to all for indulging me (I think a lot of you are surprised that I lasted this long...to some degree, so am I). I won't be doing this here any more.

By the way, Carlos, I hope I didn't mislead you. Even though I acted calmly, rationally, dispassionately, and respectfully, I didn't and don't believe you for a second that there's anything paranormal on that tape. The only thing around here that's not normal is you.

At the same time, might I invite those who are inclined to the chat rooms on IRC? There are #JREF, and #randi.org, both on Habbernet servers. #JREF was established by Monkey Boy, and #randi.org was established by others for conversations a bit more directed. Any and all are welcome at the room of their choice, and I sincerely hope that both rooms are utilized to their fullest (I hang out in both at once, as do others, chiming in to either conversation when they have something to add...kinda like a live real-time Forum).

And, yes, I've got Carlos on 'IGNORE' in the IRC chat rooms...it's so peaceful that way...:D

Shaun from Scotland

2nd October 2002, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by S&S

P.S. About your "famous " traumatic question, go ahead until number 5000, besides I am here and have receive more than 5000 visits and I do have patient.
Or just , read again, slowly and you will find the answer,or ask Rwald if I did or not answer you.
Don't forget your friend of the tv station.

Deary, deary me. When will you realise that your post has a lot of views, not because people agree with you, but because for a while it was reasonably entertaining to read your rambling, shambolic, paranoid and frankly, dumb as a weasals arse ramblings.

However, we have now reached the stage where this thread needs to be closed. The attention is going to your head.

NURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IggyK

3rd October 2002, 09:41 AM

In the latest issue of Swift, Randi sez:

We have to handle every challenger, until or unless that person or group shows that they're totally unreasonable and/or uncooperative, and/or mentally incapable of handling the matter.

Carlos Swett has demonstrated that he is totally unreasonable AND uncooperative AND Mentally Incapable of handling any matter. Carlos' quest for publicity and or cash is fruitless. He can say that Harter's method was stupid all he likes but even on the low resolution internet video the object could be seen in front of the Tower, so the challenge was lost at that point in time.

It doesn't matter even a little bit what Mr Swett's statemnets in the application states. Yes, it could have been a bird (IMO that is exactly what it is) or an insect. There are several reasons why it cannot be what Mr Swett says it is and he has not adequately responded to any of those objections therefore he has fallen into the unreasonable category of submitter and that is why Randi and Harter are not responding to him and why they will likely not EVER respond to him.

Mr Swett has stated that it is a search for truth and defense of his honor that keep him responding on this forum but the truth has been established and he does not want to accept it. His honor has been shredded by his own lies and deceit. He should go back to his art and quit screwing around here wasting time. It is still amusing to some of us. :p

3rd October 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Friends of the forum, you have my sincerest apologies for taking up space on this thread. I thought that by assuming a calm and dispassionate manner, I might get a straight answer out of Carlos now and then. Such has not been the case.

As you can plainly see in his posts here, and in the IRC log that Falk has graciously hosted, (http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jray/Swettlog.txt), Carlos specializes in ducking, dodging, evading, deliberately misrepresenting, and insulting, along with attempting amateur psychoanalysis and trying to impress the world with his exhortations about his honor.

I've reached my limit with this individual.
Thank you to all for indulging me (I think a lot of you are surprised that I lasted this long...to some degree, so am I). I won't be doing this here any more.

By the way, Carlos, I hope I didn't mislead you. Even though I acted calmly, rationally, dispassionately, and respectfully, I didn't and don't believe you for a second that there's anything paranormal on that tape. The only thing around here that's not normal is you.

At the same time, might I invite those who are inclined to the chat rooms on IRC? There are #JREF, and #randi.org, both on Habbernet servers. #JREF was established by Monkey Boy, and #randi.org was established by others for conversations a bit more directed. Any and all are welcome at the room of their choice, and I sincerely hope that both rooms are utilized to their fullest (I hang out in both at once, as do others, chiming in to either conversation when they have something to add...kinda like a live real-time Forum).

And, yes, I've got Carlos on 'IGNORE' in the IRC chat rooms...it's so peaceful that way...:D

Hi Charlie in Dayton:

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie,this thread has become a trauma to you.
You are blocked. I am so sorry. You can not even read, and I am not talking about understand.
Your "famous " question was already answer, the same and first day you posted here at the forum(according to what I told you at the chat).
If you don't still beleive that, I am posting here what Rwald told y before:

originally posted by Rwald 10/01/2002

"Good job, Carlos! You've told us some important things. To recap, the answer to El Cid's question is:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, Dragon, was easy:" the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower (north) while passing by it ....giving THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT IT "PASSES BEHIND THE TOWER"

If you can demonstrate the opposite is the answer to your question. That's all Dragon. But use a correct method , not the one used by Harter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And was another one of Rwald, to you Charlie of Dayton, the same day:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rwald
Actually, Carlos did answer this. If we could prove to his satisfaction using the "correct method" that the "paranormal object" is seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by, that would be enough. Right, Carlos?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So , Charlie of Dayton, stop acting like a crying baby. Don't lost time and go find your friend that works at a tv station. Don't give up in your analisis.
Yesterday at the chat , again you were with your trauma of making the same stupid question, and even you improoved your trauma with another question " Swett, did you send the tape to the JREF with your application?"
Give me a break Charlie, another stupid question? I just told you that the answer is on the first line of the poor answer of Harter.
I will help you , read this again:
-----------------------------------------------------

From: "JREF"
>To: "Carlos Swett"
>Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: date Month="4" Day="15" Year="2002">Mon, 15 Apr 2002 Hour="15" Minute="0">15:00:44 -0400
>
>We have received your application and video tape. ................

>Andrew Harter
>Researcher
>James Randi Educational Foundation
>201 SE 12th Street:City>Fort Lauderdale:State>FL
>Phone (954) 467-1112
>Fax (954) 467-1660
>www.randi.org
.................................................. ...............................................

See , Charlie, that answer as the other one had been at this thread from the beggining.

Is not my fault that something is happening to you.

I am glad that you said that you will never be doing here any more. Take a vacation, prepare yourself and write the "amazing duo" to put this case at the "amazing meeting" or if you don't want to suffer that long, demand them to write about this, and to put my notarized application and their poor silence with their sign on it.

Go to the other channel at the chat with Sauron and Rwald(they live there), besides I am the one who debate in another subject at the official chat, and you are the traumatic one with my name.

Thank you Charlie in Dayton (Cid)

Thanks.
S&S

P.S. Look at me, I am patient enough, I have only facts to beat you and the liars.

compjan

3rd October 2002, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
<..>
I've reached my limit with this individual.
Thank you to all for indulging me (I think a lot of you are surprised that I lasted this long...to some degree, so am I). I won't be doing this here any more.
<..>

Thanks for your hard work Charlie. You've shown remarkable patience. Without people like you, I couldn't continue my informal education in abnormal pyschology on the Internet. (I couldn't possibly continue head-banging like you do).

Bang on!

CompJan

3rd October 2002, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by compjan

Thanks for your hard work Charlie. You've shown remarkable patience. Without people like you, I couldn't continue my informal education in abnormal pyschology on the Internet. (I couldn't possibly continue head-banging like you do).

Bang on!

CompJan

Hi, Compjan:

Congratulations.

Thanks,
S&S

Charlie in Dayton

3rd October 2002, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi, Compjan:

Congratulations.

Thanks,
S&S

News flash from Rooters Wide World Press:

The International Geophysical Laboratory for Observation of Really Strange Stuff recorded a low-intensity world wide shock wave early in the morning hours of Friday, October 4th. According to a spokesman for the IGLfOoRSS, the phenomenon's location could not be pinpointed, as it happened simultaneously at thousands of locations all around the globe.

A researcher for a well-known skeptical and educational foundation in the southeast United States commented that they had seen the data collected by the IGLfOoRSS, and that one of their staff members had taken the data, digitized it, and converted it to audio. According to the spokesman (who requested anonymity for both himself, his colleagues, and the foundation in question), the sound came out as a loud and resounding SPRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGG, resembling, as the researcher said, "...the sound of thousands of irony meter springs snapping simultaneously from a massive overload...".

4th October 2002, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton

News flash from Rooters Wide World Press:

The International Geophysical Laboratory for Observation of Really Strange Stuff recorded a low-intensity world wide shock wave early in the morning hours of Friday, October 4th. According to a spokesman for the IGLfOoRSS, the phenomenon's location could not be pinpointed, as it happened simultaneously at thousands of locations all around the globe.

A researcher for a well-known skeptical and educational foundation in the southeast United States commented that they had seen the data collected by the IGLfOoRSS, and that one of their staff members had taken the data, digitized it, and converted it to audio. According to the spokesman (who requested anonymity for both himself, his colleagues, and the foundation in question), the sound came out as a loud and resounding SPRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGG, resembling, as the researcher said, "...the sound of thousands of irony meter springs snapping simultaneously from a massive overload...".

Poor Charlie, you are really blocked as Swett said before. This is a different thread. Please make yourself a psicchoanalysis. Every day that pass you are getting more crazy. Write to Randi for help.

4th October 2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton

News flash from Rooters Wide World Press:

The International Geophysical Laboratory for Observation of Really Strange Stuff recorded a low-intensity world wide shock wave early in the morning hours of Friday, October 4th. According to a spokesman for the IGLfOoRSS, the phenomenon's location could not be pinpointed, as it happened simultaneously at thousands of locations all around the globe...".

Hi Charlie in Dayton:

I am glad that the reason of your last traumatics replies to me have a scientific answer.That low-intensity world wide schock wave must had its epicenter at your home, and must be the reason of your brain block.

Now that you have an explanation of your sickness, don't forget to find your friend of the tv station, or ask Randi when he is going to write about this thread.

Hope you are getting well,
Carlos Swett

Thanks,
S&S

compjan

4th October 2002, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi, Compjan:

Congratulations.

Thanks,
S&S

Thanks. What are you congratulating me for? Did I do something special?

4th October 2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by compjan

Thanks. What are you congratulating me for? Did I do something special?

Hi Compjan:

Honesty deserves congratulations, I wish I could say the same from Harter and Randi.
Your reply to CHarlie in Dayton was useful to him, he knows now why he was acting that wierd way.

Thankyou compjan

Thanks,
S&S

compjan

5th October 2002, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Compjan:

Honesty deserves congratulations, I wish I could say the same from Harter and Randi.
Your reply to CHarlie in Dayton was useful to him, he knows now why he was acting that wierd way.

Thankyou compjan

Thanks,
S&S

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The "abnormal psychology" I was referring to was yours, not Charlie’s. I was thanking Charlie for his tireless efforts to talk sense with you, and in so doing to expose your inability to rationally argue for your claims.

