The "Carlos Swett affair"

[CWL]

Does anybody besides myself find it increadible that this thread is still alive?

Originally posted by rwald
It can't be forced perspective, because the object passed through the tower...

But what proof is there that the object must have passed through the tower?

Rwald wants proofs but he always said in the chat that he nerver wants to see the high resolution image with professional equipments, so how Carlos can show something to a blind.

Originally posted by CWL
Does anybody besides myself find it increadible that this thread is still alive?

Hi CWL:

Put me on your list.

But since I have answered ALL your questions, including the stupids ones, I must have the patient to see when will JAMES RANDI put my application and the poor answer they gave me, with their sign on it.

How is my english going?

Thank you CWL

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Fair enough a question, latinijral. I generally try to only argue the legal reasons why Carlos is wrong, because those can be done without any special equipment. Here, I'm basically supporting the work of others, who do want to see the actual video. If Carlos could prove to scribble, or CurtC, or Doubt that the video is real, that would satisfy me.

But will he?

blurs???

Originally posted by latinijral
blurs???

Originally posted by latinijral

Originally posted by latinijral

Originally posted by latinijral

Originally posted by latinijral

[Charlie in Dayton]

Oh, come ON, dude!!!

The proponents of this mess have been kvetching and screaming almost from day one that digitized images on the internet aren't the 'proper methods' to analyze this image...and now you're posting FIVE of them to support your side?

If nothing else, you were consistent in your nonsense before, but now you don't even have that! Latin (you don't mind if I call you by the short form of your screen name, do you? And even if you do mind, I'm gonna do it anyway, because of what the rest of it means...), you really do need to take a few steps back and take a deep breath on this one. I can see you descending into the WooWoo Maelstrom at a faster and faster rate, and it's not a pretty sight.

Originally posted by rwald
Fair enough a question, latinijral. I generally try to only argue the legal reasons why Carlos is wrong, because those can be done without any special equipment. Here, I'm basically supporting the work of others, who do want to see the actual video. If Carlos could prove to scribble, or CurtC, or Doubt that the video is real, that would satisfy me.

But will he?

Hi Rwald:

Welcome in your third come back. to the thread

Remember I have in my signature a reply thet belongs to you.
That was about the "legal part".


About if the video is real : How come Harter said he studied it "frame by frame" on a COPY available on internet?

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Oh, come ON, dude!!!

The proponents of this mess have been kvetching and screaming almost from day one that digitized images on the internet aren't the 'proper methods' to analyze this image...and now you're posting FIVE of them to support your side?

If nothing else, you were consistent in your nonsense before, but now you don't even have that! Latin (you don't mind if I call you by the short form of your screen name, do you? And even if you do mind, I'm gonna do it anyway, because of what the rest of it means...), you really do need to take a few steps back and take a deep breath on this one. I can see you descending into the WooWoo Maelstrom at a faster and faster rate, and it's not a pretty sight.

Hi Charlie in Dayton:

Welcome again in this thread.

Your reply can be interpretated that YOU also don't agree with the method ANDREW HARTER used to study the tape , so his answer is not the correct.
Yes, I've been telling that also.
Thanks, I need it that.

But those pictures latin posted are similatrs of what you can see in a 3/4 tape at the tv networks, better if you look at a big wide sreen television, and with the correct equipments.

How can you explain Randi's silence? He always talk about ufos in his week's commentaries, but nothing about this "paranormal activity"

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

S&S,

I have resisted posting on the ridiculous subject to any extent as long as I could but now I'm gonna give my two cents.

For the moment I will ignore the mountains of alternative possibilities concerning that specific tape, concerning misidentified smaller objects nearer to the camera, technical problems with the camera and or film. I'll overlook the fact that this image appears to look like something to you and not point out that just because a cloud looks like a bunny does not mean it is. I'll overlook the fact that as a photography major in college with a brief career as a photographer I have literally boxes filled with photos, slides, 16mm film and videotape just packed with 'paranormal' artifacts that I can't explain. For the moment I'll ignore that.

I'll ignore the fact that even if another tape is produced showing the same event to rule out technical flaws in this particular taping there is still no human on earth that can understand all of the physical laws being pushed to the extreme that day and there is no way that anyone can know the exact conditions at that moment. No one knows exactly what was on the planes or inside the buildings. The pressures on those buildings under ideal conditions push man's knowledge to the limit and no one could accurately predict in precise details what may or may not occur when they are slammed into by large commercial airliners. The forces placed on those buildings in ways to which they were not designed must have been phenomenal. I could easily believe that a piece of masonry, glass or steel at the focal point of gathering energy could fly off as if shot from a cannon and even if the resulting image closely resembled Elvis I would be unimpressed. But for now I'll ignore that.

And even if a blue-ribbon panel was assembled to study this tape, calling in leading experts from around the globe and they studied it for years and in the end were unable to identify the source of this pathetic little streak do you know what that would prove?

Nothing!

People once couldn't explain lightning so it must be Zeus. They were wrong. It's a discharge of electro-static energy.

People once thought volcanoes meant the Gods were angry. They were wrong. It's the natural result of the movements of the Earth's crust and plumes.

Planes crash all the time and it is remarkable how well the investigators can sift through the debris, analyze all of the evidence and determine a cause but guess what? Sometimes they can't. No one would ever consider the lack of an explanation as proof of something paranormal.

Not being able to explain something will never be proof of the paranormal no more than any mysterious bumps I hear tonight while I am in bed that I can't identify is proof that ghosts are holding a rave in my living room.

But as to your claims considering the challenge I have a very hard time seeing how you feel your tape even remotely meets the requirements. Remember, these rules were in place long before this tape ever surfaced. Let me refresh everyone's memory by posting the opening paragraph and the first condition to be met.

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


I have no idea exactly what psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability you plan to demonstrate or under what conditions you plan to do so as clearly indicated by the rules. If you can't meet the basic rules of the challenge then as far as I'm concerned, case closed.

I am sure you believe this is a paranormal event but that notwithstanding I think it's a shame you have let it affect your ethical judgment to the point you are willing to slander others for not addressing this issue when it quite clearly can not meet the most minimal requirement of being demonstrable under satisfactory observing conditions.

You have a tape that, though many plausible explanations have been put forth, no one, including you, has yet to definitivly explain.

When does the proof that this is paranormal begin?

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Oh, come ON, dude!!!

The proponents of this mess have been kvetching and screaming almost from day one that digitized images on the internet aren't the 'proper methods' to analyze this image...and now you're posting FIVE of them to support your side?

If nothing else, you were consistent in your nonsense before, but now you don't even have that! Latin (you don't mind if I call you by the short form of your screen name, do you? And even if you do mind, I'm gonna do it anyway, because of what the rest of it means...), you really do need to take a few steps back and take a deep breath on this one. I can see you descending into the WooWoo Maelstrom at a faster and faster rate, and it's not a pretty sight.

1. Charlie confirms that a proper method is not analized an internet image or video. Harter did it.
2. Charlie confirms to me one month ago (charlie`s clock update 30 days) that he wanted to analyse the image on his own local tv station.
3. The pictures that Carlos found in the internet are similars that I found on my local tv station.
4. Why Randi likes to analize videos or pictures of planets and clouds or airplanes, but in this shot he is in silence. You can see his week`s commentarys.

[hal bidlack]

OK, Carlos, let me try and speak to you in your own way that I might therefore avoid "stupid" questions again. Please address my final concerns below. If you can explain these, I will be convinced.

-can you verify that you did not fail to unsee the object before it was concerned (i.e., integrated or conjoined) with the influx of the psychic forces of the planes before the smoke was attenuated via the vector theory of lift and drag before the rotor effect was dominate?

-does the mothership provide the needed video valance balance to confirm the orientation of the ship's frame rate transmission in terms of the on-board vortex context and the unneeded energy diodes?

-did your application include proper fiduciary non-disclaimers of the time continum reference to the studio's video tape and therefore does not fail to not contain the needed and unneeded inverse and converse chronographical data input stream?

-given the veracity of your claim, can you swear or affirmm, or attest that that ingestion of biochemical Galenicals from a sybaritism concern have not mitigated the intersection of the claim and the non-claim, vis-a-vis the outcome of the resolution in current dollars?

If the answers to all these are yes, heck, you may have a leg to stand on.

[CurtC]

bidlack, I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&S


HI Doubt:

*snip*

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

*snip*


I went back and looked over the translated entry form on this thread.

Your explanation still does not rule out forced perspective. If the object was a bird or insect close to the camera, the object was likely to be out side of the depth of focus of the video camera. It is quite possible to place an object so close to a camera that it starts to become invisible if it does not receive adequate light or is back lit. Your "paranormal" object passes from a blue background to a white background which naturally reflects more light towards the camera. The light from the white tower is reflected back at the focal point of the camera so the tower shows up quite well. The object passing in front of the tower but close to the camera gets blotted right out because it is out of focus and cannot concentrate sufficient light at the focal point of the lens.

Your "paranormal" object could have disappeared because the background changed, not because it entered a building.

Examples of objects that were to close to the camera to be seen can be found in old issues of Penthouse magazine. When Bob Guccione (spelling?) used to do his own photography, he would place bandage gauze across the lens of his camera to achieve a soft focus effect. The gauze was never visible thanks to the focal depth of the camera and the lack of light on the gauze itself.

Here is a link that discusses the use of gauze to achieve soft focus:

http://www.virtix.com/doc/Sample/SoftFocus.asp

Of course, it there was a second camera at a different location that saw this object, then my explanation would be invalid. Do you have a second perspective on the object?

[CWL]

I simply cannot resist.

I can't help myself wondering what the regulars of this thread think of this (http://www.aboutnewjersey.com/TwinTowers/FaceofDevil.htm).

[Prolix]

CWL,

Well now, you'll have to split the million dollars with S&S.

[CWL]

Darn. I was counting on having all that dough for myself. :D

[CurtC]

I must confess that I overlooked that thread for the longest time, after it got to ten or eleven pages, I decided to peek in. I thought it was fascinating that this guy seemed to be so into his delusion, so I asked a question or two.

I'm sorry and I pledge not to post any more to it.

Originally posted by CurtC
I must confess that I overlooked that thread for the longest time, after it got to ten or eleven pages, I decided to peek in. I thought it was fascinating that this guy seemed to be so into his delusion, so I asked a question or two.

I'm sorry and I pledge not to post any more to it. I

Also posted by CURTC
"just meant to post a pledge, in this thread, not to post to that thread any more. But I inadvertently posted it into that thread. Mea culpa."

Hi Curt C:

There were more than two questions you asked me, ALL of them answered. I also made some questions to you, but you never answered.

If you have any more doubts , question to James Randi, and force him to put my application and the poor answer(and full of lies) they gave me as JREF speakers.But don't forget to tell him to put his sign on it.

Continue visiting the thread (but in silence) and if you have problems with your mind visit a professional.

Thanks,
S&S

[hal bidlack]

my questions, Carlos?

Originally posted by Doubt



Of course, it there was a second camera at a different location that saw this object, then my explanation would be invalid. Do you have a second perspective on the object?


Hi Doubt:

Yes , si, of course, we, yap, afirmativo.

I have the second one.
Was taped from the perspective of the street , (not from a building as the other one).

Is curious that tape is also censored.
Was not showed at the anniversary of the tragedy (kike the other one ), but was broadcasted by CNN at the six months of the tragedy(edited in the moment of the cross of the "thing").

But at the first week of the tragedy was transmitted ,considering
people was focused in the plane crashes.I have it. Is my surprise to Randi when he decides to write about it.

Yes they are more , another one from a long view of CNN 5 seconds (and 300 feets )before the plane crashes the second tower. In that "long"trayectory of the plane are many white points in "triangle formations" that appears and dissapears. That same shot was analize by ufo followers but only refering to a big white "object " that appears when the second plane finally crashed the second tower. I don't aggree with that theory, but the 3 or 4 triangle formations are very rare.
I have also one singular shot unedited by tv france with some "rare" views ,but controversial.

Doubt, I have a hobby to tape different things from my satelite reception.
I like specially subjects in reference to art, history, nature, inventions and stuff that help my kids and my family improve in education.
That tragic day , I also taped the sequences trannsmitted live from different networks of the world. I was worried of the consequences (and still I am) of that stupid action and the future of mankind. I am a peaceful man , have a lovely family, all based in LOVE and respect. I don't care if James Randi is a GOD for you all, he lost, lied and still is on silence. I am not afraid, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A TRUTH. It would be more easy and remunerative to me if I went to see the charlatans, ufo beleivers,
ufo web pages, etc, but I did not. I am rational as you think you are, I went and send and ask Randi for an answer, He gave me a stupid answer based in a stupid method. He failed with me. That's all the key of the mistery.
That's the main reason I am fighting here, I did to myself ALL and more questions that you did to me at this thread, I did not received a single penny, I did not create a page web, I told JREF and Randi the million dollars per se , was not my main reason to challenge him. I did with professional equipments the analisis of the tape, not with my tape, with the own 3/4 tapes of the tv channels. They were scared at that time, and censored in my country by "higher" commands. But there are tape that register those interviews to me and the analisis with the necesary equipments. I also digitized the tape and with proffesional softwares of friends that works with graphic design made the analisis. I s not a bird , is a HAT FORM similar to the ones posted by latinIJRAL and produced by edenex.

Maybe some "honest" member of this forum and specially one that is not a "Randi's beleiver" can do the same thing, only for curiosity, but here I will not allow that members say "I don't need to see the video, is a bird , idiot" .That is the way trolls react. Or :"you failed at the rules" another loser reaction.
This is between JAMES RANDI and me.Is my honor.
Or kike a friend of England told me " Now is James Randi honor (or honour)".

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by bidlack
OK, Carlos, let me try and speak to you in your own way that I might therefore avoid "stupid" questions again. Please address my final concerns below. If you can explain these, I will be convinced.


-given the veracity of your claim, can you swear or affirmm, or attest that that ingestion of biochemical Galenicals from a sybaritism concern have not mitigated the intersection of the claim and the non-claim, vis-a-vis the outcome of the resolution in current dollars?




Hi BId lack :

I swear that if you continue posting stupids things (only the number of posts counts) YOU will be soon become a "rational thinker", and Randi will make a you a discount in a T-shirt with his picture on it.

YES, keep on going, you are proud of being the idiot.
Soon, someone like you will reward you. Or the computer.

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by CWL
I simply cannot resist.

I can't help myself wondering what the regulars of this thread think of this (http://www.aboutnewjersey.com/TwinTowers/FaceofDevil.htm).

Devil my ass. That's the spittin' image of my third wife Ethel.

And she was the 'cute' one.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by bidlack
my questions, Carlos?

Hey! No fair! I was ahead of you.

It's my turn to be insulted by Carlos.

!!

Originally posted by latinijral
!!

!!

Originally posted by latinijral


!!

!!

Originally posted by latinijral


!!

!!

Originally posted by latinijral


!!

!!

Originally posted by latinijral


!!

??

Originally posted by latinijral


??

?

[rwald]

Latin, when will you realize that repeating an argument doesn't make it any more valid? Posting the pictures again will have no effect on anyone's opinions, other than to make you look like a fool. I advise that in the future, you don't bother reposting material already posted to this thread.

Originally posted by rwald
Latin, when will you realize that repeating an argument doesn't make it any more valid? Posting the pictures again will have no effect on anyone's opinions, other than to make you look like a fool. I advise that in the future, you don't bother reposting material already posted to this thread.

I am not repeating arguments. I am only repeating the pictures to this new page, so everybody can see them again.
Fool???? you looks like a fool with your threads.

Example 1:
Rwald: 10-16-2002
I'd love to stop replying to him, but it's just y really hard! I'm sorry for what I've done. But I can't stop now.

[rwald]

Why post the pictures again, if people could just scroll up to see them? And you've often in the past reposted comments made by others, without responding to them at all. This is why you look like a fool.

Originally posted by rwald
Latin, when will you realize that repeating an argument doesn't make it any more valid? Posting the pictures again will have no effect on anyone's opinions, other than to make you look like a fool. I advise that in the future, you don't bother reposting material already posted to this thread.

Rwald:

At least some effect effect had on you those pictures, you replied it faster.Are you afraid to see the pictures?

How many times you repeated and reproduce your claiming about that my application is not valid?Were more than 50?

Don't forget to read always my signature, are also your words.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

At least I'm repeating my own words. Latin just repeats the words of others (or in this case, the pictures of others). And as I've told you before, just because I figured out why you were originally confused doesn't mean I don't think you were confused. And the fact that you have yet to see the truth, no matter how many times we tell it to you, clearly shows that anything positive I said about you was wrong.

Originally posted by rwald
At least I'm repeating my own words. Latin just repeats the words of others (or in this case, the pictures of others). And as I've told you before, just because I figured out why you were originally confused doesn't mean I don't think you were confused. And the fact that you have yet to see the truth, no matter how many times we tell it to you, clearly shows that anything positive I said about you was wrong.

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//30/2002

[rwald]

You're just proving my point, Latin. You do nothing other than copy other's words and repost them...

Originally posted by latinijral


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//30/2002


Please rwald i want to know about your comment about Carlos you said that his misinterpretations of the rules al least has some basis????

[rwald]

There's one sentence which, when read by some with a limited ability to read English, could be misinterpreted to mean that Carlos's challenge is valid. However, there are also about 20 other sentences which clearly state that Carlos is wrong. Apparently, Carlos read the first one and figured the rest didn't matter. That's where the basis is. Carlos misreading one sentence.

Originally posted by rwald
There's one sentence which, when read by some with a limited ability to read English, could be misinterpreted to mean that Carlos's challenge is valid. However, there are also about 20 other sentences which clearly state that Carlos is wrong. Apparently, Carlos read the first one and figured the rest didn't matter. That's where the basis is. Carlos misreading one sentence.


That is your opinion as a fan of Randi, but if JREF thinked that Carlos`s challenge is not valid, they must answered in the first email: YOUR APLICATION IS NOT VALID.

Remember that JREF studied Carlos`s challenge and they are still in silence.

[rwald]

Since I'm the native English speaker, I think I can say that the below equality is true:

"You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural going on." = "Your claim is invalid."

In James Randi's commentary of October 11, 2002, and in reference of what a reader George Paz wrote, there is a picture of the Basilica of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mxico.

Below this picture and with big blue words is Randi's mockery:AN ALIEN SHIP....?

He is refering about the letter of the other "skeptic" George Paz.

This STUPID mockery of two "skeptics" (Randi and Paz) can be interpretate in this way :

A) Both beleives in alien

B) Both saw an alien ship.

Because ,if Randi only do this stupid joke based in where the church is (Mexico, "the third world" ) , I Carlos Swett protest and remember "the amazing" that the "first world" is full of churches with differents forms and cults, even your favorite cult JR : "the satanic" ("what in hell are you raving abouth"? ).

I am not going to debate about people's faith and the particular way of receive GOD inside them, this forum is full of nicks of demoniac names, those are they choises, but they also appears as skeptics (what a contradiction)

In the same Randi's commentary are his own words:

"George, my own experience with this cruel farce was far more serious and shocking, but I do appreciate that you shared yours with our readers. Though I'll someday write up my account, I'll only tell you now that during the filming session there, I wandered down a flight of stairs — not unintentionally — and found the vast counting room where currency of many nations was being busily and noisily sorted and counted. The amount of cash I saw there was staggering. The stark contrast between the tiny copper coins the stricken poor were dropping into the many collection-boxes upstairs, and the gold-clad altars, figures, and ornaments that were set up to glorify this stupid painting as one of divine origin, stays in my mind like a scar. Just thinking about all this depresses me and re-affirms my determination to fight this sort of flummery. Thanks very much for your contribution.



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

Yes James Randi you are right, they are collecting contributions and money in "name of god" , using a churche.

And you?

You do the same , only in "name of the devil ", washing brains of young people to don't have faith in God.
Your church is the JREF foundation (the trick to don't declare your income),
You also ask for donations (nobody knows how much, is top secret) , you sell T-shirts , books, etc of the same old stuff, you always talk about the same, you are preparing an "amazing meeting" just like another bussiness, etc., etc., etc.,

What is the difference?
We, hispanoamericans, have our faith, we are people with anccestral cultures that already discovered what you are trying to do with high technollogy.

RESPECT US ,the hispanics, JAMES RANDI.

So you saw an ALIEN SHIP?
Iam sure you did; and I know when and why.

Thanks,

CARLOS SWETT (S&S)

[hal bidlack]

latinijral and Carlos,

Let me suggest something to you. You seem convinced you should get money or credit or something for your video tape claim. I can't tell you how fully that offends me.

I am a US military officer, and I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit. What to you is some kind of bizzare quest for money or fame was for me the worst day of my life. And you repeatedly post pictures of that horror, those attacks. You are chasing fuzzy blobs while the real importance of the image are the deaths of people in that building. Can't you understand why it is wrong to repeatedly post this stuff?

On September 11th I didn't see any space ships in Washington. I held part of the airplane in my hands, I helped a guy with a head wound, I watched the roof collapse, I heard it. That was the worst day of my life, I still have nightmares most nights.

You wonder why some folks think you are idiots? You have trivialized a national trauma. You mock what we went through that day. I can still smell the jet fuel, I can still see the images. And you wonder why we don't respect you? How dare you.

sorry, but all those pictures really pushed my buttons tonight. I've tried to make light of what you are doing, but no more. You have a right to post here, you will not be censored or banned. But you have no honor.

When I think of Sept 11th, the image that comes to mind is not a stupid claim of a space ship. If you are right and we are all wrong, call the media, call 60 Minutes, call the New York Times, call the national guard for all I care, but leave us the hell alone. You are worse than a clown, you are heartless. You have my contempt but also my pity. I hope you get over this soon.

edited for stupid typo

RANDI'S COMMENTARY : I SAW AN ALIEN SHIP
In James Randi's commentary of October 11, 2002, and in reference of what a reader George Paz wrote, there is a picture of the Basilica of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mxico.

Below this picture and with big blue words is Randi's mockery:AN ALIEN SHIP....?

He is refering about the letter of the other "skeptic" George Paz.

This STUPID mockery of two "skeptics" (Randi and Paz) can be interpretate in this way :

A) Both beleives in alien

B) Both saw an alien ship.

Because ,if Randi only do this stupid joke based in where the church is (Mexico, "the third world" ) , I Carlos Swett protest and remember "the amazing" that the "first world" is full of churches with differents forms and cults, even your favorite cult JR : "the satanic" ("what in hell are you raving abouth"? ).

I am not going to debate about people's faith and the particular way of receive GOD inside them, this forum is full of nicks of demoniac names, those are they choises, but they also appears as skeptics (what a contradiction)

In the same Randi's commentary are his own words:

"George, my own experience with this cruel farce was far more serious and shocking, but I do appreciate that you shared yours with our readers. Though I'll someday write up my account, I'll only tell you now that during the filming session there, I wandered down a flight of stairs — not unintentionally — and found the vast counting room where currency of many nations was being busily and noisily sorted and counted. The amount of cash I saw there was staggering. The stark contrast between the tiny copper coins the stricken poor were dropping into the many collection-boxes upstairs, and the gold-clad altars, figures, and ornaments that were set up to glorify this stupid painting as one of divine origin, stays in my mind like a scar. Just thinking about all this depresses me and re-affirms my determination to fight this sort of flummery. Thanks very much for your contribution.



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

Yes James Randi you are right, they are collecting contributions and money in "name of god" , using a churche.

And you?

You do the same , only in "name of the devil ", washing brains of young people to don't have faith in God.
Your church is the JREF foundation (the trick to don't declare your income),
You also ask for donations (nobody knows how much, is top secret) , you sell T-shirts , books, etc of the same old stuff, you always talk about the same, you are preparing an "amazing meeting" just like another bussiness, etc., etc., etc.,

What is the difference?
We, hispanoamericans, have our faith, we are people with anccestral cultures that already discovered what you are trying to do with high technollogy.

RESPECT US ,the hispanics, JAMES RANDI.

So you saw an ALIEN SHIP?
Iam sure you did; and I know when and why.

Thanks,

CARLOS SWETT (S&S)


__________________

[rwald]

You want to talk about the Basilica in Guadalupe? Sure, we can talk about that.

To start off, I should say that I've never been there, and will basically base my arguments on what was in Randi's commentary. If you've actually visited this basilica, tell us, so we can see where you're coming from.

First of all, Randi was NOT saying he or Paz saw an alien spaceship. He was just comparing the basilica to a spaceship. He said that the basilica was "like a massive alien ship sucking the life out of that dying harvest of humanity." He isn't saying it's like a spaceship because it's in Mexico; he's saying its like a spaceship because it sucks people's lives away.

The difference between the way that the basilica took money and that Randi takes money is this: the basilica takes money from the very poor, from those who need every last penny to feed themselves. The basilica then uses this money for external decorations, buying "gold-clad altars, figures, and ornaments" instead of helping the poor. By contrast, Randi does not take money from the poor; presumably, he only takes money from people who can afford to give (if you can prove this wrong, then do so). Also, he doesn't spend the money just buying ornaments; he uses the money to help educate people about con-men and hoaxers pretending to have supernatural powers. There is no valid comparison.

Originally posted by bidlack
latinijral and Carlos,


I can't tell you have fully that offends me.

I am a US military officer, and I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit. What to you is some kind of bizzare quest for money or fame was for me the worst day of my life. And you repeatedly post pictures of that horror, those attacks. You are chasing fuzzy blobs while the real importance of the image are the deaths of people in that building. Can't you understand why it is wrong to repeatedly post this stuff?


.

Bidlack:

Why you did not protest when Rwald in this thread posted the FIRST picture of the tragic event?

Rwald did a gallows humor with the image. I protested, stupid, where were you?

Do you know how many inocent people died because and after that fatidic 9/11 in the other side of the world?

No, there is only inocents people died in the towers, there is still the problem of war in the world.

Do you know how that incident affected the third world?

Open your eyes, birdlack YOu were the first person in this thread to make a mock of this.

About the money, Randi have the e-mail for what the money was going for: ask him.

I am claiming another point, is not my fault that happened also that tragic day.
I share all that sentimental feeling you have but we can not block the sun with one finger.

So you were mockering on me before?
This is an educational forum , is not war.

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

To latinijiral,

That really, REALLY looks like an alien spaceship.

Where's the proof that it really, REALLY is?

There is a difference you know. You don't really believe David Copperfield is making those 747s disappear do you? I mean it really, REALLY looks like it.

To Carlos,

I can't help but notice that you have conviniently chosen to overlook my post.

I contend that you were not treated unfairly in your quest for winning the Million Dollar Challenge based on the fact that you cannot meet the requirements spelled out long before you came into possesion of that tape.

I am further of the belief that you cannot even meet the first requirment, reposted here for your convinence.

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


You have claimed for sometime that you have been treated unfairly. On this basis you have even chosen to slander others.

Can you or can you not satisfy the first rule of the challenge.

I look forward to being ignored again.

[Purple Tentacle]

i have an AVI here that shows an angle similar to carlos, it shows quite a few birds fly past the camera and no sign of the paranormal event !

now me telling you this is nice and all but i really need to make this AVI available to all of you.

where can i post / upload this 2mb AVI so you all can download it??
because i believe that it will stop this thred for good.

[Purple Tentacle]

ok everyone, Big it up for Blue Monk, for his help hosting the file.

here is the link : http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&S



Hi Doubt:

Yes , si, of course, we, yap, afirmativo.

I have the second one.
Was taped from the perspective of the street , (not from a building as the other one).

Is curious that tape is also censored.
Was not showed at the anniversary of the tragedy (kike the other one ), but was broadcasted by CNN at the six months of the tragedy(edited in the moment of the cross of the "thing").

But at the first week of the tragedy was transmitted ,considering
people was focused in the plane crashes.I have it. Is my surprise to Randi when he decides to write about it.

Yes they are more , another one from a long view of CNN 5 seconds (and 300 feets )before the plane crashes the second tower. In that "long"trayectory of the plane are many white points in "triangle formations" that appears and dissapears.

*snip*



Carlos,

Please clarify this for me:

Do you have a second tape that show the same "paranormal" object as the one you submitted or do you have a second tape of a different object?

Two tapes of different phenomena is no better than one tape of one phenomenon. The images posted here from your tape are not many white points in "triangle formations".

If the two tapes do not show the same object, then you have nothing. Since you mentioned no second tape before now, then I can only assume that the tapes do not show the same object and that you have no proof.

If you do have two different tapes of the same object, then get in contact with the UFO people. This is the kind of proof they have been searching for.

Originally posted by Doubt


Carlos,

Please clarify this for me:

Do you have a second tape that show the same "paranormal" object as the one you submitted or do you have a second tape of a different object?

If you do have two different tapes of the same object, then get in contact with the UFO people. This is the kind of proof they have been searching for.

Hi Doubt:

And Why not the JREF?
Is not the kind of proof they are challenging and searching for?

So you are also afraid now?

Thanks,
S&S

The avi file didn't work for me. Anyone else have trouble? Latinijral did you take any pictures from your TV the show the object just before it first enters the tower? Are there any pictures available which show the object halfway out of the hole?

Originally posted by Blue Monk
To latinijiral,

That really, REALLY looks like an alien spaceship.

Where's the proof that it really, REALLY is?

There is a difference you know. You don't really believe David Copperfield is making those 747s disappear do you? I mean it really, REALLY looks like it.

To Carlos,

I can't help but notice that you have conviniently chosen to overlook my post.

I contend that you were not treated unfairly in your quest for winning the Million Dollar Challenge based on the fact that you cannot meet the requirements spelled out long before you came into possesion of that tape.

I look forward to being ignored again.

Hi Blue Monk:

I invite you to read my signature.

Then you can read Andrew Harter's answer to my application and if you can find a quote that my application was not valid , please tell me.

Then I invited you to focus in "the bird".
Just analize it the propper way, but don't forget to see the tape.

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Hey Carlos,

You keep ignoring my posts.

I've got a better clip than yours from the World Trade Center a year before the tragedy.

Check it out http://www.scifi.com/happens/happens_1_big.mov

Gee, that's a lot spookier than yours. Beats you by a year too.

What's the matter Carlos? Too busy calling everyone liars to actually show a little ethical backbone and back it up.

Again I ask, and this is for the third time and I will continue to ask it, can you meet the rules requirements to make you eligible for the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. If you can't then your slanderous remarks and claims to unfair treatment are false. You haven't been treated unfairly. You simply cannot meet the rules set out long before you acquired the tape.

Again, only the first requirement......

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.

So again I ask, can you or can you not meet even the first requirement listed in the official rules?

Do you have any ethics? Do you understand what ethics are? Do you have no qualms about slandering people, calling them liars and claiming unfair treatment when you know yourself that you cannot meet the basic requirements of the challenge?

What powers or abilities do you intend to demonstrate and under what observing conditions do you suggest?

Well don't worry Carlos. I'll repeat my question tomorrow and the day after lest anyone truly have any doubts as to whether you were treated unfairly and have a legitimate claim.

Originally posted by zaphodb
The avi file didn't work for me. Anyone else have trouble? Latinijral did you take any pictures from your TV the show the object just before it first enters the tower? Are there any pictures available which show the object halfway out of the hole?

Hi Zaphodb:

Like a virgin? Your first quote and curious.

Well, welcome to the mental hospital.

There are four pictures in sequence in the page 12 of this thread.

Just look at those pictures and "think " whatever you want, you are free to make your opinion.

In page 1(first post) is the answer Andrew harter gave to my application and in page 2 (?) is my translated application.

I hope this recomendations help you in your correct curiosity.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Hey Carlos,

You keep ignoring my posts.

I've got a better clip than yours from the World Trade Center a year before the tragedy.

Check it out http://www.scifi.com/happens/happens_1_big.mov

Gee, that's a lot spookier than yours. Beats you by a year too.

Well don't worry Carlos. I'll repeat my question tomorrow and the day after lest anyone truly have any doubts as to whether you were treated unfairly and have a legitimate claim.

Hi again Blue Monk.

And why you keep ignoring my answer?
I put here again and I will repeat it tomorrow and the day after until you read it. Don't worry.
Here it is again:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Blue Monk:

I invite you to read my signature.

Then you can read Andrew Harter's answer to my application and if you can find a quote that my application was not valid , please tell me.

Then I invite you to focus in "the bird".
Just analize it the propper way, but don't forget to see the tape.

_________________

About your stupid clip, read also how it was "made" by SCIFI (channel). Was done for stupids like you.
The other tape , the "live" tape is the one in "discussion".

You are making points and soon you will be in the "next "category in this forum according to the numbers of replies you make.Don't worry it doesn't matter what you said in.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Show me proof that "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural going on." does not equal "Your claim is invalid."

[Purple Tentacle]

if anyone out there is having trouble getting the http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi AVI to work, 1 solution could be to download the DIVX player from www.divx.com (http://www.divx.com) which should play it.

just a note, has anyone got the AVI to work ?

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S

I invite you to read my signature.


Well that was most enlightening. Of course nowhere in your signature does it state what powers or abilities you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions as a requirement to the first rule of the challenge.

The bottom line is you don’t qualify under the rules. Period.

I just find it ironic that on one hand not only do you believe aliens exist but that they are manipulating time and space in ways far beyond our comprehension in order to travel the vast wasteland of space to be at this exact time and place for reasons known only to themselves and that you can deduce this only from a brief smudge on a video tape.

Not only are you able to come to this conclusion of the presence of aliens but you can also dismiss the idea that it might be a bird, although we know birds exist, we know birds were present, we can see in other videos the birds present the same color pattern as the image and we can see that the birds flight form an undulating visual pattern that at in given time when slightly out of focus could be misinterpreted.

But of course, compared to the alien theory the bird theory is just too far-fetched.

You can understand all of this from a simple brief smudge on a videotape and yet you don’t seem to understand the very simple rules of the challenge.

But you know, when I say it like that it just doesn’t sound so foolish.

So in closing I would like to point out that nowhere in your signature do you state what power or ability you plan to demonstrate or under what observable conditions.

Therefore can you guess what’s coming next?……

What powers or abilities to you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions do you propose in order to meet the first requirement of the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Does anyone one else see this question answered in Carlo’s signature or is this another one of those paranormal events?

[rwald]

I saw the video. But then again, I've downloaded every WinAmp video imput plugin I've ever found, so it'd be hard for me to not see a video.

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by rwald
I saw the video. But then again, I've downloaded every WinAmp video imput plugin I've ever found, so it'd be hard for me to not see a video.

cool, i just wanted to make sure it was a codec problem not a problem with the video itself :) thanks

OR....

[rwald]

Well, at least you didn't repost all the pictures.

OR A..........

[rwald]

Don't make me take that back...

Rwald:
Well, at least you didn't repost all the pictures.

Why not???
You don`t have comments about them.

Originally posted by Blue Monk



Not only are you able to come to this conclusion of the presence of aliens but you can also dismiss the idea that it might be a bird, although we know birds exist, we know birds were present, we can see in other videos the birds present the same color pattern as the image and we can see that the birds flight form an undulating visual pattern that at in given time when slightly out of focus could be misinterpreted.

But of course, compared to the alien theory the bird theory is just too far-fetched.

You can understand all of this from a simple brief smudge on a videotape and yet you don’t seem to understand the very simple rules of the challenge.

But you know, when I say it like that it just doesn’t sound so foolish.

So in closing I would like to point out that nowhere in your signature do you state what power or ability you plan to demonstrate or under what observable conditions.

Therefore can you guess what’s coming next?……

What powers or abilities to you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions do you propose in order to meet the first requirement of the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Does anyone one else see this question answered in Carlo’s signature or is this another one of those paranormal events?

HI again:

ALIENS? only James randi (..an alien starship?) and you are talking about aliens.

I am talking about a PARANORMAL EVENT, as JREF said in my signature, read it again : OR PARANORMAL EVENT.

Read also Andrew Harter's poor and full of lies answer to my application, NOT a single word that says that my application
was NOT VALID.

ALIENS? Only in your mind.

I am sending another picture for your collection of "birds". Is from a mural I done.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Wow. You replied to your reply. That has to be a first.

Anyway, my response to the pictures would be that, since the object is moving (as your other pictures demonstrate), you can't simply take a single snapshot, expand it, and assume that this is what the object looks like. You need to compensate for the fact that it is moving, and that this would make it blur (the camera takes one picture every 1/30 of a second, but if this thing was moving as fast as you think it was, then it would move a lot in 1/30 of a second.) Since your "examples" don't take this movement into account, they mean nothing.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by latinijral
[B]Rwald:
Well, at least you didn't repost all the pictures.

Why not???
Your answers are full of contradictions.

Originally posted by rwald
Wow. You replied to your reply. That has to be a first.

Anyway, my response to the pictures would be that, since the object is moving (as your other pictures demonstrate), you can't simply take a single snapshot, expand it, and assume that this is what the object looks like. You need to compensate for the fact that it is moving, and that this would make it blur (the camera takes one picture every 1/30 of a second, but if this thing was moving as fast as you think it was, then it would move a lot in 1/30 of a second.) Since your "examples" don't take this movement into account, they mean nothing.

Rwald:

WOW,You are not only a Randi's beleiver, you are Randi's lawyer and defender, the "voice "of Randi and now you become the expert in photograp and pictures. WOW again.

But you are forgetting that this expand picture remains in its form to whatever but NOT to a bird. Or you do still see a bird like Harter does? Or has a HAT FORM like in my notarized application I said?

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

That picture could be explained if the bird was flapping its wings when the picture was taken. If the wings were near the bird at the beginning and end, and were up away from the bird in the middle, a "hat-like" structure could appear. And I'm sure there are other possible explanations I could think of, if I had the time. The point is, you can't immediately say that the only possibility is that it was a paranormal object.

Originally posted by rwald
That picture could be explained if the bird was flapping its wings when the picture was taken. If the wings were near the bird at the beginning and end, and were up away from the bird in the middle, a "hat-like" structure could appear. And I'm sure there are other possible explanations I could think of, if I had the time. The point is, you can't immediately say that the only possibility is that it was a paranormal object.

Rwald:

Or you are the fan number one of this thread or Randi is speaking through you.?

I don't want you to get a mental sickness trying to find the "possible" explanation to the HAT FORM.

I want to help you:

Only if "THE BIRD " was flying upside down(...), I mean something like you are walking with your hands, or similar, well is more or less the idea.
But don't worry, keep on trying, like Blue Monk.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. or you are just posting to make points as a "rational thinker"?

[rwald]

Why must the bird have been flying upside down? Could you elaborate?

And why do you consider looking for a scientific explanation to be a "mental sickness"? Is it more "sane" to look at everything and say, "That must have been paranormal. I don't care what evidence you have, it absoultly must have been paranormal."?

Originally posted by rwald
Why must the bird have been flying upside down? Could you elaborate?