I first sympathized with your irritation with Harter for not rejecting you so quickly, but I couldn't understand why you were so emotionally involved in the tape. It soon became clear that you had invested a great deal of your self-worth it, to the point of obsession.

I think you should step back and examine your feelings in this issue. Ask yourself and other people how important your claim of a paranormal object is compared to other problems in the world. Ask yourself if the JREF rejection of your claim is so important that you should spend many hours arguing about it.

Good luck,

CompJan

5th October 2002, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by compjan

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The "abnormal psychology" I was referring to was yours, not Charlie’s. I was thanking Charlie for his tireless efforts to talk sense with you, and in so doing to expose your inability to rationally argue for your claims.

I first sympathized with your irritation with Harter for not rejecting you so quickly, but I couldn't understand why you were so emotionally involved in the tape. It soon became clear that you had invested a great deal of your self-worth it, to the point of obsession.

I think you should step back and examine your feelings in this issue. Ask yourself and other people how important your claim of a paranormal object is compared to other problems in the world. Ask yourself if the JREF rejection of your claim is so important that you should spend many hours arguing about it.

Good luck,

CompJan

Hi Compjan :

Don't be afraid, I also thought you were from the "same band" of Charlie, Harter and Randi.

Yes is MY "obsesession", not yours, besides you are not the one who challenged the JREF, you are not the one who received a poor and antitechnical answer from Harter, you are not the one who are fighting for his honor and name, and I am not the one who originally posted this thread. Yes , you are a nckname , I am Swett.

Is easy for you to be in the other side , but you will need courage enough to confront and answer all this non-sense replies.

Have you analize the tape? Have you did it by a propper way ?
If the answer is not , what is your problemm?

Go with your presuntions to another thread.

Good Luck? Not for you, I don't beleive in luck, I beleive in facts.

The only fact is the big silence of Randi, I am emotionaly involved in the lies they gave me, I am not easy as I "presume " you are.

Thank you compjan

Thanks.
S&S

CSSMariner

5th October 2002, 09:57 PM

How does one make the sound of a Bronx Cheer on this forum? Swett, shut the F - - - up, you with your tired and lame line of BS would bore a slab of concrete so much it would crack.

5th October 2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner
How does one make the sound of a Bronx Cheer on this forum? Swett, shut the F - - - up, you with your tired and lame line of BS would bore a slab of concrete so much it would crack.

Hi CSS Mariner:

That's all you have? Well, besides you are only a "bodyguard" of Randi (volunteer as you said before).
Tell your boss to confront me. What is he afraid of?

Thank you mariner.

Thanks,
S&S

CSSMariner

6th October 2002, 03:02 AM

As I said, same old tired BS from you, I rest my case. All you know is "bodyguard," "bodyguard," jusy like a cracked record; skipping, skipping, skipping, skipping. We are bored with your same old tired BS, go away.

compjan

6th October 2002, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by S&S

<..>

Have you analize the tape? Have you did it by a propper way ?
If the answer is not , what is your problemm?

<..>

Thanks.
S&S

No, I have not analyzed the tape. I did not because it sounded like so many other "mysterious" tapes of UFOs, crop circles, and Virgin Mary apparitions. There are so many of them that are junk that I didn't want to waste my time.

However, that's not the main issue here.

The issue is the validity of your application. Must the JREF accept your challenge?

The answer is no.

I read the Million Dollar Challenge Application. It states clearly that it is a test of a claimant's abilities. No mention is made of paranormal events, such as UFOS, crop circles, or "paranormal" objects flying through the World Trade Center.

A few quotes from the <a href = "http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html">application</a>

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."

This means you must demonstrate a personal ability, such as levitation, precognition, dowsing, etc.

"Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted." ... "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test [..] before an appointed representative"

This means you must be able to demonstrate the personal ability live in front of observers.

The only problem I saw was on the <a href = “http://www.randi.org/research/index.html”>Million Dollar Challenge front page</a> which may be misleading because it uses the phrase "event".

The quote is "At JREF, we offer a one-million- dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. "

However, the application is the final word, and it clearly states "paranormal ability".

Do you still think the JREF must test your claim, despite your claim not meeting their application requirements?

I fully understand how you might have misunderstood the challenge when you first applied. I know English is not your native language, and further you were passionate about proving your claim. You said that you had also sent the tape to many media organizations, and you also included Randi's challenge in your attempt to broadcast your discovery. However, it should now be clear to you that the JREF has no obligation to process your claim.

CompJan

-=Vagrant=-

6th October 2002, 09:06 AM

[Reads the whole thread]
Un-frigging-believable!

CSSMariner

6th October 2002, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Have you analize the tape? Have you did it by a propper way ?
If the answer is not , what is your problemm?
S&S

One must wonder how sweetie swett would propose to "analize" a tape. Is it the same method used by sweetie swett when he analizes other things?????

Then there is "propper" and "problemm." Clearly the problem with a proper analysis of sweetie swett is his understanding the medium of communication regarding the challenge, or is that "chaaleengee?"

Wyrd1

6th October 2002, 10:12 AM

JREF has already responded to el estupido but he is far too wrapped up in his "honor" that he doesn't know it. He is also to estupido to realize that JREF isn't ever going to respond to him no matter how loud he gets. Randi has delt with morons and wanks often enough that S&S/Latinijral are wasting their time. It's their time to waste but none of us have to read his posts and none of have to respond to either one of them.

You may note that they do not respond to my or Iggy's posts since we have been "banned" from their world. It isn't hard to ignore them either. If we keep posting he won't go away. With any kind of loser like these two, attention is what they crave. If we stop giving them that they'll wither away.

Carlos says he wants to fight for the truth but he doesn't realize it bit him on the ass a long time ago. It's easy to see that best fight is one where there is only one fighter.

Baker

6th October 2002, 11:11 AM

I think its long over do so I’m going to give my impute on the The "Carlos Swett affair"
Umm well come to think of it I don’t really have anything to say I just realized I am the only JREF poster not to post on this thread.
So all just let everyone get back to the debate!
:D

6th October 2002, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by latinijral

I POSTED THIS MESSAGE AGAIN BECAUSE THE AMAZING DUO IS IN SILENCE. ONLY HIS SPEAKERS TRY TO DEFFEND THEM WITHOUT WATCHING THE IMAGE.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral
I took this picture from the screen when i visited a local tv station on my country Chile. I follow Swett`s instructions.
I see the paranormal object traveling inthru the smoke and get in the first tower(dissapears) and then get out(appears again) with an incredible speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th October 2002, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by compjan

No, I have not analyzed the tape. I did not because it sounded like so many other "mysterious" tapes of UFOs, crop circles, and Virgin Mary apparitions. There are so many of them that are junk that I didn't want to waste my time.

However, that's not the main issue here.

The issue is the validity of your application. Must the JREF accept your challenge?

The answer is no.

I read the Million Dollar Challenge Application. It states clearly that it is a test of a claimant's abilities. No mention is made of paranormal events, such as UFOS, crop circles, or "paranormal" objects flying through the World Trade Center.

CompJan

Hi Compjan:

If you have not analized the tape, don't waste your time here.

Yes, The JREF accepted my challenge, Andrew Harter gave me the poor answer based in a poor method. That ¡s clear, no a single word about that my application was not valid.

Did you read this?:

"The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place."

Did you read the part about "EVIDENCE OF ANY PARANORMAL EVENT"?
Read again, I am not lying, it is there.

The proper observing conditions: a world tv transmission of a tragic EVENT, "live" in a clear morning with no clouds.You just have to analize the tv tape.

The testing procedure: Done by Harter , analized an unknown low resoluted internet video.

The protocol : "who are you and what in hell are you raving about?" by James Randi

You want something more?
There failed, that's the reason of their silence.
I have principles, I don't care if is Harter or Randi the one who are involved in this particular fraud.
Is my honor and my name between, that's all.

Thank you compjan
Thanks,
S&S

Pyrrho

6th October 2002, 04:18 PM

So, you believe that all you have to do is to supply the videotape, and the JREF must give you the million dollars, is that it?

6th October 2002, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
So, you believe that all you have to do is to supply the videotape, and the JREF must give you the million dollars, is that it?

Pyrrho? Where are your insults?
And what do you beleive?

Harter also analized the tape OF THE EVENT, the difference is he did it with a wrong method and his answer is fool of lies with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI.

I just made the observation of the PARANORMAL EVENT.

New logo? (quit from ABC?)
UMMMM

Thankyou pyrrho
Thanks,
S&S

rwald

6th October 2002, 05:01 PM

I still don't get it. Andrew Harter said your challange was invalid. Why can't you understand that? We've told you a huge number of times, and yet you still say "no a single word about that my application was not valid." What part of "You have no claim" do you not understand?

Pyrrho

6th October 2002, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Pyrrho? Where are your insults?
And what do you beleive?

Harter also analized the tape OF THE EVENT, the difference is he did it with a wrong method and his answer is fool of lies with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI.

I just made the observation of the PARANORMAL EVENT.

New logo? (quit from ABC?)
UMMMM

Thankyou pyrrho
Thanks,
S&S

Please answer my question with a Yes or a No.

Do you believe that all you have to do is to supply the videotape, and the JREF must give you the million dollars?

6th October 2002, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000

Please answer my question with a Yes or a No.

Do you believe that all you have to do is to supply the videotape, and the JREF must give you the million dollars?

Not only that pyrrho, you are suppossed to make a notarized application to the JREF, with a conclution of the paranormal event on it, a selfenveloped letter, and stuff.

After I did all that , I received the poor answer of Harter.
That's why I am still fighting here.Remember Randi blocked my e-mail, after his Harter's aprooval of the lies they send to me.
He is the afraid one.

Thank you pyrrrho,

Thanks,

S&S

rwald

6th October 2002, 06:26 PM

Well, since your notarized application broke the rules in multiple places, it doesn't count. So, by your own admission, you should not qualify for the million dollar challenge.

6th October 2002, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Well, since your notarized application broke the rules in multiple places, it doesn't count. So, by your own admission, you should not qualify for the million dollar challenge.

Hi Rwald:

Taking your vacations? but coming with the same replie.
Well, I have a reply from yourself at 08/30/2002:
Look and think what YOU said :

Originally posted by Rwald:
"I think I've found the root of the confusion. Here is a quote from the page introducing the JREF challange, http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carlos believes that he can show evidence that a paranormal event took place on 9/11. I tried telling him that one video does not constitute "proper observing conditions," but because Randi and Andrew did not specifically say this, he does not think this was the reason he was rejected. So, anyway, his misinterpretation of the rules at least has some basis."

----------------
-----

Is that the same Rwald? Or is a bad copy of you?
You are the one who said that. Give me break, please.

Thnkyou Rwald
Thanks,
S&S

rwald

6th October 2002, 07:19 PM

Yes. I've also said that you must obey all the rules, not just the ones you like. I gave the example of, if there's a trial, and 10 different tapes show that the defendent is innocent, but 1 additional tape can be seen, in a certain light, to mean that the defendent is guilty, should the jury rule Guilty? No. In your case, since you're ignoring all but one of the rules, your challenge is still invalid.

And besides, that sentence isn't even part of the rules. It's just on the introduction page. It doesn't really mean anything, from a legal point of view.

6th October 2002, 07:47 PM

Thanks Rwald

alfaniner

6th October 2002, 08:28 PM

Copy the rules and post them here (I'm sure that's within fair use, on this board!)

Denote, line by line, how you satisified each rule.

compjan

6th October 2002, 09:02 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S&S

Hi Compjan:

If you have not analized the tape, don't waste your time here.

Yes, The JREF accepted my challenge, Andrew Harter gave me the poor answer based in a poor method. That ¡s clear, no a single word about that my application was not valid.
</quote>

Why do you keep saying the JREF accepted your challenge? Clearly they rejected it. If they had accepted it they would have starting negotiating the testing conditions.

S&S
<..>
Did you read the part about "EVIDENCE OF ANY PARANORMAL EVENT"?
Read again, I am not lying, it is there.
</quote>

Compjan
Yes I read it, in fact I quoted it to you and explained that it is in the general description, not the application. It is confusing, and Randi should remove it. However, the application clearly states that you must be able to perform a paranormal ability.

S&S
The proper observing conditions: a world tv transmission of a tragic EVENT, "live" in a clear morning with no clouds.You just have to analize the tv tape.

CompJan
That doesn't even begin to be "proper observing conditions." How many bogus UFO tapes fit those same parameters? Randi is referring to testing people's claimed abilities up close and personal, with neutral observers, agreed upon conditions, etc. I remember a lovely crop circle footage from the 90's. It clearly showed circling lights carving crop circles. By your standards it would be considered "proper observing conditions". It turned out to be a hoax using computer graphics. How about the famous Nessie photo showing an apparent neck arising from the water? It was later admitted to be a hoax by the photographer. Was that "proper observing conditions?"

S&S
You want something more?
There failed, that's the reason of their silence.
I have principles, I don't care if is Harter or Randi the one who are involved in this particular fraud.
Is my honor and my name between, that's all.

Thank you compjan
Thanks,
S&S

CompJan
A final question from me, and I'll leave you alone. Have you considered that you may be wrong and that there was no paranormal event in your footage, or are you absolutely convinced? Is there any evidence that would change your mind?

CompJan

Pyrrho

7th October 2002, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Not only that pyrrho, you are suppossed to make a notarized application to the JREF, with a conclution of the paranormal event on it, a selfenveloped letter, and stuff.

After I did all that , I received the poor answer of Harter.
That's why I am still fighting here.Remember Randi blocked my e-mail, after his Harter's aprooval of the lies they send to me.
He is the afraid one.

Thank you pyrrrho,

Thanks,

S&S

For the sake of discussion, I will agree that you sent the notarized application, etc.

Please answer yes or no, without remarks about Randi or Harter:

Aside from the application, do you believe that the videotape is all you need to present in order to win the million dollars?

7th October 2002, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by rwald
I still don't get it. Andrew Harter said your challange was invalid. Why can't you understand that? We've told you a huge number of times, and yet you still say "no a single word about that my application was not valid." What part of "You have no claim" do you not understand?

Write complete please!!!!!!!!
Harter`s oficcial answer:
"You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

That means that the challenge is not valid as the stupids fans repeat and repeat and repeat...... it really means that Swett didn`t have a claim because Harter didn`t find nothing superantural !!!!!! and the reason is because he used a poor method!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shaun from Scotland

7th October 2002, 09:19 AM

YAWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

alfaniner

7th October 2002, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by alfaniner
Copy the rules and post them here
Denote, line by line, how you satisified each rule.

Just in case you missed it the first time, as you obviously have a problem with comprehension and retention.

7th October 2002, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by compjan

S&S
<..>
Did you read the part about "EVIDENCE OF ANY PARANORMAL EVENT"?
Read again, I am not lying, it is there.
</quote>

A final question from me, and I'll leave you alone. Have you considered that you may be wrong and that there was no paranormal event in your footage, or are you absolutely convinced? Is there any evidence that would change your mind?

CompJan [/B]

Hi Compjan:

I really appreciate your interpretations, you are not just using the insults as the arm of the fools. Thanks for that.

I don't want you to leave me alone ; I want you all members of the forum to be involved in the correct analisis of the shot which I am claiming. The poor answer of Harter and Randi is only a particular fight between JREF and Carlos Swett.
The main point is that you members can be sure of your presumptions and pre judgements the day yo will focus in the tape

No ; I am not wrong in my conclutions, I made the correct analisis, with proffesional equipments, I am educated enough to know the delicate and embarrasment that is for me to talk about this "paranormal things" , but that is the main reason that I am exposing the case to persons of the same kind of scepticism like I am. It will be more easy and remunerative ($)to me to talk about this observation with the charlatans and "ufo's specialists", but I don't like for principle people that are based in frauds and lies.

You asked me is there any evidence that would change my mind.
Of course, yes. I expected that when I send my application to the JREF, I trusted them that they could do the anlisis with the most advanced tecnollogy in tv equipments. But they did not, I don't know why they just used a tiny unknown incomplete video of the internet to make their poor conclutions.

As I told Charlie of Dayton in his traumatic repetitive question, the only thing you have to do is to demostrate the opposite , Rwald also understood what evidence would change my mind . I guess is posted in the previous page.

But don't forget to use an aproppiate method, perhaps Charlie in dayton will help, he is still looking for a friend that works in a tv station.

Thank you compjan

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
I found the already answer to your question. Consider a particular favor to you.
As I told Dragon and Charlie:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Too fast Dragon

I will help you and El CID :

At my application:

"......giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”.
It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.
....... 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."
------------------------
See, Dragon, was easy:" the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower (north) while passing by it ....giving THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT IT "PASSES BEHIND THE TOWER"

If you can demonstrate the opposite is the answer to your question. That's all Dragon. But use a correct method , not the one used by Harter.

And I am not talking now about the lies that Harter gave me in his answer to my application, perhaps he did make mistakes with the language (was in spanish)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shaun from Scotland

7th October 2002, 11:40 AM

Nope, no change still yawwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Pyrrho

7th October 2002, 11:53 AM

I'm outta here...at least I gave it an honest effort.

7th October 2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Nope, no change still yawwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

What's the matter with you Shaun of Scotland?
ALL your replies are just according to the TROLL definition.
No arguments to debate only insults.

If you are trying to post only for the computer counts your number of replies (not the quality)and become a "RATIONAL THINKER", try that stupid method in another thread.

You belong to a small group of irrational members , who thinks this method will scare me. You are wrong.I will continue fighting against the lies Harter and Randi gave me.
Is a kind of moral and principles you will never understand, and is not your fault, is because of the way you are showing here you had been "educated".

Please, respect the rest of the members or guest of this forum.

Thank you for nothing SHAUN OF SCOTLAND

Thanks,
S&S

Pyrrho

7th October 2002, 12:09 PM

I do not advocate censorship, but I think it's time to lock this thread.

IggyK

7th October 2002, 01:11 PM

Good idea. Do we get to vote on it? Carlos refuses to accept that he has lost the challenge and instead continues to bitch and moan about the method used. Harter, even with a low resolution computer image, could tell the object was a bird and that it was visible in front of the tower. He seems to think that because he says on his application that it wasn't a bird or insect that seals the deal. Every image I've seen of it appears to be a bird. He also doesn't realize that a decision was made on his application and that JREF isn't going to recind that decision no matter how much he cries about it.

7th October 2002, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Budddyh 08/27/2002

"I think the correct response from Randi should have been (or at least somewhere in the original response): "Our award is for a demonstration of paranormal activity. A videotape does not constitute a demonstration." End of discussion."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Thanz 08/27/2002

"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.

Has anyone seen the whole video? How fast is it compared to the second plane? Is it debris from the second explosion?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles 08/27/2002

"So obviously the clip is very short (though deceptive because you focus on the movement of the streak, and it seems to move slowly.) If you watch it, and count, you will notice that there are only 5 maybe 6 frames. I am guessing video is around 36 frames per second, so we are watching only .16th of a second of footage. Something that small and that short, sounds like a glitch of some kind in the video. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pyrrho 2000 08/27/2002

"The animated GIF contains 5 frames. The first frame has a delay of 0.5 seconds; the other four frames each have a delay of 0.25 seconds. The GIF therefore displays for 1.5 seconds each time it loops. Each delay can be altered in image-editing software. Because of this, it's not possible to tell how much time the original video would have required for this sequence."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Patricio Elicer 08/27/2002

"By the way, at this point I'm a bit confused as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same video in their separate accounts.

On one side Swett speaks about a dark hat shaped object coming out of one tower at the precise moment the plane hit the other (I think he's referring to the animation and pictures I linked above).

But on the other side Andrew says it's probably a bird, which I really fail to see in those same pictures. So I think that what Andrew examined was another video, that is probably this one (you have to click on "video" to see it). If this is the case, then I totally agree that it was a bird, it's also possible to see its waving wings."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz 08/27/2002

"If there is a better video of what this site calls "ufo 1" I would like to see it."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rwald 08/30/2002

"Next, about the quality and nature of the video: I agree that it is not your fault; I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you. Did you have the important part of the tape near the front, or was it more toward the middle? "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Patricio Elicer 09/01/2002

"The object in the first link, if not an ordinary cloud, strongly resembles the "paranormal activity" claimed by Swett.

This is the first time I read about the "rod phenomenon". From roswellrods.com, I got this definition: "Rods are cylindrical shaped objects that appear over cities and oceans at such high velocities that they can barely be seen with the naked eye"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rwald 09/02/2002

"Swett, while I would agree that your method is closer to "proper observing conditions" than Harter's, who's to say that either are good enough? "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nova Land 09/02/2002
"It may have been a mistake for Harter to have studied a video on the internet. I don't know. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am ending this FIRST PART with one of my favorites, besides I like fine irony :

originally posted by Bidlack 09/03/2002

"I think it's a bird, can I have $1M from the Birdwatcher's Club?"

Thanks,

S&S

rwald

7th October 2002, 04:10 PM

Carlos, for the aleph-2 time, can you please why, exactly, Randi should pay you money, when all he says (in the official rules, not some random copy introducing them) is: "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations."

Did you state "what will constitute both a positive and a negative result"? I know you did in this forum, but did you state this in the original application?

Also, Randi said: "Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration." Your video constitutes a "previous example." Since the video itself is not paranormal (whether or not it captured a paranormal event, it's still an normal video), it only serves to document a "previous example." Randi specifically said these could not be used as evidence.