And why do you consider looking for a scientific explanation to be a "mental sickness"? Is it more "sane" to look at everything and say, "That must have been paranormal. I don't care what evidence you have, it absoultly must have been paranormal."?

Rwald(again) :

See , You are the one who are asking me to find you the answer of your trauma.

The HAT FORM is a fact. Is in my notarized application. Right?
Is on the enlarged picture , too. Right?

A bird, when is flying is the opposite form of the hat, I mean like you turn the hat not the way is disigned to put in your head..

Is hard to say it in English, but this will help you:

The wings must be in the up and the body down, the opposite of a hat form. Try to draw a bird flying.

See, I am only trying to help you.
We are at the chat now, any more questions about the HAT FORM, you can ask me there, I will do an exception for you.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Remember, this is not a static picture of a bird in one instant. This is a picture of a bird over 1/30 of a second. Birds move in 1/30 of a second, so the picture is blurred in the direction the bird was moving. The hat shape you refer to is not cause by the actual shape of the bird; it's cause by the bird's wings flapping while the picture is being taken.

If I took a 5-second long exposure picture of you walking at 5 feet per second, and then saw a 25-foot long blur in my picture, should I assume that a weird, 25-foot long paranormal object appeared in the picture? What if you raised and lowered your arms while I was taking the picture? This would make some weird bulges on top of the 25-foot long object. Should I say the object has bulges, or that the object was moving when the picture was being taken? I may not be an expert on photography, but I know more than you.

Originally posted by rwald
Remember, this is not a static picture of a bird in one instant. This is a picture of a bird over 1/30 of a second. Birds move in 1/30 of a second, so the picture is blurred in the direction the bird was moving. The hat shape you refer to is not cause by the actual shape of the bird; it's cause by the bird's wings flapping while the picture is being taken.

If I took a 5-second long exposure picture of you walking at 5 feet per second, and then saw a 25-foot long blur in my picture, should I assume that a weird, 25-foot long paranormal object appeared in the picture? What if you raised and lowered your arms while I was taking the picture? This would make some weird bulges on top of the 25-foot long object. Should I say the object has bulges, or that the object was moving when the picture was being taken? I may not be an expert on photography, but I know more than you.

Rwald again:

But is a HAT FORM, consult James Randi or Patricio Elicer(he is another fan of the thread) about that.

How are you sure you know more than I on photography .
Is that an speculation from an skeptic?

Focus in the HAT FORM, and take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Try reading about "rods" in Randi's commentary:

http://www.randi.org/jr/053102.html

Note that these are insects, not birds, but the same principle applies. Pictures of birds taken at a longer distance with a longer exposure time would have the same effects.

Also note that the hat shape could be from one period of a sinusoidal structure. Did you consider that?

[Blue Monk]

Well excuuuuse me!

Sorry I confused your paranormal hat with aliens.

Holy cow. You show up with a videotape with 'something' on it. And even though you can't identify it, you deem it 'paranormal.' Yet even with this earth-shattering proof you can't even come close to meeting the requirements for the challenge.

And yet you've been whining about this for how long?

So if I produce a tape showing something that resembles a jockstrap and I can't explain it then that is proof it is paranormal?

What the hell do they teach you about scientific validation where ever the hell it is you come from. You need to quit wasting your time on this silly nonsense and get politically active and demand some serious changes in your educational system if they let you grow up thinking that simply because you can't explain something it's paranormal.

Now I know you've told me a thousand time but darn old me I keep forgetting.

Exactly what was that power or ability you planed to demonstrate and under what observable conditions that would be required to meet the first rule of the challenge.

Isn't it odd that that is the one question you never answer?

I'm sure you are eager to share with us how well you qualify to back up your claim that you were so unfairly treated.

I'm sure you meant to answer this earlier but simply overlooked it.

[DeliveringVito]

It's a bird...It's a plane...It's Superman!!!

Sorry...Superman wearing a paranomal hat

Thank you

DV

[Blue Monk]

Well at least he doesn't see a bra or panties.

He has enough issues as it is.

[angelinthemorning]

Hello sorry to butt in. This is off topic, but to Blue Monk. I like your Steven Wright joke in sig. He so funny with that dead pan tone of voice. Reminds me of a joke he told the one time I saw him in person. He said he lived on a dead end one way street. :o)
He is one of my favorites. I will butt back out.

[Purple Tentacle]

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by angelinthemorning
Hello sorry to butt in. This is off topic, but to Blue Monk. I like your Steven Wright joke in sig. He so funny with that dead pan tone of voice. Reminds me of a joke he told the one time I saw him in person. He said he lived on a dead end one way street. :o)
He is one of my favorites. I will butt back out.

Oh yeah, he's hillarious!

"Once someone broke into my house and replaced everything with an exact duplicate."

"Sometimes when I'm driving I stick my head out of the window to smile for satelite photos."

"I once called information and said, 'Where's my sock?' She said, 'Behind the couch'"

I could go on.

[RonSceptic]

You guys should check out the Jesus Of The Week thread. There is a picture of a tree that has a pattern on the bark that looks like 'Jesus'. People see what they want to see.

My two cents on this thread. Look at any picture of the towers shortly after impact. The amount of explosive matter about was imense. Chards, fragments and and sundry debris would have been circulating in the air for hours. A small fragment moving close to the camera would create an illusion of a large fast moving object further away.

Bottom line is that, whatever the object is, there is no 'ability' being demonstated here. Hence no claim. But everyone that can read alreday knows that.

[Purple Tentacle]

jesus RON your avatar is scarey AS !!!

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&S


Hi Doubt:

And Why not the JREF?
Is not the kind of proof they are challenging and searching for?

So you are also afraid now?

Thanks,
S&S

NO, THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF PROOF THEY ARE LOOKING FOR!

Sorry for shouting, but nothing anyone else has told you has gotten through your skull. The prize is for someone who can demonstrate paranormal ability.

As an example, lets say your video was of Uri Geller bending spoons. Even if Geller was doing what he claimed, the tape would not be proof. The tape has no ability to be tested, but Geller does. Geller would be the one demonstrating the paranormal ability, not you. (Also, Geller would probably try to sue you for intellectual property rights.)

So even if your tape is what you claim it is, the prize would have to be awarded to the "paranormal" hat and not to you. Even then the hat would have to present itself to be tested. The tape itself would not be enough. Please let me know if you can talk the hat into applying for the challenge. Maybe you could be its agent?

Now then, you made no attempt to answer my question, so here it is again:

Do you have a second tape that show the same "paranormal" object as the one you submitted or do you have a second tape of a different object?

Two tapes of different phenomena is no better than one tape of one phenomenon. The images posted here from your tape are not many white points in "triangle formations".

If the two tapes do not show the same object, then you have nothing. Since you mentioned no second tape before now, then I can only assume that the tapes do not show the same object and that you have no proof.

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Well excuuuuse me!

Sorry I confused your paranormal hat with aliens.

Holy cow. You show up with a videotape with 'something' on it. And even though you can't identify it, you deem it 'paranormal.' Yet even with this earth-shattering proof you can't even come close to meeting the requirements for the challenge.

And yet you've been whining about this for how long?

So if I produce a tape showing something that resembles a jockstrap and I can't explain it then that is proof it is paranormal?

What the hell do they teach you about scientific validation where ever the hell it is you come from. You need to quit wasting your time on this silly nonsense and get politically active and demand some serious changes in your educational system if they let you grow up thinking that simply because you can't explain something it's paranormal.

Now I know you've told me a thousand time but darn old me I keep forgetting.

Exactly what was that power or ability you planed to demonstrate and under what observable conditions that would be required to meet the first rule of the challenge.

Isn't it odd that that is the one question you never answer?

I'm sure you are eager to share with us how well you qualify to back up your claim that you were so unfairly treated.

I'm sure you meant to answer this earlier but simply overlooked it.

Hi Blue Monk:
So now you see I was not talking about aliens, but yes of a HAT FORM of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.

Yes, I said it was a PARANORMAL EVENT as you see in my signature.

Why paranormal ? Is on my application too.I explained why it can not be an insect or a bidrd.
Read again, don't worry. Here is the paragraph:

"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."

See I did a propper method, I used professional equipments, I saw it in the broadcast 3/4 tapes,

A bird , an insect or superman must be seen against the wall of the first tower. It is not the case.See page 12 of this thread , there are 4 pictures of the sequence.

Only in your poor minds a dark object with a hat form is invisible over a white wall.

Birds are free to fly not only in New York, but that is not the case, check its form with latin pictures, or do yourself the analisis and you will find that HAT FORM, or maybe your" bird" with some tricks, ask Rwald how to do it.

Then read my conclution in my notarized application (page 2 of this thread).

Or ask Randi why he is still on silence about my notarized application and the poor answer and full of lies he gave me.

Don't worry keep on posting.

Thanks,
S&S

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Blue Monk

No matter where you go, there you are. -Steven Wright


Just wanted to clarify something -- did Steven Wright actually initiate this saying? I know it was used in "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension" in what? 1984? Also used by one of the bad guys in the Arnold's "Commando".

Granted, the way Wright says it makes it all the funnier, especially taken in the context of the rest of his spiel.

[Purple Tentacle]

two can play at this game carlos......

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by alfaniner


Just wanted to clarify something -- did Steven Wright actually initiate this saying? I know it was used in "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension" in what? 1984? Also used by one of the bad guys in the Arnold's "Commando".

Granted, the way Wright says it makes it all the funnier, especially taken in the context of the rest of his spiel.

That I wouldn't know. I first heard it from him so that's why I attributed it to him.

Wow. On the skeptic's forum you even have to source your comedic references in your signature. Man, you guys are tough! :p

[Blue Monk]

Carlos, Carlos, Carlos,

You are a hoot.

You have a tape which shows something even you can't identify and yet you feel that is proof it is paranormal.

You also feel you are eligible for the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

You clearly are not eligible according to the rules.

To anyone interested I am officially starting the Carlos Swett Put Up Or Shut Up Benevolent Society.

It's charter is as follows:

Article 1: Carlos Swett is under no obligation to actually put up or shut up and has the unalienable right to continue his baseless whine for all eternity.

Article 2: Carlos Swett believes he is an eligible applicant for the James Randi Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Article 3: It is the opinion of this society that Carlos Swett cannot meet the rules concerning this challenge that are clearly and publicly stated.

Article 4: It is the purpose of this society to attempt to elicit from Carlos Swett enough information to allow viewers of this thread to form an accurate opinion as to whether Carlos Swett does indeed meet the Challenges rules requirements.

Article 4: It is the purpose of this society to present Carlos Swett with the official rules on a rule by rule basis. This will afford Carlos Swett with the opportunity to validate his claim to eligibility within the realm of public opinion.

Article 5: This society recognizes the fact that Carlos Swett is under no obligation to reply to these requests for clarification. This society also accepts the fact that the objective observer understands that the rules and conditions of the challenge must be met before ones claims can be considered eligible.

Article 6: It is also the belief of this society that the objective observer will not accept Carlos Swetts claim to eligibility until such time he has provided to them adequate responses indicating that he can indeed meet the requirements of the challenge.

Article 7: There will be at no time, under any circumstances be any animal sacrifices.

So far this is a society of one, me. If anyone would like to join the rules for membership are simple.

Simply copy and paste the rule in question to the end of your post.

Only two outcomes are possible. Either Carlos responds to the rules or the rules get posted over and over with no response.

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

"The Carlos Swett Attention Getting Affair"

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos, Carlos, Carlos,

You are a hoot.

You have a tape which shows something even you can't identify and yet you feel that is proof it is paranormal.

You also feel you are eligible for the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

You clearly are not eligible according to the rules.

To anyone interested I am officially starting the Carlos Swett Put Up Or Shut Up Benevolent Society.

It's charter is as follows:

Article 1: Carlos Swett is under no obligation to actually put up or shut up and has the unalienable right to continue his baseless whine for all eternity.

Article 2: Carlos Swett believes he is an eligible applicant for the James Randi Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Article 3: It is the opinion of this society that Carlos Swett cannot meet the rules concerning this challenge that are clearly and publicly stated.

Article 4: It is the purpose of this society to attempt to elicit from Carlos Swett enough information to allow viewers of this thread to form an accurate opinion as to whether Carlos Swett does indeed meet the Challenges rules requirements.

Article 4: It is the purpose of this society to present Carlos Swett with the official rules on a rule by rule basis. This will afford Carlos Swett with the opportunity to validate his claim to eligibility within the realm of public opinion.

Article 5: This society recognizes the fact that Carlos Swett is under no obligation to reply to these requests for clarification. This society also accepts the fact that the objective observer understands that the rules and conditions of the challenge must be met before ones claims can be considered eligible.

Article 6: It is also the belief of this society that the objective observer will not accept Carlos Swetts claim to eligibility until such time he has provided to them adequate responses indicating that he can indeed meet the requirements of the challenge.

Article 7: There will be at no time, under any circumstances be any animal sacrifices.

So far this is a society of one, me. If anyone would like to join the rules for membership are simple.

Simply copy and paste the rule in question to the end of your post.

Only two outcomes are possible. Either Carlos responds to the rules or the rules get posted over and over with no response.

Rule #1



What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

Hi Blue Monk:

blueM, blueM, blueM.
Must be easyfor you to hide in a nick name.
It doesn't matter.

So you refuses to read this:

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

_________________________________________

ayone who can show: Carlos Swett

Under proper observing condition: a tape recorded "live" and broadcasted to the more numerous audience in the world, a clear morning with no clouds, a tape that is available in almost all the tv stations of the world, can do all the analisis you want of the "hat form" using technical equipments.

Evidence of any paranormal :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.

Event : the 9/11/01 tragic event.


RESUME: Anyone who can show under proper observing conditions evidence of any paranormal event.

I did it.

Andrew Harter(with Randi's aprooval) also answered me, he NEVER said that my application was not valid.

He used the most stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown link of a video available in Internet) "frame by frame".

He lied when he said I made two assumptions in my application( the first is a lie and the second never mentioned).

He said that was a bird.

He said ,of course based in that poor analisis:"Nothing supernatural is taking place."

THOSE ARE FACTS; NO INTERPRETETIONS.

See Blue Monk ;James Randi is still on silence, he is still worried about Geller , Browne and dowsers; my application and the e-mails can be false. Randi is afraid because he knows he failed.

But the video EXISTS and can be analize, you can see the HAT FORM of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and mainly:
A bird , an insect or superman must be seen against the wall of the first tower. It is not the case.See page 12 of this thread , there are 4 pictures of the sequence.

Don't worry , I will copy this answer again if you refuse to read it.
Make points.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
two can play at this game carlos......

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Hi nick PURPLE TENTACLE:

So what ?
I never said it was a paranormal hat.You are lying.
And I don't like that, remember I am here because Harter and Randi lied to me.

I said it was a PARANORMAL ACTIVITY with a hat form, just like the one posted by latinijral, did you see those analisis?.

You are the one that refuses to answer my questions.

What is PARANORMAL in your definition?
Can be something that acts normally , according to earth rules, as you expect to happen?

Please define first paranormal and then YOU will have the answer to your own question.

Or ask James Randi for help, or analize "the bird" and try to find it a "bird form".

Remember I have another angle of the "paranormal activity".

You can come back again with the definition.
But don't lie again.
Please.

Thanks,

S&S

[hal bidlack]

Carlos,

I think we are down to one of two possibilities:

1- you are a troll just having fun by pretending to be dense, so no comment will ever be fully "understood." If this is the case, oh well.

2- you actually and truly believe your claim. If this is the case, you must know by now that this forum will do nothing for you. If you believe you have been wronged, I think you should contact your local TV stations and tell your story. Try to get some support from the media. And if they don't find your story compelling, perhaps you may learn something.

But really, I think case #1 is much more likely.

Originally posted by bidlack
Carlos,

I think we are down to one of two possibilities:

1- you are a troll just having fun by pretending to be dense, so no comment will ever be fully "understood." If this is the case, oh well.

2- you actually and truly believe your claim. If this is the case, you must know by now that this forum will do nothing for you. If you believe you have been wronged, I think you should contact your local TV stations and tell your story. Try to get some support from the media. And if they don't find your story compelling, perhaps you may learn something.

But really, I think case #1 is much more likely.


BIDLACK:

You are the military, not me.

You are also a member of the JREF.

You will be as an expositor at the "amazing meeting".

So you are part of this LIE.

About number 2:
I already did that. Ask your friend James Randi.

Check it again, is in my notarized 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.

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: Carlos Swett

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

See? No fear.

Why your partners are in silence?

Don't you always have fun of trolls?

No a single word from the liars.

Who is the troll now?

Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

Oooooh! So close but no cigar.

You see Carlos you really must read the rules carefully.

You see rule #1 clearly states that ‘Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated.’

Did you state clearly in advance? Did JREF agree with you. And what powers or abilities and observation conditions did you agree to?

Now if in fact this occurred then I owe you an apology but I would surely expect the JREF insist that we remove all those damn birds first so as to avoid confusion.

You see Carlos that is the point of a controlled observation.

So again I ask, can you meet the first rule, including stateing details of your demonstration in advance and have you come to an agreement with JREF as to those conditions as is required by the first rule.

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Oooooh! So close but no cigar.

You see Carlos you really must read the rules carefully.

You see rule #1 clearly states that ‘Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated.’

Did you state clearly in advance? Did JREF agree with you. And what powers or abilities and observation conditions did you agree to?

Now if in fact this occurred then I owe you an apology but I would surely expect the JREF insist that we remove all those damn birds first so as to avoid confusion.

You see Carlos that is the point of a controlled observation.

So again I ask, can you meet the first rule, including stateing details of your demonstration in advance and have you come to an agreement with JREF as to those conditions as is required by the first rule.

Rule #1



What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

Hi Blue monk:

Only a paranormal EVENT.

So you still refuses to read this?:

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

_________________________________________

ayone who can show: Carlos Swett

Under proper observing condition: a tape recorded "live" and broadcasted to the more numerous audience in the world, a clear morning with no clouds, a tape that is available in almost all the tv stations of the world, can do all the analisis you want of the "hat form" using technical equipments.

Evidence of any paranormal :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.

Event : the 9/11/01 tragic event.


RESUME: Anyone who can show under proper observing conditions evidence of any paranormal event.

I did it.

Andrew Harter(with Randi's aprooval) also answered me, he NEVER said that my application was not valid.

He used the most stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown link of a video available in Internet) "frame by frame".

He lied when he said I made two assumptions in my application( the first is a lie and the second never mentioned).

He said that was a bird.

He said ,of course based in that poor analisis:"Nothing supernatural is taking place."

THOSE ARE FACTS; NO INTERPRETETIONS.

See Blue Monk ;James Randi is still on silence, he is still worried about Geller , Browne and dowsers; my application and the e-mails can be false. Randi is afraid because he knows he failed.

But the video EXISTS and can be analize, you can see the HAT FORM of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and mainly:
A bird , an insect or superman must be seen against the wall of the first tower. It is not the case.See page 12 of this thread , there are 4 pictures of the sequence.

Don't worry , I will copy this answer again if you refuse to read it.
Make points.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

And what about the video?, And the hat form of the paranormal activity?Don't refuse to answer those questions

[Blue Monk]

Yes Carlos I read that.

Now let me post the entire paragraph

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."


There's a little bit more isn't there? Did JREF help design the test and protocol and approve the conditions under which the test would take place?

This challenge comes with a very specific application and you claim to have submitted a valid application.

With that in mind I again refer to the first rule.

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


Please note that this is only the first rule and that you must meet all of the requirments including the things that must be stated in advance and agreed upon by JREF

What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Yes Carlos I read that.