Honestly, there's really no point to continue this discussion. There is absolutly no way that we will ever convince you of the truth. I really should just stop trying, but I can't. Oh well.

Shaun from Scotland

7th October 2002, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by S&S

What's the matter with you Shaun of Scotland?
ALL your replies are just according to the TROLL definition.
No arguments to debate only insults.

If you are trying to post only for the computer counts your number of replies (not the quality)and become a "RATIONAL THINKER", try that stupid method in another thread.

You belong to a small group of irrational members , who thinks this method will scare me. You are wrong.I will continue fighting against the lies Harter and Randi gave me.
Is a kind of moral and principles you will never understand, and is not your fault, is because of the way you are showing here you had been "educated".

Please, respect the rest of the members or guest of this forum.

Thank you for nothing SHAUN OF SCOTLAND

Thanks,
S&S

Your welcome. Prozac is on half price sale at Wal-Mart I hear....

Pyrrho

7th October 2002, 04:46 PM

I know this is the second time I've said this, but I had to come back to give it an honest try at reasonable discussion. We've all given S&S more than enough of our time and patience. Either we start ignoring this thread entirely, or we admit that we're idiots for continuing to allow S&S to goad us. I have too much self-respect to continue playing this stupid game.

See ya bye have a nice day...

7th October 2002, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
I know this is the second time I've said this, but I had to come back to give it an honest try at reasonable discussion. We've all given S&S more than enough of our time and patience. Either we start ignoring this thread entirely, or we admit that we're idiots for continuing to allow S&S to goad us. I have too much self-respect to continue playing this stupid game.

See ya bye have a nice day...

Hi Pyrrho2000:
I guess is a kind of fatal attraction you got with me . Is not your second return, I guess is 4 or 5 times you said that.
Take it easy. I am straight.
Just ask Randi for help.

Thanks,

S&S

RichardR

7th October 2002, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
I know this is the second time I've said this, but I had to come back to give it an honest try at reasonable discussion. We've all given S&S more than enough of our time and patience. Either we start ignoring this thread entirely, or we admit that we're idiots for continuing to allow S&S to goad us. I have too much self-respect to continue playing this stupid game.

See ya bye have a nice day...
I think I've said it before. I'm amazed anyone's still replying to this idiot. Just stop reading / replying. Let him debate with himself.

wert

7th October 2002, 08:43 PM

Let's see.

400+ replies

6000+ views.

*sigh*

7th October 2002, 08:45 PM

well anyone who bothers to read this thread any more:

carlos has said he would send a tape to anyone who wants a copy.
on irc chat, someone called Huntsman volunteered but did not want to give out his full contact details to a stranger.

I gave my details to carlos instead. However, if/when I get the tape, I don't have any video tools to get it somewhere where more people can see it so that people can argue about the same subject material.

Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere....

compjan

8th October 2002, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Compjan:

I really appreciate your interpretations, you are not just using the insults as the arm of the fools. Thanks for that.

I don't want you to leave me alone ; I want you all members of the forum to be involved in the correct analisis of the shot which I am claiming. The poor answer of Harter and Randi is only a particular fight between JREF and Carlos Swett.
The main point is that you members can be sure of your presumptions and pre judgements the day yo will focus in the tape

No ; I am not wrong in my conclutions, I made the correct analisis, with proffesional equipments, I am educated enough to know the delicate and embarrasment that is for me to talk about this "paranormal things" , but that is the main reason that I am exposing the case to persons of the same kind of scepticism like I am. It will be more easy and remunerative ($)to me to talk about this observation with the charlatans and "ufo's specialists", but I don't like for principle people that are based in frauds and lies.

You asked me is there any evidence that would change my mind.
Of course, yes. I expected that when I send my application to the JREF, I trusted them that they could do the anlisis with the most advanced tecnollogy in tv equipments. But they did not, I don't know why they just used a tiny unknown incomplete video of the internet to make their poor conclutions.

As I told Charlie of Dayton in his traumatic repetitive question, the only thing you have to do is to demostrate the opposite , Rwald also understood what evidence would change my mind . I guess is posted in the previous page.

But don't forget to use an aproppiate method, perhaps Charlie in dayton will help, he is still looking for a friend that works in a tv station.

Thank you compjan

Thanks,
S&S

<..>

Well, S&S, it is time for me to finish up my participation in this thread. I was mostly interested in your approach to the JREF challenge, not the truth or falseness of your paranormal claim. I think you have misunderstood the method and purpose of the JREF and its Million Dollar Challenge. Contrary to what you first thought, they will not perform an advanced analysis on your tape. I doubt they have the expertise or equipment, nor do they need it. That’s not what the claim is about. I think you should find someone else capable of performing forensic analysis of your tape, because the JREF can’t.

Regardless of your beliefs about the “paranormal activity” at the World Trade Center, the JREF will not accept your claim in its present form. Unless you are claiming to have a paranormal ability, they will ignore you. That’s what the challenge is about.

Good luck in your next endeavor,

CompJan

8th October 2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by compjan

Well, S&S, it is time for me to finish up my participation in this thread. I was mostly interested in your approach to the JREF challenge, not the truth or falseness of your paranormal claim. I think you have misunderstood the method and purpose of the JREF and its Million Dollar Challenge. Contrary to what you first thought, they will not perform an advanced analysis on your tape. I doubt they have the expertise or equipment, nor do they need it. That’s not what the claim is about. I think you should find someone else capable of performing forensic analysis of your tape, because the JREF can’t.

Regardless of your beliefs about the “paranormal activity” at the World Trade Center, the JREF will not accept your claim in its present form. Unless you are claiming to have a paranormal ability, they will ignore you. That’s what the challenge is about.

Good luck in your next endeavor,

CompJan

Hi CompJan:

I appreciate your reply, is mature enough.
Well, you are the one concernd about the rules, I already debated that point.

I only knows I made an application to the challenge and I received only lies based in a poor method by Harter and Randi, with no a single word on it saying that my application was not valid.

They analized MY CONCLUTION in a tape that was available on internet ( YOU ALL still don't know which one) and made THEIR OWN CONCLUTION based in lies That's all.Those are FACTS.

I am here fighting FOR MY HONOR or HONOUR . I 've insulted by Randi ( at an e-mail when I was demanding the answer to my application) and lIed by Harter and Randi. I don't care you ( the members) idolize him , I WAS THE ONE who was lied by persons I depositated my support to realize a clean job in their analisis.
They failed and are posts of members that agreed with this point.

Maybe we can join thoughts in another thread Compjan.

LUCK? thanks anyway but I am sure what I am claiming.

The same to you, though.

Thank you Compjan

Thanks,
S&S

9th October 2002, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by skirix
well anyone who bothers to read this thread any more:

carlos has said he would send a tape to anyone who wants a copy.
on irc chat, someone called Huntsman volunteered but did not want to give out his full contact details to a stranger.

I gave my details to carlos instead. However, if/when I get the tape, I don't have any video tools to get it somewhere where more people can see it so that people can argue about the same subject material.

Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere....

Hi Skirix bron : ) ) :

So you don't have any video tools and you want to digitize the tape as Hunstman told me before.

I alredy answered him and explained about the risks and frauds that can be put on a digitized tape.

It seems that nobody here want to help you, I guess they are more concernned in the JREF rules that in the tape itself.

Maybe it will help you if you investigate which link on internet ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI used to studied it "frame by frame" and gave me their poor conclutions and lies to me. IT MUST BE ON THE INTERNET.

Or just wait until somebody of the members of the forum respond at your reply, maybe will be good ideas about what to do with the video.

Are you prepare enough ?Not yet I "guess" according to your "death words" in your reply.

Thanks,
S&S

IggyK

9th October 2002, 03:49 PM

I have one suggestion for what to do with the video tape. Carlos, being straight (or so he says) won't like it but considering this whole mess of insults he's piled on us, it is the best place to STICK IT. :eek:

9th October 2002, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Skirix bron : ) ) :

So you don't have any video tools and you want to digitize the tape as Hunstman told me before.

I never told you I had the tools. Nor did I intend to analyse the tape with anything but my own eyes. Huntsman offered to do more but you wouldn't send the tape to him.

As I said to you on #randi.org : Nothing has changed, so why are you backing down?

I alredy answered him and explained about the risks and frauds that can be put on a digitized tape.

What about the risks and frauds that can be put on a regular tape? The answer is simple, Carlos. Once the tape is online you can view it yourself and tell us if it has been changed. Problem solved, right?

It seems that nobody here want to help you, I guess they are more concernned in the JREF rules that in the tape itself.

Maybe it will help you if you investigate which link on internet ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI used to studied it "frame by frame" and gave me their poor conclutions and lies to me. IT MUST BE ON THE INTERNET.

This does not seem advisable since you yourself have commented that this "poor quality" representation does not correctly show the phenomenon.

Or just wait until somebody of the members of the forum respond at your reply, maybe will be good ideas about what to do with the video.

My idea was to VIEW the video. If you don't think it is a good idea to view the 'evidence' first before making comment, what do you suggest I do instead? Comment *without* viewing evidence??

Are you prepare enough ?Not yet I "guess" according to your "death words" in your reply.

I'm as prepared as I ever was, Carlos. Nothing has changed. You promised to copy and send me a tape, and I agreed to pay for the postage. Now you are backing out, with no excuse except for these "Death Words" that you keep talking about. Breaking a promise makes you a liar.

I haven't said anything in my post here at the forum that I don't intend to follow through with. Please explain which of my words are "Death Words".

And please explain why you now think I am "not deserving" of a copy of the tape.

10th October 2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by skirix

What about the risks and frauds that can be put on a regular tape? The answer is simple, Carlos. Once the tape is online you can view it yourself and tell us if it has been changed. Problem solved, right?

This does not seem advisable since you yourself have commented that this "poor quality" representation does not correctly show the phenomenon.

My idea was to VIEW the video. If you don't think it is a good idea to view the 'evidence' first before making comment, what do you suggest I do instead? Comment *without* viewing evidence??

I haven't said anything in my post here at the forum that I don't intend to follow through with. Please explain which of my words are "Death Words".

And please explain why you now think I am "not deserving" of a copy of the tape. [/B]

Hi Skirix:

This are your death words :"Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere...."

Well, nobody wants to help you in your "clean" propposal of sharing a truth. It happened to me not only in this forum but also in the MSN Skeptic Forum administrated by IggyK.
This clown (Iggy K)is the same guy who posted in this forum ,before your last reply, 5 times the same stupid message that shows you the "opinion" of this kind of inmature members.He also expulsed me from "his" forum only because I started writing here, jealous and angry because nobody wrote there after I was out. Is the same idiot that lied in his and in this forum writing that he also taped the same shot in his super VHS., but was afraid to share it with the members and visitors of this thread.

I agree with you : is hard and difficult to comment without "viewing" evidence, and that is the most important key of the problem, I had been replying that thought in this forum. Congratulations for that , it shows me that you don't belong to that small group of brainless members.

All I want from you is to be clear on what I put in my notarized application, it seems to me that you have not did it yet.
My tape in VHS, as I said there, is only a referential guide that help anybody to find the shot that are at the tv stations, so with this "new" tape (3/4 tape or betacam) can be prove that is not falsed and show clearly what I claim, if you use the appropiate equipments.

I never said to you that I am not going to send the tape to you.
My promise is "SWETT'S WORD" but first things must be clear enough for you.Please don't missinterpretate my replies.

I hope this will help JAMES RANDI to get out of his big silence about SWETT , and be honest enough to put my application and the poor answer they gave me with his sign on it,

Thankyou skirix

Thanks.
S&S

IggyK

10th October 2002, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Skirix:

This are your death words :"Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere...."

Well, nobody wants to help you in your "clean" propposal of sharing a truth. It happened to me not only in this forum but also in the MSN Skeptic Forum administrated by IggyK.
This clown (Iggy K)is the same guy who posted in this forum ,before your last reply, 5 times the same stupid message that shows you the "opinion" of this kind of inmature members.He also expulsed me from "his" forum only because I started writing here, jealous and angry because nobody wrote there after I was out. Is the same idiot that lied in his and in this forum writing that he also taped the same shot in his super VHS., but was afraid to share it with the members and visitors of this thread.

I agree with you : is hard and difficult to comment without "viewing" evidence, and that is the most important key of the problem, I had been replying that thought in this forum. Congratulations for that , it shows me that you don't belong to that small group of brainless members.

All I want from you is to be clear on what I put in my notarized application, it seems to me that you have not did it yet.
My tape in VHS, as I said there, is only a referential guide that help anybody to find the shot that are at the tv stations, so with this "new" tape (3/4 tape or betacam) can be prove that is not falsed and show clearly what I claim, if you use the appropiate equipments.

I never said to you that I am not going to send the tape to you.
My promise is "SWETT'S WORD" but first things must be clear enough for you.Please don't missinterpretate my replies.

I hope this will help JAMES RANDI to get out of his big silence about SWETT , and be honest enough to put my application and the poor answer they gave me with his sign on it,

Thankyou skirix

Thanks.
S&S

Wyrd1 was the one who kicked you out not me and you got the boot because here in this forum you proved yourself totally incapable of answering simple questions, instead resorting to personal attacks and blithely accusing others of doing the same to you as if you had done nothing. You got the boot because you were wasting space. One of these days I'll clean your filthy words from the forum at msn but I'm in no hurry. I tried to help you if you will recall and instead of civil treatment I got your insults. And yes I did watch a tape of the 9/11 tragedy but other than a few birds there was nothing paranormal to see. My VCR doesn't connect to my computer and judging by the video you have posted here, neither does yours. What's sad is that you have lost your challenge but are too foolish to know it. You have flushed your honor down the toilet here and at the Skeptics Forum and the truth that you claim to fight for is that you are a small pathetic insignificant delusional fool. I feel sorry for you.

10th October 2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by IggyK

Wyrd1 was the one who kicked you out not me and you got the boot because here in this forum you proved yourself totally incapable of answering simple questions, instead resorting to personal attacks and blithely accusing others of doing the same to you as if you had done nothing. You got the boot because you were wasting space. One of these days I'll clean your filthy words from the forum at msn but I'm in no hurry. I tried to help you if you will recall and instead of civil treatment I got your insults. And yes I did watch a tape of the 9/11 tragedy but other than a few birds there was nothing paranormal to see. My VCR doesn't connect to my computer and judging by the video you have posted here, neither does yours. What's sad is that you have lost your challenge but are too foolish to know it. You have flushed your honor down the toilet here and at the Skeptics Forum and the truth that you claim to fight for is that you are a small pathetic insignificant delusional fool. I feel sorry for you.

Yours is the most stupid reply of all the history oh JREF forum.
just stay in your msn Skeptic Forum.

Are you following me ? Or just another uncover fan?

You can write here more stupids replies and soon the machine or the computer will convert you in RATIONAL THINKER , but remember the machine , like you, also doesn't think.

Write to James Randi and ask him for help.

Thanks.
S&S

Wyrd1

10th October 2002, 07:40 PM

Impartial observer Carlos, but Iggy signed up before you did. Check your dates if you don't believe me. Listen, Iggy is going to post some pics he got off DVD i the Skeptic's Forum. I know you have a "secret Identity" or some loser who reports back to you. Check them out if you dare. Here, for everyone else's info I will let them know that there is a suspicious lack of "paranormal objects" coming out from the tower. Not that Carlos will care.

IggyK

11th October 2002, 01:08 PM

"Yours is the most stupid reply of all the history oh JREF forum.
just stay in your msn Skeptic Forum."
Coming from you, Carlos, I consider this a compliment. Just so you know, you don't have undercover fans. Everybody here in this forum thinks of you as delusional pain in the hindquarters. I think you're someone starving for attention. So I just gave you some. I hope you enjoy it. :p

11th October 2002, 08:03 PM

I rememberd when i was a member of skeptics forum, until this fans banned me, i remembered this funny post of them:

Iggy: 30/08/2002 11:06

I don`t have access to professional equipments like a 3/4 Betacam but on my mere super VHS the blur can be see on the white part of the building in front of the hole.

Iggy: 29/08/2002 16:36

Wyrd and I studied the interenet video frame by frame. From the network feed for the angle in image 5it was plainly obvious that it is what Wyrd said it was. It is an out of focus bird. The bird is not acting in any paranormal manner. It is movin across the plane in the image and can be seen in every frame althought somewhat dimly when it is in front of the dark background. Since it is crearly much closer to the camera than the tower it appears larger than it is. Anyone who was ever operated a videocamera using a telephoto lens has seen this happens.
Wyrd has a SuperVHS VCR and these are extremely good tapes.

Wyrd and Iggy congratulations for your new DVD so you can replace your old super VHS.

To skirix (browney on the chat):
To skirix (browney on the chat):
As you see, there are 2 members that have the questioned tape with a better resolution, or maybe is only bla, bla, bla, of these jealous guys because Swett started posting in this thread.

Wyrd1

11th October 2002, 08:24 PM

The only angle that appeared similar to what was posted showed a bird. Plainly, obviuosly a bird. Since you and Carlos are being such crybabies about being banned, we have lifted the ban on both of you nitwits. All you have to do is reapply and your in. The group is still unmoderated so you can say any stupid thing you like. BTW how did YOU get ahold of Carlos Swett's correspondence to and from Randi? Oh WTF who cares? Come back to the group or not. Be happy. Ignorance, after all, is bliss. Bring Carlos if you like. Or don't, it's in your court. You two can quit playing wounded weepy woo woo warriors (good line Iggy!) I don't know how but you neerdowells have managed to suck me back into your idiotic sheres despite a promise to myself that I wouldn't allow it. Sigh.

11th October 2002, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by latinijral
I rememberd when i was a member of skeptics forum, until this fans banned me, i remembered this funny post of them:

Iggy: 30/08/2002 11:06

I don`t have access to professional equipments like a 3/4 Betacam but on my mere super VHS the blur can be see on the white part of the building in front of the hole.

Iggy: 29/08/2002 16:36

Wyrd and I studied the interenet video frame by frame. From the network feed for the angle in image 5it was plainly obvious that it is what Wyrd said it was. It is an out of focus bird. The bird is not acting in any paranormal manner. It is movin across the plane in the image and can be seen in every frame althought somewhat dimly when it is in front of the dark background. Since it is crearly much closer to the camera than the tower it appears larger than it is. Anyone who was ever operated a videocamera using a telephoto lens has seen this happens.
Wyrd has a SuperVHS VCR and these are extremely good tapes.

Wyrd and Iggy congratulations for your new DVD so you can replace your old super VHS.

To skirix (browney on the chat):
As you see, there are 2 members that have the questioned tape with a better resolution, or maybe is only bla, bla, bla, of these jealous guys because Swett started posting in this thread.
Why don`t you share your video with the members???

Wyrd1

11th October 2002, 08:54 PM

For the same reason you don't put yours on the net. I don't have the ability to transfer it to the computer. I purchased a DVD Memorial that had only two angles and I posted the images on the forum. You can see birds in the second series although it is a different angle and none of them appear to fly out of the hole in tower two. It doesn't prove anything of course but it does demonstrate there were large numbers of birds taking flight when the second plane hit.

12th October 2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Wyrd1
For the same reason you don't put yours on the net. I don't have the ability to transfer it to the computer. I purchased a DVD Memorial that had only two angles and I posted the images on the forum. You can see birds in the second series although it is a different angle and none of them appear to fly out of the hole in tower two. It doesn't prove anything of course but it does demonstrate there were large numbers of birds taking flight when the second plane hit.

PINOCHIO:

You posted images of the FIRST plane crashed.
My referential tape send to the JREF was about the SECOND impact.

Birds are free to fly not only in New York but all over around the world. That does not prove anything.

You have to prove that Harter's bird in the second impact is in the front of the tower and does not give the false impression that came BEHIND the FIRST tower(north). That's all.

You are the one who LIED that you have the complete sequence of the shot in discussion. If you have that , just take a picture like latinijral did it to the tv. and post here the sequence.

Harter(JREF) received my tape , is on his first sentence of the poor answer he gave to me. The difference is that he studied the sequence "frame by frame" on an unwknown an incomplete low resoluted video ON INTERNET

If you are curious enough(as it seems to be) ask HARTER which is the link he studied.

If you are trying to confuse the rational members of this forum with your lies, is your problem. I am sure that also you will have followers in your stupid analisis.

Go ahead with your forum, if nobody writes anymore there is because you expused me with no main reason that because I am here at JREF forum fighting for a truth and for my honor.

I know the form of a bird when is flying (I am an artist): the wings are in the upside and the body is in the down side. In my observation there is NOT a movement of "the wings" , and the form remains as a "hat form" (the opposite of a bird fly) .
Take a look again and compare, liar.

Thanks,
S&S

Purple Tentacle

12th October 2002, 08:32 AM

just stop calling people 'liars' it doesnt help your case. no one is 'lying' to you, noone is making anything up just to shut you down!

thats all i have to say.:rolleyes:

12th October 2002, 09:18 AM

Number1

12th October 2002, 09:20 AM

IN FRONT OR BEHIND THE TOWER?
NUMBER 2

12th October 2002, 09:26 AM

"THE PARANORMAL HARTER'S BIRD"
NUMBER 3

12th October 2002, 09:29 AM

THE "SPEED" according to the explotion in the second tower
NUMBER 4

Purple Tentacle

12th October 2002, 09:39 AM

and you want a million dollars for THAT ?

12th October 2002, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
and you want a million dollars for THAT ?