? [/B]

Blue Monk :

What kind of skeptic are you are? are you more concerned in the rules or in the evidence of a paranormal activity? More concerned in the million like Randi? Poor skeptics.

Perhaps you read it, but you did not understand. You did not even answer my questions.

Remember that James Randi changed the rules after my application was received. Is a fact. just ask him or read at july commentary.

Another coincidence?
Maybe.

Or he is still afraid of write about this, perhaps his lawyers advice him to be in silence.

Is a fact he make a mistake. That`s all.

So you still refuses to understand this?:

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

_________________________________________

ayone who can show: Carlos Swett

Under proper observing condition: a tape recorded "live" and broadcasted to the more numerous audience in the world, a clear morning with no clouds, a tape that is available in almost all the tv stations of the world, can do all the analisis you want of the "hat form" using technical equipments.

Evidence of any paranormal :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.

Event : the 9/11/01 tragic event.


RESUME: Anyone who can show under proper observing conditions evidence of any paranormal event.

I did it.

Andrew Harter(with Randi's aprooval) also answered me, he NEVER said that my application was not valid.

He used the most stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown link of a video available in Internet) "frame by frame".

He lied when he said I made two assumptions in my application( the first is a lie and the second never mentioned).

He said that was a bird.

He said ,of course based in that poor analisis:"Nothing supernatural is taking place."

THOSE ARE FACTS; NO INTERPRETETIONS.

See Blue Monk ;James Randi is still on silence, he is still worried about Geller , Browne and dowsers; my application and the e-mails can be false. Randi is afraid because he knows he failed.

But the video EXISTS and can be analize, you can see the HAT FORM of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and mainly:
A bird , an insect or superman must be seen against the wall of the first tower. It is not the case.See page 12 of this thread , there are 4 pictures of the sequence.

Don't worry , I will copy this answer again if you refuse to read it.
Make points.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

And what about the video?, And the hat form of the paranormal activity?Don't refuse to answer those questions

[hal bidlack]

OK, Carlos, can we agree on two things?

1. The phrase "in advance" means "before the event" or "ahead of time"

can we agree to that?

2. If so, can we agree that the phrase "Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,..." appears in the formal challenge rules?

Note that both questions are quite independent of your claim, and are not dependent in any way on whether you are right or wrong about the object.

May I please know if you agree with my definition of "in advance" and that the phrase above appears in the application?

Originally posted by bidlack
OK, Carlos, can we agree on two things?

1. The phrase "in advance" means "before the event" or "ahead of time"

can we agree to that?

2. If so, can we agree that the phrase "Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,..." appears in the formal challenge rules?

Note that both questions are quite independent of your claim, and are not dependent in any way on whether you are right or wrong about the object.

May I please know if you agree with my definition of "in advance" and that the phrase above appears in the application?

Hi Bidlack:

Now you appears as a JREF lawyer.

I know you will be at the "amazing meeting " like a conferencist also.

Why don't you focus in the image of my paranormal claimant?

You have access to sophisticated technology to analize it.

I am not lying in the "hat form" of the paranormal activity, and is a fact that the dark object can not be seen in front of thewall of the tower.

Why are you worried about the million dollars? WHY?
I am not, and you and Randi knew it already.

I am just worried in the fact that they gave me a poor answer based in a poor method. Also they lied, That's all .

Read this:

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

And there is still NOT a single word by James Randi about my claim and notarized application. WHY?


Anyway, I appreciate your "new" style of reply. Is better and not insulting.Thanks for that.

Remember you are not the only one questioning me ONLY about the valid or not of my application.

I am sure that this is not the main point for an sceptic.
It s the main point for people who are thinking first in the money, like James Randi in this particular case.

Sorry for my english.

Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S
What kind of skeptic are you are? are you more concerned in the rules or in the evidence of a paranormal activity? More concerned in the million like Randi? Poor skeptics.


Why would I or anybody be concerned about the million? It's not my money and the people that put it up will never see it again whether anyone wins the challenge or not.

And I would love to see someone win the challenge because I know it would be under controlled conditions. Personally I think it would be really cool for something yet unknown to be proven.

What kind of skeptic am I? Well, I skeptical enough to laugh at your silly little tape that proves nothing. I couldn't care less if you believe you see the Easter Bunny. And I'm the kind of skeptic that knows it's a waste of time trying to convince you that just because YOU can't explain something that is not proof of a paranormal phenomenon.

So why the rules? Because you have spent close to two months on this very thread doing nothing but complain about how you have been treated unfairly. You claim to have a valid application. You slander people. You call them liars and cheats and idiots all based on the rules. This whole thread has been your little monument to how everyone is a liar and evil because they are ducking your 'spectacular' proof that is no different than tens of thousands of films all over the world with these artifacts.

But that's where I have you.

Unlike the tape that can be debated forever, it's a bird, no it's not, yes it is, the rules and the very foundation for all of your vile accusations are very clear. And while these rules were important enough for you to spend two months of your life hurling charges right and left as soon as someone wants to get down to business and see exactly where you have been so grievously wronged, suddenly the exactness of the rules aren't so important.

Well I have no doubt that you will never admit that you have no valid application but I intend to continue to press the point so it will be obvious to any others who read these posts whether or not there is any foundation to your accusations based on the rules and I doubt many will be impressed by you simply posting small segments that appear to support you when I intend to follow behind you and duplicate the entire post so all can see what you deliberately left out.

For me it's not a question of what kind of skeptic I am.

For me it's a question of what kind of man you are.

As to the rule change you refer to it is referenced in the commentary dated July 5, 2002 this link is provided for any who wish to see for themselves. I'll post the relevant part immediately after this post.

Commentary, July 5, 2002 (http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html)

Now I'm not sure what rule change happened that would affect your claim but if you know off-hand please bring it up. If you feel it is significant I am sure I can find a copy of the rules that existed exactly at the time of your application. I'm pretty sure the main problems I have in your claim were already in place but if there is any doubt I will find them and post them if your request.

I would like to note one passage from specific section…

Excerpt from Commentary, July 5, 2002
Again, there is no judging! By anyone! And all the "agreed terms" are clearly and definitively decided and agreed to beforehand, not after the test has taken place.


The conditions of your tape were not agreed upon beforehand. Your conclusion is not proof. It only proves that you cannot explain it. That does not preclude the possibility that there can be a perfectly normal explanation that you simply haven't thought of.

Originally posted by S&S
Andrew Harter(with Randi's approval) also answered me, he NEVER said that my application was not valid.


The fact that Andrew Harter did not say your application is not the same as Andrew Harter saying it was. They simply agreed to look at your tape and nowhere in any of your own accounts do you mention that at anytime anyone telling you that your application was valid.

Originally posted by S&S
He used the most stupid method to analyze the tape (an unknown link of a video available in Internet) "frame by frame".


Granted that is far inferior than using a quality copy of the tape but is probably a clear indication of the effort he intended. I feel you have mistaken a courtesy on their part as an actual test in which case you would surely be mistaken. But ultimately it is a moot point as the tape does not qualify for the challenge regardless of what it contains.

No one familiar with the scientific process would ever accept anything on a tape made outside of control conditions as valid proof of anything. There are too many variable and too many unknown factors that one could never hope to eliminate them all which is what would be required to constitute proof.

Originally posted by S&S
He lied when he said I made two assumptions in my application( the first is a lie and the second never mentioned).


You will have to be more specific for me to address this one.

Originally posted by S&S
He said that was a bird.

I agree.

Originally posted by S&S
He said ,of course based in that poor analisis:"Nothing supernatural is taking place."

I'll be more charitable. There is no proof of anything supernatural taking place.

I believe that covers your questions.

Yes the video does exist and can be analyzed. If it is of such great importance to you I suggest you take it to a quality forensic lab and pay for their impartial analysis.

Originally posted by S&S
And what about the video?, And the hat form of the paranormal activity? Don't refuse to answer those questions

You have an image in the shape of a hat. I believe it is a bird. It may not be but there is no evidence to support that it is paranormal simply because it looks odd.

The following post is an the relevant excerpt from Randi's Commentary concerning the rules change.

[Blue Monk]

Relevant Excerpt from Randi's commentary dated July 5, 2002.

edited to reformat for clarity. All comments are from Randi unless quoted.
-----------------------------
There's a new version of the JREF Million-Dollar Challenge now up on this web site. I made small but important changes and additions, some of which were prompted by very wide - unfounded - criticism of the challenge. Here's a selection of some points that irked a chap who just doesn't want the challenge to exist, accompanied by my answers....

"Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalized until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do - bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will formulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

Nonsense. I will not, and do not, "formulate" any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It's always been this way, despite the statements - such as this one - made to the contrary.

"Tests will be designed in such a way that no 'judging' procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by "experts" over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met - whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

More nonsense. This person has ignored the statements made, and the definitions in the rules. The statement,"no 'judging' procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer," covers that in detail. When hementions "whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced," he misses the whole situation. We don't give a damn how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful observation. As for "whether . . . the remote image was correctly reproduced," there is absolutely no doubt about that, since a participant would be given a list of targets, and be required to choose which one was the intended one. That doesn't call for argument or a decision; it's either right or it's wrong. It's "yes" or "no."

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging." In reality, he is both judge and jury - not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

Further nonsense. Again, there is no judging! By anyone! And all the "agreed terms" are clearly and definitively decided and agreed to beforehand, not after the test has taken place. There can be no appeal of whether the gold was found under the right cup, whether there were extraneous vibrations that threw the dowser off, or whether Jupiter was in the wrong sign. Go back to our encounter recently with the dowser right here at the JREF, and you'll see how a test is properly designed and carried out. We're not amateurs, though apparently you are.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine [a "free energy" device] might know a little more about physics than he does.

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that - by some undisclosed but non-scientific means - he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and "absurd'" and should be "tossed on the trash heap."

Let me reveal here what my "undisclosed" means consists of: I use top-notch scientists and other experts to advise me. You see, I don't fix my own teeth, I don't do my own plumbing, and I don't calculate needed statistics. I go to dentists, plumbers, and statisticians for those services. Didn't occur to you, huh? As for the "new machine," the physicists at the American Physical Society advised me that it was absurd, and that was a body of some 41,000 persons, not thirty, who provided that opinion. I think I'll go along with the majority.

And, in case you didn't know, if you look hard enough, you can always find 30 Phds who will make almost any statement you want them to. Having a Phd doesn't mean you're smart; it only means that you should be....

And who decided that PhDs are capable of detecting tricks better than magicians are?

[Blue Monk]

Now that I have answered your questions please answer one for me.

After weeks upon weeks of complaining of unfair treatement over your 'valid' application, an issue you felt strongly enough to slander anyone in sight, hurl accusations of liars, cheats and idiots I will now once again give you the opportunity to support your claim that you have a valid application.

Can you or can you not meet even the first requirement?

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

[Purple Tentacle]

you are a lier carlos, you lied to us all and you lie every post you make. i dunno what you lied about but you lied, lies lies lies.

what are you too scared to answer me?

the proof is written right here ---> you are a lier

see that is proof, you beasty lier, you lie like a beast !

i declare that carlos has a PARANORMAL brain, can i have a million dollars now please?

oh wait, yeah his PARANORMAL brain is wearing a PARANORMAL hat. so there.

lier.

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
you are a lier carlos, you lied to us all and you lie every post you make. i dunno what you lied about but you lied, lies lies lies.

what are you too scared to answer me?

the proof is written right here ---> you are a lier

see that is proof, you beasty lier, you lie like a beast !

i declare that carlos has a PARANORMAL brain, can i have a million dollars now please?

oh wait, yeah his PARANORMAL brain is wearing a PARANORMAL hat. so there.

lier.

Hi nick purple tentacle:

Lier without proofs? Seems like a TROLL answer.

Harter lied in tha answer he gave me. There are proofs, their own words.

James Randi did changed the rules after my application. Just read what Blue Monk wrote. He investigated in that . Is a fact.

Lie about the "hat form" of the paranormal activity?Just do your own analisis.

Lie that the paranormal activity can not be seen against the wall of the fist tower? Just see the video or the pictures.
Lie about that I made the application? I have the Fedex guide.

Lie about Randi's silence about my application? Just read Randi's commentaries.

Lie that Harter or Randi NEVER said that my application was not valid? Just read the e-mails in page 1.

Lie that I don't care about the million papers? Just read the e-mails.

Lie that you don't know what paranormal is? I don't see your answer.

Lie that you are a perfect troll? NO, that's true.

Who is lying now, Puple tentacle?

See why is most important to me to fight for my honor?

Thanks,

S&S

Here is my translated (by Patricio Elicer) notarized application to the challenge. The original was send in Spanish language, before James Randi changed the rules about language, too. After this you will see the answer Andrew Harter gave me and just after many request I send to James Randi to give me an answer and the only answers I received from him (JR)were insults.


Note by Patricio Elicer: I've tried to preserve as faithfully as possible the original application form. Capitals are Swett's

Notarized Application

DENUNCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY OBSERVED BY THE SIGNER IN THE 9/11/2001 CRIMINAL ATTACK AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK CITY, USA.

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: Carlos Swett Salas

_______________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Harter's answer to my application (by e-mail)

Andrew enters
quote:

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

___________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------

TO all the members that are more concerned about the rules of my application than focus in analize the image a proper way:

I always said that my main reason was share an observation I did that tragic day.

I said to the JREF that they are able to prove that using the right tecnollogy.

Even in my application I said I don't care about the prize.

I made a conclusion as rules said.
My conclusion is based in why it can not be a bird or an insect

I supported Randi's work.I never went to another kind of charlatans.

The tape I send was only referential

I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted this letter, but if you all estimate is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower". SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

Somebody knows the link he used?
Is the correct way to analize the image?Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower? Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

Is there a word that my application is not valid?
Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further.

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Carlos,

You have repeatedly referred to people being 'scared' of your tape. In your recent post you ask me if I am more worried about the million dollars like Randi.

This would indicate to me that you are implying that people are deliberately attempting to block your access to the challenge. Why that would be important can only exist in your mind as a) the money belongs to no one so no one has anything to lose and b) skepticism is not the attempt to disprove anything. It is simply to not accept something until it is proven and not accept the fact that it really, REALLY 'looks' paranormal as scientific proof.

So if you are not claiming that you have met the valid requirements to the challenge then, yes, you are right and the rules are not important and I'll never mention them again though I can hardly see how you've been treated unfairly if this is the case. Perhaps a couple of legitimate but petty slights one would expect the average mature adult to have let go long ago. If others did not treat your tape with the respect you believe it deserves then so what? We have not all been put on this planet for your little self-serving needs

If on the other hand you believe you have met the requirements for the challenge and are being unfairly dismissed then of course the rules are of paramount importance and I would expect you would welcome the opportunity to validate your position.

So I will ask you flat out. Do you believe you can legitimately meet the requirements?

If you don't answer I will only assume, based on your constant referral to the million dollars and the fact that people are 'scared,' that you do and I will continue to press you for clarification.

So unless you specifically inform me that you are no longer pursuing the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge I will once again ask..

Can you or can you not meet even the first requirement of the application.

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

[alfaniner]

Blue Monk,

you might want to format your post of 10/18/02 10:20 pm (reiterating the challenge, the objections, and the reasons for the changes). It appears there is a quote from the challenge, an objection from someone, and Randi's explanation of each point.

Someone as easily muddled as S&S might take the objection parts as Randi's quotes.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Blue Monk,

you might want to format your post of 10/18/02 10:20 pm (reiterating the challenge, the objections, and the reasons for the changes). It appears there is a quote from the challenge, an objection from someone, and Randi's explanation of each point.

Someone as easily muddled as S&S might take the objection parts as Randi's quotes.

Thanks, alfaniner,

I was tired and got a little lazy, hehe.

Anything to keep things clear is welcomed.

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos,

You have repeatedly referred to people being 'scared' of your tape. In your recent post you ask me if I am more worried about the million dollars like Randi.

This would indicate to me that you are implying that people are deliberately attempting to block your access to the challenge. Why that would be important can only exist in your mind as a) the money belongs to no one so no one has anything to lose and b) skepticism is not the attempt to disprove anything. It is simply to not accept something until it is proven and not accept the fact that it really, REALLY 'looks' paranormal as scientific proof.


? [/B]

Hi Blue Monk:

Do you think Andrew Harter lied in his answer to my application?
Why you refuse to answer my questions?
Did you understand that is a fight for my honor,? I was the one who received JREF answer (Andrew Harter and James Randi).

So again I will make you a resume. Answer please if I am wrong, you read my notarized application.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here this letter, but if you all estimate is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.

Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower". SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?
Answer it Blue Monk or Bidlack

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

Somebody knows the link he used?
Is the correct way to analize the image?Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower? Can somebody prove that?
Answer those questions Blue Monk or Bidlack.

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

Is there a word that my application is not valid?
Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?
Answer them Blue Monk or Bidlack.

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further.

Thanks,
S&S

ANSWER BLUE MONK OR BIDLACK: please don't skip the questions.

????

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."


[/B]

Did JREF made all????????????

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Now if in fact this occurred then I owe you an apology but I would surely expect the JREF insist that we remove all those damn birds first so as to avoid confusion.

You have an image in the shape of a hat. I believe it is a bird. It may not be but there is no evidence to support that it is paranormal simply because it looks odd.

[/B]


BIRDS!!!!!!!!!! BLIND MONK

[Blue Monk]

Carlos,

I don't give a damn about your tape, I don't give a damn that you've got you're panties all bunched up over Andrew.

You refuse to answer 'my' questions and the reason is clear to anyone following this thread.

Because if you don't have a valid claim then no one fears the mighty Carlos. No one is laying awake at night pulling at their hair or gnashing their teeth worried that the Mighty Carlos and his Amazing Flying Hat are gonna walk off with a million bucks.

Without a valid claim then all implications that manipulations or dishonesty by others to block the claim cease to have any credibility.

Without a valid claim that cocoon of self-importance you've wrapped yourself in falls away and this endless whining and crying by you is exposed for all that it is, a very immature man who got his feelings hurt because others aren't as impressed with his tape and that mean old Andrew accused poor little Carlos of making 'assumptions', gasp.

So what is it Carlos. Are skeptics around the world forming skeptic swat teams, code name 'Cosmic Sombrero' to battle your earth-shattering evidence (I mean it really, REALLY, 'looks' paranormal) or are you just a silly little man whose sense of 'honor' somehow allows for casting baseless doubts on the integrity of others?

It does not matter if you actually answer. It should be obvious to anyone what your refusal means.

Can you even satisfy the first rule for a valid application?

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos,

I don't give a damn about your tape, I don't give a damn that you've got you're panties all bunched up over Andrew.




Hi Blue Monk:
You refuse to answer my questions about Harter's answer, WHY?

Your silence about that is telling me that you are afraid of the truth or you are a Randi's beleiver.

Can anybody in this forum have the honesty to answer them?So again I will make you a resume. Answer please if I am wrong, you read my notarized application.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here this letter, but if you all estimate is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.

Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower". SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?
Answer it Blue Monk or Bidlack

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

Somebody knows the link he used?
Is the correct way to analize the image?Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower? Can somebody prove that?
Answer those questions Blue Monk or Bidlack.

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

Is there a word that my application is not valid?
Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?
Answer them Blue Monk or Bidlack.

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

Be honest enough , just answer or see the video and the correct analisis.

Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

I already answered your first battery of questions.

What will it take to get you to answer mine?

If I answer all of your questions from the last two posts will you answer mine.

I don't answer your questions because they are stalling tactics. If you agree to answer mine I will answer yours and I will even answer yours first.