Hi purple Tentacle:

No, I just want to open your mind., and force Randi and Harter to be honest.That's all.

Thank you p.t.

Thanks,
S&S

Purple Tentacle

12th October 2002, 09:54 AM

ok

so in your mind, what is the most plausible answer for what this object is ?

12th October 2002, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
ok

so in your mind, what is the most plausible answer for what this object is ?

Hi Purple tentacle:
That's better.
As I said in my notarized application to the JREF is a PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and explained the reasons why.
Is not the challenge about paranormal events too?

Thank you Purple tentacle

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Let the "rules of the challenge " for JREF lawyers, just focus in the tape or the images.

12th October 2002, 10:39 AM

JUST ANOTHER COMMENTARY:

These are four frames (or fields?) of video from a tape made as the second jet hits the second tower of the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The red arrow points at an object that is streaking by at hypersonic speed (much greater than the speed of sound). In one frame the object moves a distance approximately equal to the width of a tower. The tower is approximately 250 feet in width. The video frame rate is 30 frames per second. This gives an estimated speed of 5000 to 6000 miles per hour for the object. A video frame consists of two interlaced fields superimposed on top of each other. A fast moving object is blurred. It is possible to capture a field rather than a frame. There are 60 fields per second in a video. If the images are fields rather than frames then the object is moving at 10000 to 12000 miles per hour. Notice how slowly the explosion front expands relative to the moving object.
The object is not a conventional rocket. I have a master's degree in astronautical engineering and once taught graduate rocket propulsion to Air Force officers at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. At my graduation I was awarded the outstanding student award from a class of 144 graduate students. There is no rocket exhaust. At sea level the friction of the air would bring this object to a quick flaming end. I will add more detailed explanations as time goes on. Please come back for more accurate calculations and updates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
------------------------

Thanks,
S&S

12th October 2002, 10:42 AM

BEHIND OR IN FRONT?
But remember is from an internet tape (the way Harter studied it to gave me his answer to my notarized application)
The scene is complete and clear enough at a 3/4 or betacam tape available at the tv stations around the world. I did analize that proper way. and JREF knows that.

Wyrd1

12th October 2002, 01:50 PM

A request for this picture has come to me. I say again that this is not the angle that Carlos says shows his object but it is a shot which clearly shows NO paranormal object leaving the hole of tower two. If this object existed we should be able to see it. And Latin, I did try to photograph it but the picture was worse than the one posted on the net.

12th October 2002, 03:09 PM

Wyrd comment: And Latin, I did try to photograph it but the picture was worse than the one posted on the net.

I remembered you and similars: I took this picture from a screen of my local tv station.

angelinthemorning

12th October 2002, 03:12 PM

I am still new at this. Rummaging through 6000 plus posts to find what I should be looking for in the picture is mindboggling. Can someone give me a hint here? Is it a bird or what? And is the 1 mil reward for paranormal proof for real?:confused: :eek:

12th October 2002, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by angelinthemorning
I am still new at this. Rummaging through 6000 plus posts to find what I should be looking for in the picture is mindboggling. Can someone give me a hint here? Is it a bird or what? And is the 1 mil reward for paranormal proof for real?:confused: :eek:

Hi "angelinthemorning":

Welcome. I am Carlos Swett.

There are not 6000 plust posts (those are the number of views) ,they are "only" 464 posts or replies.

Well, this thread was posted originally by Patricio Elicer (before I came in this forum) with my name on it.

In the FIRST PAGE and in the FIRST reply of the thread (by Patricio E.)you can read the e.mails between JREF and me.
There is the answer that Andrew Harter(JREF) gave to me ,with JAMES RANDI aprooval, to my notarized application to the challenge.
In the SECOND PAGE and after a lot of replies , Patricio Elicer also posted (?) my translated notarized application. Don't ask me why he did it that way.

I am demanding here that Harter gave me a poor answer and used an antitechnical and poor method to gave me "his version" of what I challenged.

I don't want to influence in your appreciation or interpretation of what I claimed. If you want take your time and read the things I told here. The rest depends to you. You are free of put any commentary you want or to not do anything, Is your choice.

Thanks for that refreshing nick.

Thanks,
S&S

Purple Tentacle

13th October 2002, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Purple tentacle:
That's better.
As I said in my notarized application to the JREF is a PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and explained the reasons why.
Is not the challenge about paranormal events too?

Thank you Purple tentacle

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Let the "rules of the challenge " for JREF lawyers, just focus in the tape or the images.

sorry? i dont understand your answer, please respond to THIS question:

in your mind, what is the most plausible answer for what this object is ?

in my opinion, the most plausible answer is a bird or insect

2nd most plausible answer would debris from a plane

would i be right in assuming that you believe that the most plausible answer is an alien space ship ?

Blue Monk

13th October 2002, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
would i be right in assuming that you believe that the most plausible answer is an alien space ship ?

He thinks it's paranormal. Based on what I have no idea.

This is a classic case of someone placing importance on something, not based on the actual unusualness of it, but simply because it is connected to an emotional event.

Had this same 'mysterious' streak shown up on someones summer vacation movies it would not be given a second thought. It would have been shruged of as a video quirk or any number of plausible explanations or even more likely never even questioned at all.

It only has significance to this guy because of where it shows up, on a 9/11 video.

If it had been at Aunt Martha's birthday party no one would have ever suggested anything paranormal about it.

This guy doesn't seem to understand that these kind of images show up in videos by the thousands on a daily basis for a variety of reasons yet he thinks this is somehow worth the million bucks.

He seems to forget the cash is for proof of the paranormal. He has pointed out an image. Now exactly how does he prove it is paranormal?

angelinthemorning

13th October 2002, 03:22 AM

Carlos, I am a believer in God and therefore also believe in the existence
of events that are beyond our control. These images of something extraordinary taking place during the tragedy at the Trade Centers appears to be unexplainable except as something paranormal. If in fact Randi offers a mil for proof of paranormal activity, then he should at least investigate. In today's technology verifying whether or not a picture has been altered should be a relatively simple task.
The debate on whether God exists or not has gone on for ages and will continue to be debated between believers and unbelievers. It is unconceivable to me that this wonderful world and all that is in it just "happened." But, I respect the beliefs of those who choose not to believe in God. I wish you luck. :)

De_Bunk

13th October 2002, 03:33 AM

I'll keep both of you happy...

It was "God" passing by the towers....

There... that should keep "S&S" and "Angelinthemorning" happy...

Purple Tentacle

13th October 2002, 04:05 AM

In today's technology verifying whether or not a picture has been altered should be a relatively simple task.

i think its the exact opposite, with the advancements in technology it is getting harder and harder to tell if photographs or video is faked.

13th October 2002, 12:41 PM

13th October 2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

He thinks it's paranormal. Based on what I have no idea.

This is a classic case of someone placing importance on something, not based on the actual unusualness of it, but simply because it is connected to an emotional event.

Had this same 'mysterious' streak shown up on someones summer vacation movies it would not be given a second thought. It would have been shruged of as a video quirk or any number of plausible explanations or even more likely never even questioned at all.

It only has significance to this guy because of where it shows up, on a 9/11 video.

If it had been at Aunt Martha's birthday party no one would have ever suggested anything paranormal about it.

This guy doesn't seem to understand that these kind of images show up in videos by the thousands on a daily basis for a variety of reasons yet he thinks this is somehow worth the million bucks.

He seems to forget the cash is for proof of the paranormal. He has pointed out an image. Now exactly how does he prove it is paranormal?

Hi Blue Monk:
You are another example of what people DON'T HAVE to do before open their big mouth or start writing here.
THe first thing you had to do ,before making a jucgement, is read my application to the challenge, specially the part where I said :

"I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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.

If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth.."
--------------------

See , blue monk?

Can you explain me WHY HARTER'S "BIRD" is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it?

WHY it "seems" to come from behind the tower?

HOW big and speedy is the "bird"?

WHY HARTER'S ANSWER is based in an internet tape?

WHY he did not go to the different tv chains and there with their own tape studied it?

Why Harter lied , with Randi's aprooval, about that I was making two assumptions? (he did not even mentioned the second, and the first is a big liar)

Why Randi is still on silence about my application?

So, Blue monk and this goes to PURPLE TENTACLE too, remember I am talking of a live transmission of a TRAGIC EVENT,
This EVENT was the most broadcasted and with the most audience in TV history.
Can a BIRD get into the hole in fire and get out from the other side? Only a "paranormal bird". Give me a break.

Thanks,
S&S

13th October 2002, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I'll keep both of you happy...

It was "God" passing by the towers....

There... that should keep "S&S" and "Angelinthemorning" happy...

Don't forget "the devil", Randi's beleiver.
It will make both happy.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

I am still waiting if you have the ------ to answer the questions.

rwald

13th October 2002, 06:58 PM

Slight problem, angelinthemorning: Randi doesn't offer a one million dollar award for proving that some paranormal event took place. He offers a one million dollar award for causing some paranormal event to take place. There's one sentence which, when read the wrong way, can give an impresssion contrary to this, but if you read the rules in their entirety, it will be obvious that Randi wants a live demonstration of the paranormal, not just a video which might be paranormal. You can find the rules by clicking on the "$1 Million Paranormal Challenge" link at the top of the page.

And when you find out the truth, could you tell Carlos? He's clearly stopped listening to us; maybe he'll believe you.

13th October 2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by angelinthemorning
Carlos, I am a believer in God and therefore also believe in the existence
of events that are beyond our control. These images of something extraordinary taking place during the tragedy at the Trade Centers appears to be unexplainable except as something paranormal. If in fact Randi offers a mil for proof of paranormal activity, then he should at least investigate. In today's technology verifying whether or not a picture has been altered should be a relatively simple task.
The debate on whether God exists or not has gone on for ages and will continue to be debated between believers and unbelievers. It is unconceivable to me that this wonderful world and all that is in it just "happened." But, I respect the beliefs of those who choose not to believe in God. I wish you luck. :)

Hi angelinthemorning:
There is nothing wrong that you beleive in GOD.

What is wrong is that exists Randi's beleivers, as they were JIm Jones fans, Charlie Manson's fans, etc.

A man , no matter who is he, is not the owner of the truth.

I pretended to SHARE a truth, and like you said I trusted Randi and the JREF were be able to investigate in a proper way my affirmation.
I am so sorry they did not do that. Was not my fault.

I wish another angelinthenight (hope not the-bunk).Tonight at the chat I had a visit of a person that recomforted me and gave me words that tells me I am not alone.

You are the only one that can solve this mistery if you want.
Is your choise.

Thankyou Angelinthemorning

Thanks,
S&S

Purple Tentacle

13th October 2002, 10:34 PM

carlos, you are a neville .

14th October 2002, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi angelinthemorning:
There is nothing wrong that you beleive in GOD.

What is wrong is that exists Randi's beleivers, as they were JIm Jones fans, Charlie Manson's fans, etc.

A man , no matter who is he, is not the owner of the truth.

I pretended to SHARE a truth, and like you said I trusted Randi and the JREF were be able to investigate in a proper way my affirmation.
I am so sorry they did not do that. Was not my fault.

I wish another angelinthenight (hope not the-bunk).Tonight at the chat I had a visit of a person that recomforted me and gave me words that tells me I am not alone.

You are the only one that can solve this mistery if you want.
Is your choise.

Thankyou Angelinthemorning

Thanks,
S&S

Blue Monk

14th October 2002, 09:07 AM

S&S,

You seem to be laboring under at least two misconceptions.

One is that your videotape is proof of the paranormal.

The second is that I have to meet any requirement established by you before opening my big mouth. For 47 years I have opened my big mouth at will based on whatever criteria I deem appropriate without feeling the need to consult you first.

I appreciate you sharing your opinion, however, I hope you will understand as I have decided to continue my well-established policy of opening my big mouth as I seem fit and I won’t be requiring your services, though it is very kind of you to offer.

And no, I didn’t review your application before making my comments as I was offering an opinion to what was on the videotape and could not see, and quite frankly still can’t see, what any thing you may or may not have put to paper would alter what was on the tape.

However, in the interest of fairness, if you will tell me where I can review your application I will do so. Then I will review your tape (I believe the old link is broken so a new link would be appreciated) and see if in fact the review of your application has somehow altered what is on the tape.

14th October 2002, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk
S&S,

I appreciate you sharing your opinion, however, I hope you will understand as I have decided to continue my well-established policy of opening my big mouth as I seem fit and I won’t be requiring your services, though it is very kind of you to offer.

And no, I didn’t review your application before making my comments as I was offering an opinion to what was on the videotape and could not see, and quite frankly still can’t see, what any thing you may or may not have put to paper would alter what was on the tape.

However, in the interest of fairness, if you will tell me where I can review your application I will do so. Then I will review your tape (I believe the old link is broken so a new link would be appreciated) and see if in fact the review of your application has somehow altered what is on the tape.

Hi Blue Monk:

Is easy : the translated version by Patricio Elicer is in this thread.
I will repeat you what I said to "angelinthemorning":

"Well, this thread was posted originally by Patricio Elicer (before I came in this forum) with my name on it.

In the FIRST PAGE and in the FIRST reply of this thread (by Patricio E.)you can read the e.mails between JREF and me.
There is the answer that Andrew Harter(JREF) gave to me ,with JAMES RANDI aprooval, to my notarized application to the challenge.

In the SECOND PAGE and after a lot of replies , Patricio Elicer also posted (?) my translated notarized application. Don't ask me why he did it that way.

I am demanding here that Harter gave me a poor answer with lies on it and used an antitechnical and poor method to gave me "his version" of what I challenged."
::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::

I hope this will help you Blue Monk.
You are free as I am to open the big mouth.
Sorry if I missinterpretated your reply, but you were judging without looking both sides of the story.

Thank you Blue Monk

Thanks,
S&S

CurtC

14th October 2002, 12:44 PM

OK, I've lurked in this thread for a while. It looks like a bird or insect to me. You can't tell how big or how fast because you don't know how far away it is. Tell me how far away and I'll tell you how big and how fast.

If this was a consumer camcorder, those have pretty small lenses and apertures, so the overall blurry image indicates that it's closer to the camera, indicating it's smaller, like a small bird or big bug. Or maybe it's just blurry because it's moving and it's not a sharp picture anyway.

Carlos, you keep mentioning that the thing goes behind the building, but you don't really elaborate why you think that. In previous images, the dark bird would have been in front of the dark smoke, so you wouldn't be able to see it on a video of this quality. The one photo you seem to think is most important is the one where the bird is closest to the right edge of the tower. I think you're asking why its blur doesn't cover up part of the tower. That's because the bird is not really this elongated shape - what you're seeing is that during one exposure, the bird is moving. The building at that point is pretty bright, so the fraction of the frame when the bird blocked its light was not long enough to keep those pixels from being overexposed anyway, so those pixels look just like the others in the building.

This seems to be to be by far the most likely explanation. Do you have a reason to think that it's not correct?

rwald

14th October 2002, 01:19 PM

For the record, Carlos doesn't think it passed behind the building. He thinks it passed through the building. Also, it might have been a big TV camera; not to say that those are immune from birds flying closer than the focal range, but just to defuse Carlos's counterargument. Other than that, I agree with everything you said, CurtC.

14th October 2002, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
OK, I've lurked in this thread for a while. It looks like a bird or insect to me. You can't tell how big or how fast because you don't know how far away it is. Tell me how far away and I'll tell you how big and how fast.

If this was a consumer camcorder, those have pretty small lenses and apertures, so the overall blurry image indicates that it's closer to the camera, indicating it's smaller, like a small bird or big bug. Or maybe it's just blurry because it's moving and it's not a sharp picture anyway.

Carlos, you keep mentioning that the thing goes behind the building, but you don't really elaborate why you think that. In previous images, the dark bird would have been in front of the dark smoke, so you wouldn't be able to see it on a video of this quality. The one photo you seem to think is most important is the one where the bird is closest to the right edge of the tower. I think you're asking why its blur doesn't cover up part of the tower. That's because the bird is not really this elongated shape - what you're seeing is that during one exposure, the bird is moving. The building at that point is pretty bright, so the fraction of the frame when the bird blocked its light was not long enough to keep those pixels from being overexposed anyway, so those pixels look just like the others in the building.

This seems to be to be by far the most likely explanation. Do you have a reason to think that it's not correct?

Hi CurtC:

I aprecciate your interpretations.
Is the kind of studies I was looking for when I challenged JREF.

1 )My answer of how far away it is from the camera is in my application:
"....In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode. "

2)The shot was made by a news equipment, transsmitted "live" to all the world.

3)I said : It "seems" to pass behind the building. Read again that part of the application. The reality is that entered the whole and get out from the other side of the building.

4) The photos and the images posted here are from a video of internet.Andrew Harter used that method to gave me his stupid answer.

I did this , as I said in my application:
"...We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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. "

Yes ,we went to different tv stations and with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes (not digitized images)and with their own equipments made the required analisis. JREF also have that document.
With those kinds of proffesional equipments and with the "complete" sequence of the shot , you are able to realize a real study "frame by frame" where the frames are reall shorts enough and don't make jumps. With those proffesional studies "your bird or insect" NEVER cover up that part of the tower.

I know that this poor image show on the internet don't help you analize it a propper way as you wish.It is not my fault. Harter did it that way.

I hope this reply help you in your future analisis, and congratulations for your interest.
Have you analize the form? is the "bird" flying upside down?
Do a dark object can and must be seen against a white one?

Thank you CurtC

Thanks,
S&S

CurtC

14th October 2002, 01:55 PM

OK, Carlos. I don't care what TV programs this was aired on. It doesn't matter. You keep posting a large amount of extraneous information. But here I think is the key question that you don't understand:Do a dark object can and must be seen against a white one?First of all, these images appear to be individual frames from a standard video camera. The jumpiness is not because they're digitized, but because that's how video cameras work. And no, a dark object would not necessarily be seen against a white one in the background. You see, the dark object is not really elongated in shape. It's really a bird that's moving. The sky looks a little darker along its path because for a fraction of that exposure, the bird was blocking light from that part of the sky, and less light means darker.

But with something bright in the image like the building, which is overexposed, blocking the light for a fraction of the time will not result in significant darkening of those pixels, because they were overexposed even with the bird blocking a fraction of the light. So you would see much less of an effect.

It's a bird flying along in front of the camera. Now I repeat my question: Do you have reason to think that this explanation is not correct? If so, please let us know specifically what about it cannot be right.

rwald

14th October 2002, 02:18 PM

Carlos, I hate to get involved in this again, but...

You say that it must have been far from the camera because it passed through the building. Do you have any evidence that it passed through the building? CurtC has made his points about camera exposure. A fast-moving, blurry object might not make a white background that much darker. I've analyzed the picture you posted on page 12 (yes, I know, not the "proper method," but I'm not going to go to a TV station for this), and it looks like the "paranormal object" darkens the tower to the same degree it darkens the sky. For the record, a pixel of the object had a color code (red, green, blue) of 92, 97, 111 compared to the sky's 113, 115, 126; a sample of where the object passed in front of the tower had a color code of 202, 202, 204 compared to the building's normal color of 216, 214, 207. So, the object did pass in front of the tower.

Not that this will convince you.

14th October 2002, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi CurtC:

I aprecciate your interpretations.
Is the kind of studies I was looking for when I challenged JREF.

1 )My answer of how far away it is from the camera is in my application:
"....In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode. "

2)The shot was made by a news equipment, transsmitted "live" to all the world.

3)I said : It "seems" to pass behind the building. Read again that part of the application. The reality is that entered the whole and get out from the other side of the building.

4) The photos and the images posted here are from a video of internet.Andrew Harter used that method to gave me his stupid answer.

I did this , as I said in my application:
"...We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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. "

Yes ,we went to different tv stations and with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes (not digitized images)and with their own equipments made the required analisis. JREF also have that document.
With those kinds of proffesional equipments and with the "complete" sequence of the shot , you are able to realize a real study "frame by frame" where the frames are reall shorts enough and don't make jumps. With those proffesional studies "your bird or insect" NEVER cover up that part of the tower.

I know that this poor image show on the internet don't help you analize it a propper way as you wish.It is not my fault. Harter did it that way.

I hope this reply help you in your future analisis, and congratulations for your interest.
Have you analize the form? is the "bird" flying upside down?
Do a dark object can and must be seen against a white one?

Thank you CurtC

Thanks,
S&S

14th October 2002, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
OK, Carlos. I don't care what TV programs this was aired on. It doesn't matter. You keep posting a large amount of extraneous information. But here I think is the key question that you don't understand:First of all, these images appear to be individual frames from a standard video camera. The jumpiness is not because they're digitized, but because that's how video cameras work. And no, a dark object would not necessarily be seen against a white one in the background. You see, the dark object is not really elongated in shape. It's really a bird that's moving. The sky looks a little darker along its path because for a fraction of that exposure, the bird was blocking light from that part of the sky, and less light means darker.

But with something bright in the image like the building, which is overexposed, blocking the light for a fraction of the time will not result in significant darkening of those pixels, because they were overexposed even with the bird blocking a fraction of the light. So you would see much less of an effect.

It's a bird flying along in front of the camera. Now I repeat my question: Do you have reason to think that this explanation is not correct? If so, please let us know specifically what about it cannot be right.

Hi Curt C :
Many reasons:

ARe you talking about PIXELS?, Only in digitized Images.

Not in 3/4 images.