Agreed?

Can you even satisfy the first rule for a valid application?

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

[Blue Monk]

I'll sweeten the pot.

I'll answer all of your questions from the previous two post PLUS any others you wish to add.

I'll answer them all as honestly and as thoroughly as I can. I will not tivialize them or mock you or dismiss any out of lack of interest.

I will be more than happy to do this if you will simply agree to answer mine.

Fair enough?

[hal bidlack]

Fairly weak attempt at evasion, Carlos.

"In advance" Not a tough phrase to understand. Well, I guess it is. :)

[subgenius]

Why Randi is in silence about Swett`s challenge
"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."----James Randi

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos,

I don't give a damn about your tape, I don't give a damn that you've got you're panties all bunched up over Andrew.


b]

Hi Blue Monk:

Is that your way to have a debate as an sceptic? Poor method.
Just answer ALL my questions.Don't be afraid. Just say the truth.

Bidlacck : This is for you also, you are a member of JREf and a conferencist at the "amazing meeting".

Remember I am here because I received LIES in ANDREW HARTER'S answer to my application , with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI. Just prove they are not lies.
I told you why there are lies and the reasons.

Then we can talk in whatever you want.
Do your part, act like a real sceptic, not like a Randi's defender.

Check the video and the pictures , too.

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Debate?

Who said I wanted to debate? Certainly not your foolish interpretation of what you think you see on that tape. And what happened between you and Andrew is between you and Andrew. I've never met either one you and I've only had any correspondence with you.

Matter of honor my ass.

I say you are a dishonorable, unethical little man. I say that you knowingly cast doubts on the integrity of others for your own petty, selfish and self-serving goals, namely to inflate your own ego by promoting the illusion that there is a united effort to suppress your magical hat.

You have no valid claim. No extra effort is needed to invalidate you even if your delusional belief that they would want to were true.

Bet even though you yourself are aware that you can't meet the criteria you will continue to do the dishonest, dishonorable and unethical thing by continuing to allow these false impressions continue only because it serves your own childish needs.

It is clear to any objective observer that I have attacked your so-called 'honor' far more directly and with far more clear intent than Andrew did.

So what would a man concerned about his honor do in this situation. I would expect him to either admit that he doesn't have a valid claim so as to clear any implications of dishonesty by others or to simply provide the information the would indicate his claim is indeed true, he is indeed honorable, and all of my attacks on his character false.

That's what I think an honorable man would do.

The question is what will you do.

Can you even satisfy the first rule for a valid application?

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by subgenius
Why Randi is in silence about Swett`s challenge
"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."----James Randi

[Supercharts]

Dear Swett, Subgenius, S&S, Carlos ...whomever...
Please arrange a visit to the USA in the very near future. Please visit Virginia on the way down to Fla. Please get gas in Virginia. Whilist pumping stay very, very still. Don't move. Don't even twitch. Stand proud and erect.
Thank you. Best of luck.

[subgenius]

that's pretty sick....

[Purple Tentacle]

two can play at this game carlos......

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Debate?

Who said I wanted to debate? Certainly not your foolish interpretation of what you think you see on that tape. And what happened between you and Andrew is between you and Andrew. I've never met either one you and I've only had any correspondence with you.

Matter of honor my ass.


b]

:

Blue Monk:

Yes you are afraid to debate.
You are doing the same that people with no arguments do: hide yourself in insults, and use the ostrich method. The same James Randi did to me.

Are you the same person who posted this?:

Originally posted by Blue Monk:

"If I answer all of your questions from the last two posts will you answer mine.

I don't answer your questions because they are stalling tactics. If you agree to answer mine I will answer yours and I will even answer yours first.

Agreed?"signed by Blue Monk

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

So , you are a liar and a chicken.
You are worried about your ass, you have diarrea because YOU HAVE to answer my questions first.

Is a fact that Andrew Harter lied in his answer.
Is a fact that he used the most stupid method to analize the tape.
Is a fact that he never said that my application was not velid.
Is a fact that James Randi gave his aprooval to all this lies.
Is a fact that James Randi is still on silence about my notarized application.
Is a fact that Randi always write about charlatans, trolls and UFOS, but is afraid to write about my claim.
Is a fact that the paranormal activity has the form that latinijral posted in the pictures.
Is a fact that the paranormal activity can not be seen in front of the north tower.
Is a fact that you BLUE MONK and BIDLACK are the kind of skeptics more worried in the rules of the challenge than in the evidences.
Is a fact that you don't want and refuses to see and analize the image.
Is a fact that you are hiding behind a nickname:"LOSER BLUE MONK"



Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

Carlos,

I don't give a damn about your tape.

I don't give a damn about your silly tiff with Andrew.

There is only one logical reason why you would refuse to answer my question.

You can't.

You have no valid claim. Period. And all this fuss is not some elaborate plan to evade you is nothing but nonsense.

Do you really think I don't care if you answer this. I love posting it over and over and my only complaint is that you don't respond quick enough so I can post it again.

People aren't stupid, Carlos. They can read. Every time anyone reads even the first rule it is clear you have no claim and there is no effort being made by anyone to block you.

Every time I post this it makes clear that all this fuss is over the fact you believe Andrew slighted you. Period.

I know that's not a glamorous as skeptics across continents uniting to turn back the Carlos challenge but that's just the way it is.

Please don't take so long to respond as I would like to post this more frequently. If you ever want to get back to discussing your tape or your silly little soap opera problem you are going to have to answer this. You have not even scratched the surface of my stubbornness.

Can you even satisfy the first rule for a valid application?

Rule #1

Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
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.

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.


What powers or abilities do you plan to demonstrate and under what observable conditions? What will constitute both a positive and a negative result?

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos,

I don't give a damn about your tape.

I don't give a damn about your silly tiff with Andrew.


[/B]

Blue Monk:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blue Monk
Debate?

Who said I wanted to debate? Certainly not your foolish interpretation of what you think you see on that tape. And what happened between you and Andrew is between you and Andrew. I've never met either one you and I've only had any correspondence with you.

Matter of honor my ass.


b]


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

:

Blue Monk:

Yes you are afraid to debate.
You are doing the same that people with no arguments do: hide yourself in insults, and use the ostrich method. The same James Randi did to me.

Are you the same person who posted this?:

Originally posted by Blue Monk:

"If I answer all of your questions from the last two posts will you answer mine.

I don't answer your questions because they are stalling tactics. If you agree to answer mine I will answer yours and I will even answer yours first.

Agreed?"signed by Blue Monk

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

So , you are a liar and a chicken.
You are worried about your ass, you have diarrea because YOU HAVE to answer my questions first.

Is a fact that Andrew Harter lied in his answer.
Is a fact that he used the most stupid method to analize the tape.
Is a fact that he never said that my application was not velid.
Is a fact that James Randi gave his aprooval to all this lies.
Is a fact that James Randi is still on silence about my notarized application.
Is a fact that Randi always write about charlatans, trolls and UFOS, but is afraid to write about my claim.
Is a fact that the paranormal activity has the form that latinijral posted in the pictures.
Is a fact that the paranormal activity can not be seen in front of the north tower.
Is a fact that you BLUE MONK and BIDLACK are the kind of skeptics more worried in the rules of the challenge than in the evidences.
Is a fact that you don't want and refuses to see and analize the image.
Is a fact that you are hiding behind a nickname:"LOSER BLUE MONK"



Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

"If I answer all of your questions from the last two posts will you answer mine.

I don't answer your questions because they are stalling tactics. If you agree to answer mine I willanswer yours and I will even answer yours first.
Agreed?"signed by Blue Monk

Yes I said that but you did not agree.

Are you now saying that you will answer my question if I answer yours.

Yes or No

[Prolix]

All this analizing of videotapes serves only to make the evidence less palatable. Carlos, do you have some other way of handling this matter?

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Yes I said that but you did not agree.

Are you now saying that you will answer my question if I answer yours.

Yes or No

Blue Monk:

Is this an agreetment?
Or a new challenge?
My answer:
YES; WHY NOT? OF COURSE, SURE.

But don't forget to tell the truth, and to answer all.
Again a resume:

"I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here that letter, but if you all estimate that is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

ANSWER TO MY APPLICATION BY ANDREW HARTER (JREF)
"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
*Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? *FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower".* SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the FALSE impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. *Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

*Somebody knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

*Is there a word IN HIS ANSWER that my application is not valid?
*Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
*His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further, to your special skeptical question about the rules.

Just answer.

Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

Fine.

If you have any more questions you haven't asked, now's the time to do it. The sooner the better.

I'll respond soon.

[Purple Tentacle]

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi ) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!


http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Fine.

If you have any more questions you haven't asked, now's the time to do it. The sooner the better.

I'll respond soon.

Blue Monk:

I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here that letter, but if you all estimate that is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

ANSWER TO MY APPLICATION BY ANDREW HARTER (JREF)
"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
*Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? *FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower".* SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the FALSE impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. *Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

*Somebody knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

*Is there a word IN HIS ANSWER that my application is not valid?
*Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
*His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further, to your special skeptical question about the rules.

Just answer.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by Supercharts
Dear Swett, Subgenius, S&S, Carlos ...whomever...
Please arrange a visit to the USA in the very near future. Please visit Virginia on the way down to Fla. Please get gas in Virginia. Whilist pumping stay very, very still. Don't move. Don't even twitch. Stand proud and erect.
Thank you. Best of luck.

Supercharts:

Your nick is by a picture of a dog, I wish the dog made your reply..only a beast (sorry for the animals) like you can make mockery of a tragic succes with inocent people death and fammilies in pain.

If you don't have arguments to defeat me, just ignore me.

Only in countries of the first world are maniacs of that kind, and you are a pure representant of the mental illness that suffer the "new age" in your country.

I am also sure that some members of this forum laughed and celebrate with "YOUR ORIGINAL JOKE" , but also I am sure that a few memmbers and guests of this forum also are ashame of persons like you.

Next time "think" if you can. Sorry again for the dog.
I know it was your's reply.

Thanks,
S&S

1

2

3

4

5

BIRDS!!!!!!!!!! BLIND MONK

Originally posted by Blue Monk

Now if in fact this occurred then I owe you an apology but I would surely expect the JREF insist that we remove all those damn birds first so as to avoid confusion.


You have an image in the shape of a hat. I believe it is a bird. It may not be but there is no evidence to support that it is paranormal simply because it looks odd.

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho's Image Editing Lesson for Today

The use of any bitmap-editing program to "enhance" pictures is a destructive process. Detail cannot be added where none exists. Any sharpening, softening, resizing, resampling, filtering, descreening, or other processing destroys detail in the original bitmap. Saving a bitmap in a compressed format such as JPEG destroys detail when it is saved to disk. This destruction of detail compounds every time the file is opened and saved.

Conversion from 24-bit color to 256-color (or to a palette of less than 256 colors, which is an option available for web optimization in certain programs) also destroys detail and color information.

Excessive processing of an image can and does result in a final product that is unreliable for detailed examination, because so much "detail" is actually the result of the processing.

Video images from broadcast television are made up of horizontal scan lines at very poor resolution.* So much detail is lost that attempting to use such an image for detailed analysis is futile.

False-contrast enhancement can cause something to appear to be very prominent in a processed image that was not apparent in the original.

Used wisely, an image-editing program can bring out the best in your bitmaps. Used carelessly, such programs can leave you with useless noise.

Note: the term "bitmap" is used here to refer to digital images, anything from 32-bit color to 1-bit pure black-and-white. Yes, I know some applications can render bitmaps in higher color depth than 32-bit, but the human eye can only see approximately 32,000 individual colors at any one time.

* For purposes of this lesson, I refer only to analog TV signals and not digital TV signals.

[Purple Tentacle]

latinijral , no images that have been edited with photoshop can be admitted as evidence, they have been altered. we have all seen your images, please stop posting them.



S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi ) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!


http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
[B]latinijral , no images that have been edited with photoshop can be admitted as evidence, they have been altered. we have all seen your images, please stop posting them.



Did you lost your memory???
The images that i posted here are only another analysis that edenex from españa made. Review last pages first.
Remember that i post a picture form the screen of my local tv station when i vissited them this year.
No photoshop here:

[rwald]

If there was no Photoshop in that picture, then where did the words "Harter's Paranormal Bird???" come from?

Originally posted by rwald
If there was no Photoshop in that picture, then where did the words "Harter's Paranormal Bird???" come from?



NO PROBLEM

[rwald]

Better. Now, what about the black parts near the top and bottom of the screen? What happened there?

[hal bidlack]

one more try, since I am wondering what might come next.

Carlos,

May I assume that you notified the JREF before the attack, as is required by the application? You know, the part that says the conditions must be agreed to in advance?

Please do not urge me to read your earlier posts, please answer yes or no. You may then preceed to attack me as you wish. But I'd love to have an answer.

thanks

hal

[rwald]

And you did come to a mutual agreement about the conditions, right? You didn't just tell Randi what you thought, and assumed he agreed? I'm sure you have a letter from Randi saying, "One video taken outside of controlled conditions is certainly enough proof for my prize." Could you show us this letter, please?

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//30/2002

[subgenius]

Originally posted by latinijral
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//30/2002

you're an idiot go away

[subgenius]

"Thinking is the hardest work of all that's why so few engage in it"---Emerson
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."--(unkown)
"We see and hear what we want to see and hear."--Thoreau

[subgenius]

Why Randi is in silence about Swett`s challenge

"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."--Randi

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by rwald
Better. Now, what about the black parts near the top and bottom of the screen? What happened there?

His camera's shutter speed was too fast to avoid capturing the TV's video scan. I recommend a shutter speed of 1/15 or 1/8 of a second to avoid this problem. Looks as if he mis-framed his shot and captured the edges of his TV set. Judging by the thick scan lines I'd guess the TV is fairly small.

Doesn't matter much, though. It's crap anyway.

Originally posted by bidlack
one more try, since I am wondering what might come next.

Carlos,

May I assume that you notified the JREF before the attack, as is required by the application? You know, the part that says the conditions must be agreed to in advance?

Please do not urge me to read your earlier posts, please answer yes or no. You may then preceed to attack me as you wish. But I'd love to have an answer.

thanks

hal

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack:

I never attacked you. You did so.

I'd love to have the answers to the questions I put to Blue Monk and you many days before. Specially your's about the lies Andrew Harter with Randi aprooval made in his answer to my application.
Take your time, I am not hurry.

Remember you are part of JREF and you will be a conferencist at the "amazing meeting". Why you all are still in silence? Aren't you specialists in frauds?

Don't worry about the rules, act like an sceptic , but your answer to your question is easy and already answer in the thread, but I will make an special edition to you when you answer my questions about the lies I received.

Remember I always said I am fighting for my honour and my name.

Take your time , like Blue Monk.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by subgenius


you're an idiot go away


Please read slowly. These are rwald`s comments, not mine.

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//30/2002

[rwald]

As I've said before, Carlos may have had a reason to be confused two months ago, but he has no excuse for still not understanding the situation. If all of us can't convince him that he is wrong, then clearly it's not Randi's or anyone else's fault.

You are welcome.

Originally posted by latinijral
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//30/2002

[a_unique_person]

I don't think this topic has enough posts in it yet.

[PinkRabbit]

I hate to admit it, but I find this thread perversely fascinating. I check it out and catch up whenever I drop by. I think it's because there's just something rather astounding about Swett's absolute refusal to get the fact that one rather poor video just isn't enough to prove anything, and that the challenge is about testing an ability, not merely looking at a picture and insisting it's paranormal. And then there's the way he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and ... well, you get the point. :rolleyes:

I must say, I've admired the determination of the folks arguing with him though. I really don't think I'd have the stamina to beat my head against the wall that way for so long.

Anyway, while I'm here, I've just gotta ask; okay, so you believe it's paranormal. But a paranormal what? Ghosts, aliens, out of body experience? Enquiring minds want to know.

And now I'm back to watching Once Upon A Time in the West. Love Sergio Leone.

Barb

[Purple Tentacle]

latinijral, S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi ) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!


http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
latinijral, S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi ) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!

Don't be silly PT! It's not in the other video because it's PARANORMAL! You know: not subject to the normal laws of nature?
Why would you expect a PARANORMAL object to be seen by every camera that photographs it? Sheesh!

;)
Reb
--minor typo edited

ANDREW HARTER: IS THIS YOUR BIRD?????

[hal bidlack]

I'm also drawn to the thread to see what happens next. I consider it endlessly fascinating that Carlos and latinijral can't understand the simple requirement to set up a challenge in advance. Even if the picture was real, not setting up a challenge in advance would invalidate. An when I point that out (with many others), I am dismissed because I'm a JREFer and a "conferencist" and a "specialist in frauds."

I wonder if we've reached the point at which we should conclude that, rather than a passionate ufologist, we are actually being toyed with by the single best troll on the forum?

This obtuseness would seem to be beyond language differences and passion of belief.

Is Car-ijral's complete disconnect from reality may be more likely a put-on than a nut-job. Thoughts? Are we bating a master troll? If so, I'll admit I've been had but good:)

[Purple Tentacle]

answer my question latinijral


you have no case, look at this VIDEO (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi )

[CurtC]

Yes, latinjral, it's a bird. It's a bird that was moving while the picture was made, so it's blurred and you can't see any detail. You see, a video camera doesn't have a fast shutter speed, so anything that's moving will be blurred. If it's changing its shape while moving, the blur will have lumps on it. That's what your picture is. Notice how the blur is about half as wide as the distance it travels from frame to frame? That means that whatever object created it, the object is quite a bit smaller than the blur, because video cameras have an exposure time of 1/60 of a second, with 30 frames per second.

The more you post these pictures, you're just reinforcing the argument that it is indeed a bird. Again, take a look at the pictures at the site http://www.roswellrods.com and it should help you understand this.

[DeliveringVito]

This thread reminds me of those old Energizer battery commecials. You know, pink rabbit and bass drum...

"It keeps going, and going, and going...nothing outlasts the paranormal hat thread"

DV

Originally posted by bidlack
I'm also drawn to the thread to see what happens next. I consider it endlessly fascinating that Carlos and latinijral can't understand the simple requirement to set up a challenge in advance. Even if the picture was real, not setting up a challenge in advance would invalidate. An when I point that out (with many others), I am dismissed because I'm a JREFer and a "conferencist" and a "specialist in frauds."


:)

Bidlack and Blue Monk:

I am waiting patienntly until one of you have the courage of the honesty to respond about the lies Andrew Harter gave me in his answer.
I want specially Mr. Hal Bidlack version about it.
I, Carlos Swett was the one who send the notarized application to JREf, and I , Carlos Swett was the one who received by e-mail that Andrew's answer with the aprooval of James Randi.

If you are more concerned in "your rule" and you "think" that the form of the picture correspond to a "bird" , that will be your problem, not mine.

I am here because I don't like lies from anybody, I don't care if his name is James Randi or Hal Bidlack.

Respond about Harter's lies, don't be afraid , just tell the truth.
Here is another example of that fear:

Originally posted by Blue Monk:10/22/2002

"Fine.

If you have any more questions you haven't asked, now's the time to do it. The sooner the better.

I'll respond soon."
-------------------------------------

Mr. Bidlack , why are you also afraid to answer?

But don't forget to tell the truth, and to answer all.
Again a resume:

"I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here that letter, but if you all estimate that is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

ANSWER TO MY APPLICATION BY ANDREW HARTER (JREF)
"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
*Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? *FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower".* SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the FALSE impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. *Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

*Somebody knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

*Is there a word IN HIS ANSWER that my application is not valid?
*Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
*His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and the pictures and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further, to your "special skeptical question" about the rules.

Just answer.

Thanks,

S&S

P. S. "Even if the picture was real, not setting up a challenge in advance would invalidate"
This answer by Hal Bidlack, shows the poor kind of sceptic he is. More worried in the "rules" and the "million" than in "investigate things"

[hal bidlack]

I am waiting patienntly until one of you have the courage of the honesty to respond about the lies Andrew Harter gave me in his answer.


I'll say it again, but I don't think you'll accept my answer, and therefore will again declare that I haven't answered:

I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. You were not lied to. I now seek to have "the courage of the honesty" to say it one more time--> You were not lied to? Have I been clear. No lies. zippo.

You did not submit a valid application. You have no claim, regardless of whether a UFO, a bird, or a giant pick unicorn flew past the WTC. Once again, you were not lied to.

-----

Now, will you answer mine? Do you agree that the application clearly states that you must agree in advance with the JREF as to what will be tested?

edited to fix typo and to add you were not lied to

I still can't get the friggin video to work! Does any site have it in .Mpeg or .rm? Also, does anyone have this thing on video half in or half out of the building?

I can't go look myself at the "local" TV station, all of which are in Los Angeles 120 miles away. It would be swell if a famous artist with a little pull like Carlos Swett, perhaps, could get his local station to show him the broadcast again so he could take a picture of it half in and half out. Wouldn't that prove his point?

Unless some new evidence comes in Randi, Harter et al are finished with this bit of "business." Randi probably has the pull to get his local TV station to show the tape but you know what? He ain't gonna do that. By now that should be obvious.

[Blue Monk]

No need to fear, I’m working on it.

You’ve asked a lot of questions and I’m going to give you a fair answer to them including my reasoning behind each.

If there is one thing I can say for sure, you are not going to have any doubt as to how I feel on every point.

You will no doubt not like my answers.

Originally posted by bidlack


I'll say it again, but I don't think you'll accept my answer, and therefore will again declare that I haven't answered:

I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. You were not lied to. I now seek to have "the courage of the honesty" to say it one more time--> You were not lied to? Have I been clear. No lies. zippo.

You did not submit a valid application. You have no claim, regardless of whether a UFO, a bird, or a giant pick unicorn flew past the WTC. Once again, you were not lied to.

edited to fix typo and to add you were not lied to

Mr. Hal Bidlack :

You are just refusing to answer my questions.

Prove me that they (ANDREW and RANDI) did'nt lied in their answer.

Don't give me just a " No lies" ,

Who do you think you are? Randi's Pope?

Prove it and answer the specific questions, don't be afraid.

If you want take your time, like Blue Monk (was a hard test to him), but you already knew this , before this thread was on this forum.
You are part of JREF, so don't refuse to answer .

Or ask for help , and bring Harter or Randi HERE to debate that point (the lies of Harter in the answer he gave me)

Who is with fear?

Mr. Bidlack , why are you also afraid to answer?

But don't forget to tell the truth, and to answer all.
Again a resume:

"I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here that letter, but if you all estimate that is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

ANSWER TO MY APPLICATION BY ANDREW HARTER (JREF)
"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 said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
*Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? *FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower".* SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the FALSE impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. *Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"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."

*Somebody knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"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 no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

*Is there a word IN HIS ANSWER that my application is not valid?
*Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
*His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and the pictures and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further, to your "special skeptical question" about the rules.

Just answer.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

""That's my answer. [u]You were not lied to."" GIVE ME A BREAK.

Just answer.Don't be afraid.

Originally posted by bidlack


I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. You were not lied to. I now seek to have "the courage of the honesty" to say it one more time--> You were not lied to? Have I been clear. No lies. zippo.

edited to fix typo and to add you were not lied to


If Harter is not a liar researcher, obvoiusly is a non prepare researcher.

ANDREW HARTER: ARE YOU SURE THAT IT IS A BIRD????

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by S&S
Mr. Hal Bidlack :

You are just refusing to answer my questions.

Prove me that they (ANDREW and RANDI) did'nt lied in their answer.

HB -- well, that's not the way it works. The burden is not on me, but rather you. If I say "Carlos sets cats on fire" and then I demand that you prove I'm not lying, you can't do it. In a court, you need not prove you are innocent, the DA must prove you are guilty

Who do you think you are? Randi's Pope?

HB -- Yes. You are on to me. I think I'm Randi's Pope.:rolleyes:

Prove it and answer the specific questions, don't be afraid.
HB -- see below



I have also tried to understand what your exact questions are. As you have been kind enough to mark the "lies" below, I shall assume that these are your questions.

"Lie 1" Andrew says you made two assumptions
my response: yes, I think you did too. So that's not a lie. And in your history of posting, simply asserting something as true has been enough proof for you, so it is for me too.

"Lie 2" Andrew says you said it came from behind the tower, but you say you only said it looked that way.
my response: Yup. Based on your long history here, I am certainly under the impression that you have been claiming the "object" was behind the towers. But let's say I'm wrong on this one, just to keep the process moving. Let's say Andrew misunderstood that point (note: I don't believe he did, but I'm trying to bend over backwards so that you'll answer my "in advance" question)

"Lie 2.5" I think you are claiming that since he did not use the words "your claim is invalid" but rather said, "you have no claim" you believe that to mean he was saying you had a valid application?

A generous response is to suggest a language problem. A harsher response might suggest a purposeful obtuseness. If you ask me to give you my car, and I say "you can have it when the last cow comes home" do you think I have made a binding bovine-based contract with you, or told you to take a hike?

Carlos, he said you have no claim. That suggests that YOU HAVE NO CLAIM. You may disagree (and I've suggested several media outlets that you should take your issue to to let the public decide), but it's certainly not a lie

OK. I believe that I have, once again, directly responded to your complaints to me. You asked me to address the "lies" you were told, and I have done so.

Now I ask you one last time: Do you agree that the JREF million dollar challenge clearly states that any claim must be based on a test set up IN ADVANCE AND AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES?

This is a simple question. Do you agree, or do you not agree.
I wait with baited breath for your next missive.

Originally posted by bidlack


I have also tried to understand what your exact questions are. As you have been kind enough to mark the "lies" below, I shall assume that these are your questions.

"Lie 1" Andrew says you made two assumptions
my response: yes, I think you did too. So that's not a lie. And in your history of posting, simply asserting something as true has been enough proof for you, so it is for me too.

"Lie 2" Andrew says you said it came from behind the tower, but you say you only said it looked that way.
my response: Yup. Based on your long history here, I am certainly under the impression that you have been claiming the "object" was behind the towers. But let's say I'm wrong on this one, just to keep the process moving. Let's say Andrew misunderstood that point (note: I don't believe he did, but I'm trying to bend over backwards so that you'll answer my "in advance" question).


"Lie 2.5" I think you are claiming that since he did not use the words "your claim is invalid" but rather said, "you have no claim" you believe that to mean he was saying you had a valid application?

A generous response is to suggest a language problem. A harsher response might suggest a purposeful obtuseness. If you ask me to give you my car, and I say "you can have it when the last cow comes home" do you think I have made a binding bovine-based contract with you, or told you to take a hike?


.

Just answer Mr . Hal Bidlack , don't just go around the questions, be frontal.

Where are the 2 assumptions in Harter's answer ? Only because YOU "thinks" the same is already an answer?
ANSWER MR HAL BIDLACK : Where are the 2 assumptioms I made according to Harter's answer to my application. You are a liar too, you did not answer the question. FIRST LIE

About the second lie:
Another confused answer Mr. Bidlack : where in my application I said that the "object " was behind or comes behind the tower.?
That's your second lie. So you: "don't beleive he did"?
Are you a "beleiver"?. Just answer. Be frontal: where in my application I claim that the object comes from behind the tower?
SECOND LIE

About" Lie 2.5"
Another poor answer, Mr. Bidlack.

Andrew Harter said in his answer: "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

He explained the reason why I have no claim : because nothing supernatural is taking place, according to the stupid method he used to analize the image :his words :". I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "

No a single word that my application was not valid.
Again you also interpretate his words.THIRD LIE

Harter answered:
"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
"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."

*Somebody or YOU Bidlack knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?



Blue Monk , you better take your time or you will become another lier.

Don't worry about the money Mr. Bidlack, I don't care about that, all I want you is to recognize that Harter lied (as you did), used a poor method to give an answer to a notarized application and to make this officially as James Randi do with other similar material in his week's commentaries. Just put my application and harter's answer with the aprooval of Randi. That's all.
Why are they afraid to comment about it?

[CurtC]

latinjral, no one is sure what it is. We've looked at the evidence:

* It's blurred by about half the distance it travels each frame, so it's pretty small compared to the length of the blur, and

* There were other birds flying around in the area.

If you can show me something that's wrong with this conculsion, please make your case, but don't just post the picture again and make a poor attempt at insulting one of us, like you've done up to now.

S&S, Harter did not lie. He tried to understand what your point was, but came to a different conculsion. He said you made two assumptions, and explicitly pointed out one of them. I'm not sure what he was referring to about your second assumption, but are you basing your complaint on the fact that he wasn't explicit about identifying what both assumptions were?

But he tells you why this isn't evidence of anything paranormal. That right there says that you may not claim the money. People on this forum have also pointed out that, even if this tape showed a paranormal hat, you still didn't meet the technical requirements of the challenge. So you failed on two counts - one, the evidence does not support a paranormal explanation, and two, your claim doesn't meet the "in advance" rules of the challenge anyway. No one has lied, although it wouldn't be surprising for someone to have misunderstood something that you said somewhere, because it's a little hard to understand your English (my Spanish is much worse and I'm glad that you're making the effort to communicate in English, but it's still a little hard to understand).

Originally posted by bidlack



I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. [

You have no claim, regardless of whether a UFO, a bird, or a giant pick unicorn flew past the WTC. Once again, you were not lied to.




[/B]


Is this the kind of researcher and conferencist the JREF have?

Investigate and answer Hal Bidlack.

Andrew Harter and James Randi , do the same.

Thanhs,

S&S

[alfaniner]

An ignorant S&S fool
who was stubborn and thick as a mule
when he saw a bird fly
said that it was a lie
thought that he could ignore every rule

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by S&S


Is this the kind of researcher and conferencist the JREF have?
Investigate and answer Hal Bidlack.
Andrew Harter and James Randi , do the same.

Thanhs,

S&S

Carlos, perhaps we are up against a language problem. I have absolutely no idea what your last two posts mean. I only gather that in spite of my attempt to directly answer your questions so that you will directly answer my "in advance" question, you still refuse.

I am now also a liar, although I have no idea what you feel I lied about.

I'll ask this one last time, in hopes that you will answer.

Do you agree that the challenge is clear in the requirment to agree IN ADVANCE to the paranormal event?

Assuming you will not answered this, and will again called me a liar and a 'conferencist,' I shall again urge you to abandon this JREF quest, and immediately report us to the media.

If you are right, you have the greatest news story since creation, and will be vindicated, and your good name restored, the JREF will become the object of ridicule and scorn, and you will be the toast of the globe.

I urge you to take the tape to radio, TV, newspapers, and let them proclaim your insight. That'll teach us. :rolleyes:

best of luck

Originally posted by bidlack


Carlos, perhaps we are up against a language problem. I have absolutely no idea what your last two posts mean. I only gather that in spite of my attempt to directly answer your questions so that you will directly answer my "in advance" question, you still refuse.

I am now also a liar, although I have no idea what you feel I lied about.

I'll ask this one last time, in hopes that you will answer.

Do you agree that the challenge is clear in the requirment to agree IN ADVANCE to the paranormal event?

Assuming you will not answered this, and will again called me a liar and a 'conferencist,' I shall again urge you to abandon this JREF quest, and immediately report us to the media.

If you are right, you have the greatest news story since creation, and will be vindicated, and your good name restored, the JREF will become the object of ridicule and scorn, and you will be the toast of the globe.

I urge you to take the tape to radio, TV, newspapers, and let them proclaim your insight. That'll teach us. :rolleyes:

best of luck

Mr.Hal Bidlack:

Just answer , don't be afraid.

I send My application to JREF and I received from them only lies based on apoor method . That's a fact.

Just answer, be frontal in your answers, you just go around and around.

My application was in spanish (before Randi changed the rules) so there is not excuse of language, just answer about the lies, Bidlack. This is not a war.

Thanks,

S&S

[hal bidlack]

ok, then.

I answered your questions.

You pretend that I didn't.

You refuse to answer my single, simple question.

I have no choice but to conclude that you are a fraud.

Until you answer my "in advance" question, I am done with you. Say what you wish, your credibility is zero.

good bye, Carlos

Originally posted by bidlack
ok, then.

I answered your questions.

You pretend that I didn't.




Mr Hal Bidlack:

No , You did not answer anything.

You just said :"I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. "

So answer the questions,are clear enough.

Don't be afraid.

I don't care what you "think".
Act like a member of JREF.

Thanks,

S&S

[Pablo]

Let's drop the language barrier here for a moment (apologies to those who cannot read Spanish. Iwill be translating posts upon demand, but I feel this man needs to be adressed in his own mother tongue):

?QUé co?o es lo que quiere demostrar, caballero? Se le ha explicado por activa y por pasiva que a) lo que usted presenta no es en modo alguno aceptable, por una serie de motivos que se han repetido hasta la saciedad y que no es preciso reproducir aqui de nuevo (si ha estado atento a los ultimos 800+ mensajes los habrá leido hasta aburrirse) y b) al mantener esa actitud cerril, lo único que consigue es que la mayoría de miembros de este fórum crean que es usted un iluminado o un idiota. No creo que esperase usted encontrar mucha simpatía en un fórum de escépticos dedicados a desenmascarar enga?os psíquicos y a buscar soluciones a sucesos aparentemente sobrenaturales. Así pues, háganos a todos un favor: diga claramente QUÉ CO?O PRETENDE MANTENIENDO VIVO este intercambio de mensajes: qué pretende sacar en limpio? Ha presentado sus pruebas en infinidad de ocasiones; no convencen a nadie (excepto a un par de zumbados, alguna marioneta que maneja usted mismo y quizá a alguno de esos fanáticos que anteponen la letra de una afirmación a su espíritu). Usted considera que se le ha tratado injustamente y que Randi está faltando a su palabra: dígalo así, claramente, UNA SOLA VEZ, y deje de dar la paliza, hombre de Dios. Presente una demanda judicial si cree haber sido víctima de un enga?o, pero por favor no nos inflinja más fotos y repeticiones de sus argumentos.

Ah, y otra cosa: métase el argumento de "ustedes los del Primer Mundo" por donde le quepa. Estoy hasta los huevos de oír esa estupidez en este contexto: lo único que consigue con ello es banalizar un problema muy grave que efectivamente existe, pero que no tiene nada que ver con usted. Toda la incomprensión que encuentre usted aquí es de su propia cosecha de usted, y no tiene NADA que ver con su país de procedencia. Si quiere usted discutir, adelante, pero déjese de falacias, joder.

Atentamente

Pablo Álvarez

[Tesserat]

I just read this whole thing. All eighteen pages. I am an idiot who desperatley needs to get a life. The part that made the most sense was the last post, and I don't read spanish.

My Ed, this guy is prepared to go on forever, because his honour has been besmirched. Not because he believes in what he's doing, but for his honour. He's prepared to do any evasion, any misquoting, any ignoring of questions, any responsibilty to actually read the rules of a game he wants to play. I'd hate to try to play soccer with this guy. He'd throw a golf ball at the side lines, declare he'd scored a touchdown, and then say that the other team had questioned his honour, and he really did touch all the bases.

I want the two hours back.

[Purple Tentacle]

carlos is a LIER, he REFUSES to answer me !!!

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi ) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

Originally posted by CurtC
latinjral, no one is sure what it is. We've looked at the evidence:

* It's blurred by about half the distance it travels each frame, so it's pretty small compared to the length of the blur, and

* There were other birds flying around in the area.

If you can show me something that's wrong with this conculsion, please make your case, but don't just post the picture again and make a poor attempt at insulting one of us, like you've done up to now.


Curt C:

Did you see the professional image transmitted live with professional equipments or you are talking about the internet videos like Harter????

Are you sure that it is a bird???


Pablito:
Pablito clavò un clavito y se lastimò el dedito por no analizar el videito.

If Harter is not a liar researcher, obvoiusly is a non prepare researcher.



HARTER: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT YOUR BIRD??????

[Dragon]

Carlos/latinijral: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OBJECT IS????

[rwald]

Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? And besides, even if Andrew didn't mention your second assumption, that doesn't mean you didn't make two assumptions; it just means that Andrew didn't talk about both of them.

And one more thing: What does Andrew's reply have to do with your application being invalid? It was invalid before Andrew ever saw it. It was invalid the moment it left your hands. Andrew's reply has no relationship to your application being invalid.

Here's an example: If I sent in a notarized application saying, "My talent is that I am God. Here's a video proving it:" would the application be "valid until proven otherwise"? No. Since I broke at least two of the rules, my application would be invalid WITHOUT anyone having to specifically say so. Just as it was with your application.

And what part of "You have no claim." = "Your claim is invalid." don't you understand?

Originally posted by Pablo
Let's drop the language barrier here for a moment (apologies to those who cannot read Spanish. Iwill be translating posts upon demand, but I feel this man needs to be adressed in his own mother tongue):

?QUé co?o es lo que quiere demostrar, caballero? Se le ha explicado por activa y por pasiva que a) lo que usted presenta no es en modo alguno aceptable, por una serie de motivos que se han repetido hasta la saciedad y que no es preciso reproducir aqui de nuevo (si ha estado atento a los ultimos 800+ mensajes los habrá leido hasta aburrirse) y b) al mantener esa actitud cerril, lo único que consigue es que la mayoría de miembros de este fórum crean que es usted un iluminado o un idiota. No creo que esperase usted encontrar mucha simpatía en un fórum de escépticos dedicados a desenmascarar enga?os psíquicos y a buscar soluciones a sucesos aparentemente sobrenaturales. Así pues, háganos a todos un favor: diga claramente QUÉ CO?O PRETENDE MANTENIENDO VIVO este intercambio de mensajes: qué pretende sacar en limpio? Ha presentado sus pruebas en infinidad de ocasiones; no convencen a nadie (excepto a un par de zumbados, alguna marioneta que maneja usted mismo y quizá a alguno de esos fanáticos que anteponen la letra de una afirmación a su espíritu). Usted considera que se le ha tratado injustamente y que Randi está faltando a su palabra: dígalo así, claramente, UNA SOLA VEZ, y deje de dar la paliza, hombre de Dios. Presente una demanda judicial si cree haber sido víctima de un enga?o, pero por favor no nos inflinja más fotos y repeticiones de sus argumentos.

Ah, y otra cosa: métase el argumento de "ustedes los del Primer Mundo" por donde le quepa. Estoy hasta los huevos de oír esa estupidez en este contexto: lo único que consigue con ello es banalizar un problema muy grave que efectivamente existe, pero que no tiene nada que ver con usted. Toda la incomprensión que encuentre usted aquí es de su propia cosecha de usted, y no tiene NADA que ver con su país de procedencia. Si quiere usted discutir, adelante, pero déjese de falacias, joder.

Atentamente

Pablo Álvarez

Hi Pablo;

You have an hispanic name , but seems that you forgot spanish or you are using a "virtual translator".

Your opinion you can also introduce it where you know it fixes on you.

You are not the one who been lied by meembers of JREF.

I only put facts here in the forum, is not my fault that you can notdebate in a propper way with me, with arguments and no insults.