Is your fault and JREF that keep analizing unknown, incompleted internet images.

That is not the correct method.

Was a "LIVE" transmission of a tragic EVENT.

If you want to "think" that a DARK "object" can not be seen in front of a WHITE building , is YOUR appreciation.

What about the form of your and Harter's "bird"?

Is the "bird flying upside down?

Thank you CurtC
Thanks.
S&S

14th October 2002, 07:50 PM

Here is a link I found abouth "other analisis " of the PIXELS of the digitized image.

What I said the first week of the tragic Event and denunciate and studied in the TV channels stations with their own equipments correspond basically in the form and details to the same exposed in this page :

http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

Is your choise.Now we know the "image" of "the bird" can be studied.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. Yes I know that a digitized image can be tricked , like Rwald did it, but YOU ALL (including JREF) are the fans of internet images.
I always recommended the correct method. All Tv stations have that shot in their files.Randi is a media man. The tv is open to him.
But he prefered the internet. Give me a break JAMES RANDI

CurtC

14th October 2002, 07:54 PM

Carlos, you're right that the term "pixel" refers to digitized images. However, the same idea works for any TV picture. How about "that little spot on the picture"?

I posted reasons why a brief interruption of light from a bright source might not be that noticeable, because of saturation effects. rwald posted that he measured the pixel values, and found them to be slightly darker. It was a bird.

Again, I ask: do you have a reason that this explanation cannot be right? This is the third time I've asked it, so please take notice.

And I'm not sure what the point of latinjral's post was. You just repeated stuff that we already have said does not matter. Who cares about the timeline and what networks the show was aired on? No one here.

CurtC

14th October 2002, 08:15 PM

Carlos, I looked at that site (the correct link is http://www.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html ). Any object recorded on a video camera will be blurred by half the distance it travels each frame. Your site claims to extract a hat-shaped object, but it seems to be clearly recorded each frame, which can't happen if it's moving. So was it moving or not?

If it was moving, then the object must be some other shape. It also is changing shapes as it goes. If it had the same shape always, it would look like a smooth blur with no lumps. But this one has lumps, like, I don't know, WINGS FLAPPING? Since you're obviously unfamiliar with the concept, please study the images at http://www.roswellrods.com to understand why their pictures are mostly of blurred flying insects.

14th October 2002, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
Carlos, you're right that the term "pixel" refers to digitized images. However, the same idea works for any TV picture. How about "that little spot on the picture"?

I posted reasons why a brief interruption of light from a bright source might not be that noticeable, because of saturation effects. rwald posted that he measured the pixel values, and found them to be slightly darker. It was a bird.

Again, I ask: do you have a reason that this explanation cannot be right? This is the third time I've asked it, so please take notice.

And I'm not sure what the point of latinjral's post was. You just repeated stuff that we already have said does not matter. Who cares about the timeline and what networks the show was aired on? No one here.

CurtC, hi again
YOu want more reasons?

Rwald only cares about the legal procedure of the challenge.He is refused to see and analize the tape. Just gallows humour.

The "little spot" is the other side of the building (the lateral): where the paranormal activity left the hole,

Just a brief interruption of the "bird's" traveling? That's my point.

Have you studied "your bird" in pixels?

Have you enlarged?

Have you see this in a wide big screen?

Are you the one who mentioned pixeles?

Are you the one like Harter who studied in the internet?

Check this again:

http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

But remember is a digitized image.
COMPLETE different in format and sequence from the one tv stations have, those correspond to what YOU and everybody around the world saw andreceived that tragic day.

Thanks.
S&S

Purple Tentacle

15th October 2002, 02:49 AM

when the 2nd plane hit, there were cameras from every direction filming the WTC, yet none of them saw ANYTHING fly out of or around or near the WTC. this is the only one ?!?!

CurtC

15th October 2002, 09:48 AM

So let me see if I understand your points.

1. The image on the tape is much different from anything on the Internet. Any analysis we do of Internet images does not apply.

2. I should study the images at the site you link to. However, these are digitized images, so they're not what's on the tape. I'm not sure why I should study them.

3. Since I don't have access to the tape, anything I say about the images doesn't matter.

However, even without seeing the tape, I can still refute the idea of a hat-shaped object, because I know how video cameras work. Please see my previous post about how images are blurred. If you have a reason why this analysis doesn't apply, please state it.

hal bidlack

15th October 2002, 10:02 AM

Don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer a specific question. I posed mine on Sept 3rd, and he has yet to reply.

I'll recap:

-can I claim the prize since I saw your tape too?

-can ... oh, the heck with it, he's been asked so often, and responded so poorly, forget it...

15th October 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by bidlack
Don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer a specific question. I posed mine on Sept 3rd, and he has yet to reply.

I'll recap:

-can I claim the prize since I saw your tape too?

-can ... oh, the heck with it, he's been asked so often, and responded so poorly, forget it...

Hi Bid lack:

If you "think" that STUPIDS questions like yours deserves an answer from me, then here is :

NO

You just saw the tape the regular way, you was looking at the plane crashes. I saw a paranormal activity in that tragic event, I made the application to the challenge first, and Randi is still on silence.

NO, you can't , is too late.
Ask Randi if you have more doubts.

Thanks,
S&S

rwald

15th October 2002, 12:33 PM

You see, Carlos is special because he sent in a notarized application.

Even though that application broke every one of the application rules, and doesn't even count as an application.

Wait...

15th October 2002, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
So let me see if I understand your points.

1. The image on the tape is much different from anything on the Internet. Any analysis we do of Internet images does not apply.

2. I should study the images at the site you link to. However, these are digitized images, so they're not what's on the tape. I'm not sure why I should study them.

3. Since I don't have access to the tape, anything I say about the images doesn't matter.

However, even without seeing the tape, I can still refute the idea of a hat-shaped object, because I know how video cameras work. Please see my previous post about how images are blurred. If you have a reason why this analysis doesn't apply, please state it.

Hi CurtC:

Your analysis doesn't apply just because you have not see the tape, and refuses to make an analysis of the "blur" or "bird" (I'm not sure with one ), and mainly because you "beleive" that a black dark object is invisible in front of a white wall.

I know about cameras too, and professional people that works with it at a tv station also knows about them. I studied the own 3/4 and betacam tape of the tv networks , with professional men, and all of them knows that is something "paranormal" going on.
I have digitized the image myself, and made other analisis like the link you looked.

I only can tell you, try to do the same or clean your cammera for the next family's vacation , I don't want a blur or the dust ruin your film.

Are you not curious about Randi's silence.?

If you have a reason why this analysis doesn't apply, PLEASE ask JAMES RANDI for help.

Thanks.
S&S

Doubt

15th October 2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Bid lack:

If you "think" that STUPIDS questions like yours deserves an answer from me, then here is :

NO

You just saw the tape the regular way, you was looking at the plane crashes. I saw a paranormal activity in that tragic event, I made the application to the challenge first, and Randi is still on silence.

NO, you can't , is too late.
Ask Randi if you have more doubts.

Thanks,
S&S

Ah Swett,

Not only do you ignore the rules of the challenge you do not like, you are starting to make up new ones.

Prove you were the first to observe "paranormal activity" on that tape. Being the first to send in an application does not mean that you were the first to see it. Never mind that the tape itself does not prove anything.

Your failed attempt to enter the challenge is not like a patent application. You have no exclusive rights here, especially since you don't have the property rights to the tape in question. (No lawyer needed to figure that one out.)

While we are at it, what supporting evidence do you have to back up the footage on the tape. There were many cameras trained on the towers after the planes hit. Do any other videos or still photos taken from other locations show your would be paranormal event? Without a second perspective, the position of the object cannot be triangulated. All you are left with is the apparent and unreliable 2 dimensional image.

Since you are an artist, I assume you are familiar with the concepts of perspective and scale. There is also a concept called forced perspective that is used in photography and film that can be applied here. Once you learn about forced perspective you will understand why people think your paranormal event could be a bird closer to the camera than where you think it is.

I tried looking for a good link to explain forced perspective, but I could not find any that offered a simple explanation. Using a search engine will provide you with lots of links for the Lord Of The Rings movies, which use it extensively to make several of the actors look smaller than they really are. It is much simpler to used forced perspective than digital reduction techniques.

15th October 2002, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

Ah Swett,

Not only do you ignore the rules of the challenge you do not like, you are starting to make up new ones.

Prove you were the first to observe "paranormal activity" on that tape. Being the first to send in an application does not mean that you were the first to see it. Never mind that the tape itself does not prove anything.

Your failed attempt to enter the challenge is not like a patent application. You have no exclusive rights here, especially since you don't have the property rights to the tape in question. (No lawyer needed to figure that one out.)

While we are at it, what supporting evidence do you have to back up the footage on the tape. There were many cameras trained on the towers after the planes hit. Do any other videos or still photos taken from other locations show your would be paranormal event? Without a second perspective, the position of the object cannot be triangulated. All you are left with is the apparent and unreliable 2 dimensional image.

Since you are an artist, I assume you are familiar with the concepts of perspective and scale. There is also a concept called forced perspective that is used in photography and film that can be applied here. Once you learn about forced perspective you will understand why people think your paranormal event could be a bird closer to the camera than where you think it is.

I tried looking for a good link to explain forced perspective, but I could not find any that offered a simple explanation. Using a search engine will provide you with lots of links for the Lord Of The Rings movies, which use it extensively to make several of the actors look smaller than they really are. It is much simpler to used forced perspective than digital reduction techniques.

HI Doubt:
Well I made the obseravation the same week of the tragic EVENT, is documented also in the tape I send to the JREF.

What I told BIDLACK (read again) is that I was THE FIRST that challenged Randi or JREF ,claiming that was a paranormal activity taking place in that fatidic 9/11/01 in New York.
I have the guide of FEDEX that proves JREF received my notharized application, a referential tape and a letter to Mr.James Randi.
In that application(is posted at the thread page 2) I refer why it can not be an insect or a bird in first crossing between the cameraman and the tower. YES , I thought about a forced perspective first and before you, but since are factors that I already explained , is why I send to JREF the challenge , willing they can give me an answer based in real technical methods and consulting the tapes the broadcasts have in his country.NO, they just studied it on the internet.

Of course I know about forced perspective, I use it in my art works, also I am degree in ARCHITECTURE.
If you want check these pictures of some of my works at this link:

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/carlosswett.msnw?albumlist=2

Don't loose your time, let the rules for Randi's lawyers, perhaps they recomendated Randi to be in silence, and to not write about it with his sign on it. Who knows?

Thank you Doubt

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

That link can be interpretate as a "commercial" , or that I am looking for some attention. Sorry , but after many posts and views is time to let people know what my real job is.
My fight here is for my honor. I don't care if James Randi is a God for you: He lied and insulted me , and I deserve at least his excuses. The rest nobody knows.