Check your spanish.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S:
You are also wrong in your signature, was SOCRATES and not ARISTOTELES who said that. Read a little more.

Originally posted by Dragon
Carlos/latinijral: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OBJECT IS????

Dragon:

Wow, big letters, no fire indeed.

Are you a kind of slow person, there had been a lot of replies and views and you still don't know what I wrote in my application to the JREF?

Just read it, is on page 2 the translated version and in more pages (I don't remember now) in which I wanted Blue Monk and Bidlack to answer me about Harter's lies.

Try again.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
carlos is a LIER, he REFUSES to answer me !!!

S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi ) video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal hat, please respond !!!

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi :

nick Purple Tentacle:

You are calling me a lier.I never did.
Andrew Harter and Bidlack did it. Check Rwald's answer.

If you are "thinking" that because of your question , I am sure you must use another word.

But , remember I already answered you and I put to you a question , but you never answered.

So again, see this point:

I always said here that Andrew Harter used a poor and stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown video on internet). Right? Many times I said that and also otheres members said the same , just read my signature.

So is not my fault that you did not understand that point.
You are asking me the same, to study a video from the internet, an unknown video, a digitized image.

Don't be ridiculous, send that link to the JREF , they used that stupid method to analize tapes.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? And besides, even if Andrew didn't mention your second assumption, that doesn't mean you didn't make two assumptions; it just means that Andrew didn't talk about both of them.

And one more thing: What does Andrew's reply have to do with your application being invalid? It was invalid before Andrew ever saw it. It was invalid the moment it left your hands. Andrew's reply has no relationship to your application being invalid.

Here's an example: If I sent in a notarized application saying, "My talent is that I am God. Here's a video proving it:" would the application be "valid until proven otherwise"? No. Since I broke at least two of the rules, my application would be invalid WITHOUT anyone having to specifically say so. Just as it was with your application.

And what part of "You have no claim." = "Your claim is invalid." don't you understand?

RWALD:

Thanks for your reply, is what I need it.
I always said Andrew Harter lied.
The reasons why he did it can be debated anyway.
Now we can start.

You are not the only one that said that, they are some few members that said the same about Harter's answer and about his preety doogy method.

Andrew Harter said in his answer: "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

He explained the reason why I have no claim : because nothing supernatural is taking place, according to the stupid method he used to analize the image :his words :". I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "

No a single word that my application was not valid.
Again you also interpretated his words.THIRD LIE.

Yes, probably they lies where product of "accidental mistakes", but are lies anyway, and that's why I am still here replying.

Thanks again Rwald.


Thanks,

S&S

[rwald]

If Andrew said something incorrectly by accident, that wasn't a lie. A lie must be intentional; it's part of the definition of the word lie.

It doesn't matter whether or not Andrew said that your application was invalid. It was invalid to begin with; it didn't need to be called invalid by Andrew to be invalid. It is not Andrew's job to take every single invalid claim and tell the person why their claim was invalid; you must prove to him that your claim was valid. And you failed to do that.

[thatguywhojuggles]

I said I would never write another comment in this thread again. And yes, S&S you may call me a liar, I don't give a rat's ass!



I just have one thing to say. I am completely, and utterly AMAZED that this thread is still alive.


One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????

PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. He will go away if you just ignore him.

[Blue Monk]

<center><img src=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/carlos_13.gif></center>
I see no evidence that Harter lied or was even mistaken when he spoke.

This is how Carlos describes his conclusion

Originally posted by Carlos Swett
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.
[/b]

Carlos calls the tower in the background the first tower. It is BEHIND the second tower.

Originally posted by Andrew Harter
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


I hope everyone will note that he quite clearly says in front of the TOWERS, plural. By towers he means BOTH towers.

An object passing in front of both towers obviously can't be passing behind the second and through the first.

Carlos has agreed to answer one of my questions if I answer his. I've been preparing my answers but thought I'd toss out this little preview first.

I know Carlos will not agree with this but does anyone else see a flaw in my logic?

[Tesserat]

originally posed by thatguywhojuggles

One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????



you might add to your list, people who think that posting "don't feed the trolls" actually does anything. Yours must be the 8th or 9th DFTTs.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Tesserat


you might add to your list, people who think that posting "don't feed the trolls" actually does anything. Yours must be the 8th or 9th DFTTs.

Your point is well taken. However I am willing to bet there is a little more hope in convincing people that they should stop feeding this troll, than there is in hoping to convince Carlos that he has no claim.

[Tesserat]

originally posted by thatguywhojuggles

Your point is well taken. However I am willing to bet there is a little more hope in convincing people that they should stop feeding this troll, than there is in hoping to convince Carlos that he has no claim.



Has is ever happened at this board that absolutely everybody stopped feeding a troll? And the troll left because of it? I do agree that the chance of carlos letting go of his ego is 0% (+ epsilon)

I am enjoying your circus school diaries, by the way.

[Purple Tentacle]

thats it. i cant get a straight answer out of this guy, i agree, he is a troll. this will be not only my last post but the last time i even look at this thred.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

that video proves that carlos has no brain.

DFTT ! DFTT PEOPLE !! for ****'sake DFTT

bye bye carlos we will never speak again.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Tesserat


Has is ever happened at this board that absolutely everybody stopped feeding a troll? And the troll left because of it? I do agree that the chance of carlos letting go of his ego is 0% (+ epsilon)

I am enjoying your circus school diaries, by the way.

I'm guessing it never has happened. There will always be someone wanting to feed the troll. :rolleyes:

Thanks for reading my diary. Its cool knowing people are checking it out. Much of it is tedious descriptions of what we learn in each class. I am getting credit at Humboldt State University, as part of my graduate program, so I am using this medium as a way to keep my advisors/teachers at HSU informed about my progress.

Cheers,

Originally posted by Blue Monk
<center><img src=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/carlos_13.gif></center>
I see no evidence that Harter lied or was even mistaken when he spoke.

This is how Carlos describes his conclusion



Carlos calls the tower in the background the first tower. It is BEHIND the second tower.



I hope everyone will note that he quite clearly says in front of the TOWERS, plural. By towers he means BOTH towers.

An object passing in front of both towers obviously can't be passing behind the second and through the first.

Carlos has agreed to answer one of my questions if I answer his. I've been preparing my answers but thought I'd toss out this little preview first.

I know Carlos will not agree with this but does anyone else see a flaw in my logic? :

Blue Monk:

Just take your time and read again "your preview".

I never said the "assumption " as Harter said that the object comes from behind the tower:

Originally posted by rwald
"Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? "

So again Blue Monk, take your time with the other answers, this is just a preview.

Is the language an excuse for an Educational Foundation?

You don't have to answer this question, just take your time for the others..

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
thats it. i cant get a straight answer out of this guy, i agree, he is a troll. this will be not only my last post but the last time i even look at this thred.

http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

that video proves that carlos has no brain.

DFTT ! DFTT PEOPLE !! for ****'sake DFTT

bye bye carlos we will never speak again.

HI Nick Purple Tentacle:

Are you angry? Go join and meet "thatguywhocries".
Again I will answer your "smart reply":

So again, see this point:

I always said here that Andrew Harter used a poor and stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown video on internet). Right? Many times I said that and also otheres members said the same , just read my signature.

So is not my fault that you did not understand that point.
You are asking me the same, to study a video from the internet, an unknown video, a digitized image.

Don't be ridiculous, send that link to the JREF , they used that stupid method to analize tapes.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I said I would never write another comment in this thread again. And yes, S&S you may call me a liar, I don't give a rat's ass!

I just have one thing to say. I am completely, and utterly AMAZED that this thread is still alive.



Thatguywhocries :

Yes , you said that many , many times, but you are here again.

You are a lier too.
Maybe you are having nightmares with me , but let me tell you something: I don't care from people like you that doesn't have arguments to debate.

So go on, you are free to tell members you will never write here, but they don't beleive you anymore.

Go ask for help at the JREf, maybe they will understand your trauma.
Don't forget to put this reply in your "diary"

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

Want to know why this thread is still alive? Ask Sylvia Browne or Uri Geller.

[rwald]

Hmm, good point, Blue Monk. Seen from that point of view, Andrew was never actually wrong (or at least, he correctly stated Carlos's first assumption). I don't know whether or not your idea is correct, but as I've said before, it doesn't really matter; either way, Andrew did not try to lie, and therefore he is not a liar.

[Thanz]

I haven't read all 18 pages and have no intention of doing so. I am only writing as S&S is quoting me in his signature and I wanted to make a few things clear.

First of all, S&S, I don't think that you have a valid claim to the prize. I don't think you would have a valid claim even if the tape showed little green men having a fiesta. In order to win the prize you have to do something, like talk to the dead, or show some event that can be properly observed, like proving that a house is haunted.

You have a tape, shot by someone else, that you claim has something unexplained on it. You need something more. Despite all of the attention and cameras on the event, no one else seemed to find anything paranormal. That leads me to think that there was not a flying saucer or whatever, but rather some strange camera error with that particular tape.

I understand that you are frustrated that the matter was not treated in the manner you wished, and that the JREF has not launched the investigation you think you deserve. However, the obligation is on you to prove the paranormal, which you haven't done. Has the JREF proved what is on the tape? No. But they don't need to. You are just assuming that there is a paranormal effect - you don't even know what it is. While it is quite interesting, it doesn't qualify for the challenge.

If you can say 123 Elm Street is haunted, and bring the JREF to show them, then you get the million. But you can't just say - "Hey! Look at this tape! something wierd is going on and I don't know what, why don't you investigate and if you can't tell me what it is, give me a million dollars!" It doesn't work that way.

I agree that this probably should have been spelled out to you explicitly by Mr. Harter or whomever. But please, accept the facts and move on.

Thanz

Originally posted by rwald
Hmm, good point, Blue Monk. Seen from that point of view, Andrew was never actually wrong (or at least, he correctly stated Carlos's first assumption). I don't know whether or not your idea is correct, but as I've said before, it doesn't really matter; either way, Andrew did not try to lie, and therefore he is not a liar. :

Hi Rwald:

No Rwald , I never said that "the object"comes from behind the tower, and you know that.

Here is again "that part" of my notarized application:

. 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”.

Andrew Harter is the one who made his "assumption" based on the method he used to analize the tape:

. "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. "

That Harter's assumption is based in a preety dodgy investigation.

Originally posted by Thanz 08-27-02
"Andrew's 'investigation' seems pretty dodgy as well. We all know that a video on the internet is not likely to be of broadcast quality"

So Rwald, I also "thought" the same as you said:

"Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? "

But remember Rwald that I send a next e.mail to Andrew telling his wrong answers and appreciations but the only answer I received was Randi's:" Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious."
Your application is closed.

So Mr. James Randi was aprooving the lies and the method Harter used. According to his "assumption" my application WAS CLOSED because what I presented was nothing mysterious.

Remember also they are in Florida where spanish is the second language and besides they belong to an "educational Foundation".

They are just liers and dishonest, because are still on silence.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rwald
Hmm, good point.
Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes?
Andrew did not try to lie, and therefore he is not a liar.



Is Andrew Harter a natural or an accidental liar??????

Originally posted by latinijral
If Harter is not a liar researcher, obvoiusly is a non prepare researcher.



HARTER: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT YOUR BIRD??????


SURE??

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Hello Carlos, and welcome to the boards.

To begin with, would you please post a link to the exact video or animation you are talking about in your application to the million dollars? Andrew Harter said it's on the internet, but what is it?



All this time and you never asked Harter about it????

[Blue Monk]

<table>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/carlos_single.gif<td>
<td valign="bottom">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/good_single.jpg<td>
<td valign="bottom">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/CNN_single.jpg<td>

</tr>
</table>



Here's a link to a side by side animated GIF comparison. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html)



It make take a moment for the page to load.



There are also links to the actual clips for those who would like to view them.



I do not know exactly what clip Harter viewed but I offer this information only to demonstrate just how easy it is to discount Carlos' claim using only information found on the internet.



I do not believe Carlos was lied to.



Just another small preview of the answers I am preparing for Carlos concerning all of his questions we are 'afraid' to answer.



I will also post all of the individual frames for anyone to inspect.

Originally posted by Blue Monk
<table>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/carlos_single.gif<td>
<td valign="bottom">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/good_single.jpg<td>
<td valign="bottom">http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/CNN_single.jpg<td>

</tr>
</table>



Here's a link to a side by side animated GIF comparison. (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html)



It make take a moment for the page to load.



There are also links to the actual clips for those who would like to view them.



I do not know exactly what clip Harter viewed but I offer this information only to demonstrate just how easy it is to discount Carlos' claim using only information found on the internet.



I do not believe Carlos was lied to.



Just another small preview of the answers I am preparing for Carlos concerning all of his questions we are 'afraid' to answer.



I will also post all of the individual frames for anyone to inspect. :

Hi blue Monk:

I really appreciate your replies, unleast in this thread you did not need to insulte me , and is significant your possision to debate with arguments.

You had posted this pictures from a video of a link on internet.
Maybe Mr. Hal Bidlack doesn't agree these pictures and he has also his respectable position about that.

I also want to know which was the link where Andrew Harter studied it "frame by frame", is a misterious until now. Nobody knows. I also asked him, but no a word.

Is "the bird" in front of the building? or it "seems" to come from behind the tower?

This questions you don't need to answer me. You have enough about "Harter's lies or mistakes" ; no matter what you "beleive " or not

What I am sure is that Internet is not the correct method to analize the image, no matter if the members say to his own: "well, that "bird" is a little wierd".

Keep on going Blue Monk and thank you.

Thanks,

S&S

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S
I really appreciate your replies, unleast in this thread you did not need to insulte me , and is significant your possision to debate with arguments.

Well I’m afraid I can’t say the same for you. On a number of instances you have quite blatantly implied that I was not replying honestly, implying that I was ‘afraid’ of your evidence, that I was more worried about the money etc.

Originally posted by S&S
You had posted this pictures from a video of a link on internet.
Maybe Mr. Hal Bidlack doesn't agree these pictures and he has also his respectable position about that.

Did you even follow the link? I am sure Bidlack will agree with these shots. The film comparisons I’ve offered show overwhelming evidence that your object is simply a bird.

If your event were actually passing through the first tower then that should be plainly visible on ALL videos of the event. It is only on your perspective because it is simply a bird that flew into the camera range at that moment.

Originally posted by S&S
I also want to know which was the link where Andrew Harter studied it "frame by frame", is a mysterious until now. Nobody knows. I also asked him, but no a word.

I don’t know what link he used.

And for the next ten times you ask that same question that no one except Harter can answer.

I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.


Originally posted by S&S
Is "the bird" in front of the building? or it "seems" to come from behind the tower?

It is in front of BOTH buildings. It is a bird.

Originally posted by S&S
This questions you don't need to answer me. You have enough about "Harter's lies or mistakes" ; no matter what you "beleive " or not

No one lied to you. Your claim is simply not correct. Easy to disprove.

Originally posted by S&S
What I am sure is that Internet is not the correct method to analize the image, no matter if the members say to his own: "well, that "bird" is a little wierd".

Harter’s job was not to analyze your tape.

Harter’s job was to analyze your application.

Your application was to a contest not for free and complete analysis of your tape.

Had Harter found information the supported your claim then that would have warranted a closer look at your tape.

But he immediately found evidence that you had no claim.

Case closed.

It’s a bird.

That is why a large object swooping from the sky and passing through one of the largest structures on earth at a time when the world’s media was focused at that exact spot does not show up on any other video. It’s not there.

You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural happening here.

[Wyrd1]

Thanks Blue Monk! You have destroyed Carlos' arguement for all time. Whether he admits it is irrelevant. The thing was a bird all along. Hat shaped objects don't flap their wings as this bird did in the last couple of frames.

Carlos, go ahead and call us all liars it doesn't matter now. Insult every person who posts in this thread. It doesn't matter now. Go ahead and insist that we need to see a higher resolution frame by frame video to really judge your claim. It doesn't matter now. Do we need to see high res pictures of out of focus birds? Maybe you do. I don't. You and your dog latinijral can slink away in shame or post here further bitching about your honor. It doesn't matter now. The truth is there for all to see. You'll just look even more ridiculous sticking to your supernatural claim.

The second assumption Harter was talking about was that you had the ability to tell just what the heck you were looking at. That assumption was clearly wrong. Go smoke some more of whatever dope it is that made you see that imaginary "hat shaped" object.

Originally posted by Wyrd1
Thanks Blue Monk


I am not going to tell you my hero like randi`s fans.

Finally you find the OK referencial video. It is the second one.

Remember that i saw a professional image on a tv station, and i saw the object fliying inthru the smoke, get in the building and get out with a high speed.

This are Blue Monk words about the second video:
This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it.

The whole clip can be viewed from a page dedicated to the World Trade Center attacks at Vivace Technologies where I found this clip or it can be viewed directly off of my server here

This clip obviously is from the tape Carlos has or from a video shot from almost the identical location and angle.

Please note the object can be seen entering from the left.
**************************************************

Now the next step for everybody here is:



OPEN YOUR EYES...THE PARANORMAL OBJECT IS THERE

Well work Blue Monk.

[Wyrd1]

Nope it's a bird.

[Fade]

WHY THE HOLY **** IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING ON ><

Originally posted by Blue Monk



Did you even follow the link? I am sure Bidlack will agree with these shots. The film comparisons I’ve offered show overwhelming evidence that your object is simply a bird.

If your event were actually passing through the first tower then that should be plainly visible on ALL videos of the event. It is only on your perspective because it is simply a bird that flew into the camera range at that moment.

I don’t know what link he used.

And for the next ten times you ask that same question that no one except Harter can answer.

I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.

It is in front of BOTH buildings. It is a bird.

No one lied to you. Your claim is simply not correct. Easy to disprove.

Harter’s job was not to analyze your tape.

Harter’s job was to analyze your application.

Your application was to a contest not for free and complete analysis of your tape.

Had Harter found information the supported your claim then that would have warranted a closer look at your tape.

But he immediately found evidence that you had no claim.

Case closed.

It’s a bird.

That is why a large object swooping from the sky and passing through one of the largest structures on earth at a time when the world’s media was focused at that exact spot does not show up on any other video. It’s not there.

You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural happening here.

Hi Blue Monk:

I understand your bad humor, don't worry.

You simple can not answer the questions about Harter's lies or mistakes in his answer to my application.

Did you discovered something new? No, The internet is full of that shots. Of course I saw "your link" ;and waht I found? the same argument I put in my application : READ IT:
"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."
PUT A PICTURE OF YOUR "BIRD " against the wall.You can also use photoshop and enlarge your bird, ask Latin.

But in your effort to defend Harter position you said:"Please note the object can be seen entering from the left. "
I already said that 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."


Don't worry I also don't know the link Harter "studied" to make his "assumption" and answer my application.

You said:"Harter’s job was not to analyze your tape.
Harter’s job was to analyze your application."

But remember Harter did analize the tape. He used the same method you used , a link on the internet.

Harter did answer my application based in that poor method:"there is nothing supernatural taking place, a "bird" "could" certainly be the culprit." Of course he was most worried like you in the money and not to do a correct ananlisis.

Why you did not post a picture of "the bird in front of the towers"?
Just because you can't.Or maybe you can trick it(remember is digitized)
But why you did not posted that picture?, so everyone in this forum can see "the bird" clearly "in front of the towers"

Your case is closed Blue Monk. Don't worry you don't need to answer the questions about Harter's lies and mistakes, now focus on "your own link".Say hello to Bidlack.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. What is paranormal? You don't need to answer this one. Maybe James Randi

[Patricio Elicer]

Excellent job Blue Monk!

The "mystery" has been unveiled once and for all. IT IS A BIRD!..., the flapping wings are clearly discernible, I have no doubt it's a bird.

Carlos, IT IS A BIRD!..., you got both things wrong: first, your claim doen't qualify for the million, and second, there's nothing paranormal whatsoever in that shot.

Case closed.

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Excellent job Blue Monk!

The "mystery" has been unveiled once and for all. IT IS A BIRD!..., the flapping wings are clearly discernible, I have no doubt it's a bird.

Carlos, IT IS A BIRD!..., you got both things wrong: first, your claim doen't qualify for the million, and second, there's nothing paranormal whatsoever in that shot.

Case closed. :

Patricio; hola :

Nice to have you again and happy for a while, but tell me why "your bird " on that link on internet:i"s not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it." after your" bird "entered in the hole as I said in my application? You can put a picture too of that moment.

Maybe because a "black object" turns invisible against a clear wall?

Why don't you enlarge your "bird"?

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Excellent job Blue Monk!

The "mystery" has been unveiled once and for all. IT IS A BIRD!..., the flapping wings are clearly discernible, I have no doubt it's a bird.


Case closed.

Pato, ò eres tarado ò eres otro perro màs.
Que crees??? que con tan sòlo decir que es un pàjaro, el objeto paranormal se convierte en pàjaro.

El excelente trabajo de Blue Monk nos trajo como novedad un nuevo video que fue transmitido en vivo por la ABC, y ahì puedes comprobar que el objeto paranormal viene desde la parte superior izquierda a travès del humo, se mete en la primera torre y sale. Se puede comprobar que no tapa la pared blanca.
Te da miedo comentar.

[compjan]

Carlos, its time for you to face what in the U.S. is called a "Reality Check".

Regardless of what you believe is in the video:

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not convince anyone here.

2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".

Sorry, but that's reality as I see it. And I'm certain that all but a handful of this thread's readers will agree with me. These are harsh blows to your worldview and your aspirations, but you need to face them in order to improve. Kepler did it with his belief in divine circular planetary orbits, you can too.

If you wish to continue posting on this thread, be my guest. Just understand that you are going nowhere.

Take care, and best wishes in your next adventure.

CompJan

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by S&amp;S
tell me why "your bird " on that link on internet:i"s not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it There's a simple explanation for that. If you look carefully to the animation, you'll see that the bird is not continuously seen along its trajectory. I guess it has something to do with the frame rate or the shutter speed of the camera, but the fact is that there are gaps in the movie where the bird is not visible. It turned out that one of those gaps coincided precisely with the moment the bird passed in front of the building.


[edited to fix minor details]

[PinkRabbit]

Okay, so I've now seen a broadcast quality tape of this footage on an editing rig (one of my buddies works for a local tv news division and he finds this stuff interesting so he found the clip and showed it to me on his off hours for fun -- he is, btw, neither much of a believer, nor a skeptic, just very middle of the road). We watched it several times, slow mo'd it, watched some more, discussed, etc. Took probably an hour with it.

And I'm sorry Carlos, but I've gotta tell you that we both concluded that the object is well in front of both buildings (probably no more than a hundred yards from the camers). The blurriness is most likely due to both its speed, and the fact that it's out of the focal range of the camera, which is set for a long shot, making any foregrounded objects out of focus. However, if you watch carefully, you can see the shadow all the way across the screen. It's hard and took several viewings to really see the path, but it's definitely there, and does not disappear. That it goes through the building is simply an optical illusion in my opinion.

One thing I think may have fooled you is that from your description you studied it either in extreme slow motion or even frame by frame and it does appear to disappear when viewed that way, since there's so much turmoil in the background, and the motion blur leaves the object quite light colored, and not much differentiated. It's very easy to lose track of the object in the stills. It's still there if you look very carefully, but it's actually easier to track it at something approaching normal speed, since your eye is following it from point to point.

Is it a bird? That would be my guess, but things were so nuts, it could also be something flying from a high rise window or somesuch. We couldn't really tell as it's too blurred. It does however, appear to slow slightly in the lower portion of the arc, which would be consistent with a bird coming in for a landing, and would also explain why it suddenly becomes more more visible. By slowing, it's less motion blurred.

It's nearly impossible to be certain though, since there's no way of acurately gauging depth with video and it'ss pretty low resolution at best. My friend also felt there was some possibility it wasn't anything physical and was simply an in-camera artifact of some kind, since video cameras do glitch now and then. He didn't feel it was a high probability, since those more often show up as flares (bright spots) than shadows, but shadows are not unheard of by any means.

The Mpeg linked from the page above is a good representative in my opinion. Obviously, not nearly as sharp and clear as a tape, but a pretty good version. To my eyes it just looked like a lower resolution version of the exact same image (since you've suggested it might be doctored in some way). In truth, on the tape we looked at the object was more clearly in the foreground, but it's still apparent if you look carefully at the mpeg. The gifs aren't an especially good representative, simply because they lose the subtleties and the object does nearly disappear except for the latter portion of its path. From that I would have guessed it was debris from the plane.

And just because you like to point out that you're a professional artist, yadda, yadda ... I'll add that I've got an undergrad in tv/film and worked in the industry for several years, though these days I'm a graphic artist and my friend has been a field videographer, producer, and video editor, so we did actually know what we were doing and looking at.

Barb

[SFB]

Originally posted by compjan
Carlos, its time for you to face what in the U.S. is called a "Reality Check".

Regardless of what you believe is in the video:

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not convince anyone here.

2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".

Sorry, but that's reality as I see it. And I'm certain that all but a handful of this thread's readers will agree with me. These are harsh blows to your worldview and your aspirations, but you need to face them in order to improve. Kepler did it with his belief in divine circular planetary orbits, you can too.

If you wish to continue posting on this thread, be my guest. Just understand that you are going nowhere.

Take care, and best wishes in your next adventure.

CompJan


Yes, exactly my sentiment. Carlos, give it up. And a resounding hurrah!!! to Fade's last post. (Just chiming in to what I too consider wasted space on the JREF Forum.) Carlos, please stop, there's no point in continuing, you are through, finished, (and yes, I have been through all you have to offer, so spare me the arguments). I hope this thread dies a quick death, but I know it won't. Geez, just look at Edge's idiotic accomplishments; utter waste of space. I'm not arguing against arguing with these bone heads, but there is a point where it should just quit, be ignored. Carlos is clearly an idiot, as is Edge and others. No I'm not arguing for restricting these posts, I suppose I'll rant the common rant, "Don't feed the Trolls." There really does come a point where further consideration is no longer worth consideration.


edited because I wanted to.....

Originally posted by latinijral



I am not going to tell you my hero like randi`s fans.

Finally you find the OK referencial video. It is the second one.

Remember that i saw a professional image on a tv station, and i saw the object fliying inthru the smoke, get in the building and get out with a high speed.

This are Blue Monk words about the second video:
This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it.

The whole clip can be viewed from a page dedicated to the World Trade Center attacks at Vivace Technologies where I found this clip or it can be viewed directly off of my server here

This clip obviously is from the tape Carlos has or from a video shot from almost the identical location and angle.

Please note the object can be seen entering from the left.
************************************************** ***************************

Now the next step for everybody here is:



OPEN YOUR EYES...THE PARANORMAL OBJECT IS THERE

Well work Blue Monk.


Is this your bird Patricio Elicer????

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
There's a simple explanation for that. If you look carefully to the animation, you'll see that the bird is not continuously seen along its trajectory. I guess it has something to do with the frame rate or the shutter speed of the camera, but the fact is that there are gaps in the movie where the bird is not visible. It turned out that one of those gaps coincided precisely with the moment the bird passed in front of the building.


[edited to fix minor details]

Patricio:
I am really glad for your come back to the thread. You are the author of this thread , not me.

I am just defending the name you put it on it : Carlos Swett.

So many replies and so many views, and we are NOW at a point just to start again the thread, the way you should did it originally, not only prejudging about the e-mails bettween Randi and me , but also posting my application and the links to see the "bird, the plane or superman". With all of those evidences , members have now the chance to "beleive" whatever they want, It is not a poll of what it is ? a bird or a paranormal thing? no , that kind of stupids polls don't prove nothing.We or I am debating facts:

I said in my application I send a tape , a referential tape with the same shot from different networks, one of that was the ABC shot (Blue Monk's link) . Nothing new.

I said in the application I studied the tape with proffesional equipments , at tv studios, with their own 3/4 tapes. In the tape I send to the JREF is also the interview of that session transmitted in my country in the locals news .

When you use that kind of method and that kind of tape and that kind of equipments you will see you never have the problems you posted here:,Patricio's :" you'll see that the bird is not continuously seen along its trajectory. I guess it has something to do with the frame rate or the shutter speed of the camera, but the fact is that there are gaps in the movie where the bird is not visible."

Yes Patricio you are right, you are using the internet video, but with the other method, the one I did, "your bird" can be seen in an extremely slow "frame by frame" in a continous "line"with no jumps or gaps, only interrupted after "the bird" enters in the hole and then appear from the other side of the hole, also in the air with the clear sky in the back if you use my method (not Harter's) "your bird" is really amazing in its form, again travelling with no "jumps"or "gaps".

Is not my fault that Harter with the aprooval of Randi used that internet "method" to made the analisis.

It is not my fault that Harter lied or had some mistakes or errors in his answer to my application.

It is not my fault that they are still on silence about my notarized application and the answer they gave me.

Think about it Patricio, I don't want anybody to "beleive " me, I am sure of what I am writing.
I am just posting only facts.
I will respect Randi's "beleivers"

Thanks.
Carlos Swett (S&S)

[alfaniner]

Hey, S&S & latinjral

Here's a "bird" I know you can see!

[compjan]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Hey, S&S & latinjral

Here's a "bird" I know you can see!

Now there's a "Reality Check!" Well Done!

CompJan

Originally posted by compjan


Now there's a "Reality Check!" Well Done!

CompJan

Hi Compjan:

Maybe if you put some arguments I will "beleive" you.

Just put it , you can, now you have a basis., just read my quotes.

Thanks,
S&S

[DeliveringVito]

Great Job BlueMonk and PinkRabbit!

I'm glad somebody had the time and patience to do that sort of in-depth research. Unfortunately, the conclusions are very much the same as was theorized by everyone way back around page 3 of this thread! Frame rate, depth of focus, motion blur = bird. :D

Despite the obviousness of this to everyone else, I have great doubt that Mr. Swett will ever admit it. ...something about "Hell freezing over"???! Now, the argument turns to Harter being a liar, blah, blah, blah. Sore loser.

I've followed this thread with much amusement. Thanks to everyone for entertaining me. :D

(I've said that like I actually believe this thread will end?!)

DV

[Wyrd1]

Nope it's just a bird Carlos. You can look at it with all your "professional" equipment but it's still going to be a bird. Latin can post his distorted picture of the hat on a million times - and he probably will - but it's a bird. It flaps it's wings at the end of the video.

It's a bird!

Now all the members "have " access to see a link on internet of the complete sequence of the shot I send to JREF. The link is http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html
Is a web page created under an investigation of Blue Monk, I thank to him also his work.

But Blue Monk , you "forgot " to put my translated application to the challenge ( Patricio Elicer also "forgot" that when he created this thread).

This is important so ANY member or persons who want to know the truth or make any commentary will have also the arguments of "the other part", the ussual way to make conclutions.

You are refering to a "Carlos", I assume that is me, so to be honest enough put my translated application to the challenge with my complete name on it: Carlos Swett.

Now that I see there are many fans or "believers" of the "bird" assumption, let me remember what you said in that page:
" I agree with Harter that the object is probably a bird. "

So Harter and you Blue Monk are not sure that is a bird.

Let me remember you and Harter what I said in my application WITH REASONS ON IT why is not a bird or an insect:

"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."

Now blue Monk or followers of "the bird" , can anybody say here that the "bird" can be seen after it enterd the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower? Can you Blue Monk or somebody else have the honesty to put a picture demonstrating that the bird is over that side of the building?
Is a paranormal bird that just dissapear at that point?
Patricio Elicer admited HERE this:"It turned out that one of those gaps coincided precisely with the moment the bird passed in front of the building."

That was the basis of my conclution in MY application:

"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."

Now you can see Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that. Can be seen also in your link.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that,.Can be seen also in your link.

The only difference is that you are using an internet tape, I made the final study based in a 3/4 tape property of a tv network, with persons that worked in the same station and with their proffesional equipments, best resolution, really slow frame by frame, no jumps or gags, watched in a big 52 inchess wide screen television, more than hundreds reviews, so I am SURE to tell you BLUE MONK and followers, "that thing" entered the hole, and its form remains to what latinijral posted here.

Just by saying "IS a bird; Is a bird" without arguments , is not necesarilly a truth, and you know that sceptics.
Your mission now is to debate my reasons exposed in my notarized application to the challenge.

So blue Monk , don't forget to put my translated notarized application, and to complete the honesty put Andrew Harter's answer to my application. Or you are afraid like James Randi?

Arguments , please, arguments.
What's new in "your tape" Blue Monk?

Thanks,

S&S

[PinkRabbit]

Er, as I wrote, I did look at it on 3/4 inch tape, and I could see the object all the way across the building. It was very faded due to motion and out of focus blur, but it was there. Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there.

Look at it at something approaching regular motion actually makes it easier to see.

The object never disappears. I repeat, that's an optical illusion. It's there all the way across the arc when you look at it on good tape at near normal speed.

I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy.

You're wrong, Carlos Swett, it does not go through the tower. It goes in front of it, probably only a short distance from the camera (since the zoom is doubtless tightly pinned, it's hard to be certain, since that alters depth of field quite a lot, and also alters the perception of depth, but we guessed at less than one hundred yards).

Barb

[Blue Monk]

Carlos has gone to great lengths to put his own spin on my page.

Most amusing.

I offer this page as proof.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves two points conclusively.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

Don't believe me? Then view my page. It is not opinion. It is factual and anyone who desires can repeat the process. Find any view you want on the internet and it will prove me correct and Carlos wrong.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

<a href=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html</a>

And don't worry Carlos. Do not mistake my little 'previews' as the answers to your questions. I am going over every one from what was and was not said on your application, every little petty charge, Everything!

I haven't 'forgotten' your application.

One more thing.

Originally posted by S&S
Why you did not post a picture of "the bird in front of the towers"?

Just because you can't.Or maybe you can trick it(remember is digitized)


I've provided a more accurate representation of what you have than you have.

If your so damn worried about the integrity of the people providing information concerning your tape why don't you just get up off of your butt and provide us with a quality representation of your tape yourself.

Or is that too obvious for you to understand.

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
Er, as I wrote, I did look at it on 3/4 inch tape, and I could see the object all the way across the building. It was very faded due to motion and out of focus blur, but it was there. Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there.

Look at it at something approaching regular motion actually makes it easier to see.

The object never disappears. I repeat, that's an optical illusion. It's there all the way across the arc when you look at it on good tape at near normal speed.

I'm sorry, no stills as we weren't on the equipment that would do that (since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy.

You're wrong, Carlos Swett, it does not go through the tower. It goes in front of it, probably only a short distance from the camera (since the zoom is doubtless tightly pinned, it's hard to be certain, since that alters depth of field quite a lot, and also alters the perception of depth, but we guessed at less than one hundred yards).

Barb

Hi nick Pink Rabbit :
Yes I read your "adventure" watching a 3/4 tape of the same shot I send to JREF . But Pink:
How we can trust you?,
Where is your location?,
which broadcast tape you used?
at what tv station "your friend works"?

If you want , you can answer ; that is because I said in my application where I did the same thing and I send also a copy of that "news" and interview to the JREF.

That does not means I don't "beleive you".
You made 3 assumptions:
1). "Adjusting the contrast and brightness helped a bit in making it easier to see, but it was still easily lost when we ran it frame by frame just because it tended to blend and the eye lost track of it easily, but it was there."

Pink, can you please explain us how do you know "it was there" if your eye lost track?
So you ALSO did not saw "the object" at the right side of the hole as I said.

2)"The object never disappears. I repeat, that's an optical illusion. "

Well, again your object dissapears now because of an "optical ilusion", so you ALSO did not see "the object"at the right side of the hole as I said.

3)"The gifs aren't an especially good representative, simply because they lose the subtleties and the object does nearly disappear except for the latter portion of its path. From that I would have guessed it was debris from the plane. "

You agreed now about studying gifs on internet. Debris from the plane?Only for fools that don't compare the speed of the plane and the explotion with the speed of "the object".

Did you discovered something new?

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that. You also said that.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that. You are just not sure because you never saw it at the right side of the hole.

You are not even sure that is a bird, a blur, debris from the plane, optical illusion.
Maybe because as you said:"since this was being done for fun, we were on an old backup rig so as not to get in the way of real work getting done), and I don't have a tape to make high res shots with my Snappy."

Remember I said in my notarized application to JREF this:
"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."

Also remember that I DID IT with proffesional equipments in a tv network, was a news transsmission, is taped, etc.

That doesn't mean I don¿t beleive you did it also with your "friend".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

You also posted:"And just because you like to point out that you're a professional artist, yadda, yadda ... I'll add that I've got an undergrad in tv/film and worked in the industry for several years, though these days I'm a graphic artist and my friend has been a field videographer, producer, and video editor, so we did actually know what we were doing and looking at."

Good for you and congratulations, but try to do a better job next time. Yes I work in arts, but is that wrong to you?

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos has gone to great lengths to put his own spin on my page.

Most amusing.

I offer this page as proof.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves two points conclusively.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

Don't believe me? Then view my page. It is not opinion. It is factual and anyone who desires can repeat the process. Find any view you want on the internet and it will prove me correct and Carlos wrong.

1) There is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

2) This is easily proven using only the internet.

<a href=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html>http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html</a>

And don't worry Carlos. Do not mistake my little 'previews' as the answers to your questions. I am going over every one from what was and was not said on your application, every little petty charge, Everything!

I haven't 'forgotten' your application.

One more thing.



I've provided a more accurate representation of what you have than you have.

If your so damn worried about the integrity of the people providing information concerning your tape why don't you just get up off of your butt and provide us with a quality representation of your tape yourself.

Or is that too obvious for you to understand.

Hi Blue Monk:

You never used bad words, maybe you are worried because you can not provide facts, you helped me proving to ALL of you ,that what I said in my application can be also seen in "your link".
Thanks again for that.

But you are still refusing to be a little honest and to put my translated notarized application in "your link" and the lies or mistakes Harter gave me in his answer.
Why are you afraid as Randi. Just be honest.
Yes your "videos" the first and the second are from the same shot I send to JREF.

The one you are reffering here "from Purple tentacle" I did not send to JREF.
But yes, I also saw it, and I saw birds flying : they are free to fly.
But I did not see "the same bird" of the other tape, I mean flying in the same trajectory.
Why not? Something paranormal?
Is supposed as you said (" CNN similar angle") that Harter's" special bird" must be seen in front of the towers. But nothing.

Don't forget to put the picture of "the bird" at the right side of the hole of the north tower.I mean in front of the wall.
Just do it.

Don't forget also to put my translated application with my full name in your link.
No comments about the first or second video? or you need more time like Harter's lies.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Don't forget to see the large dark object passing through the tower. JUST USE YOUR MOUSE. [/b]

[Blue Monk]

Carlos,

PinkRabbit has provided exactly as much proof as you have as to what is on the tape.

Exactly.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

The fact you seem unable to grasp the significance of this is hilarious.

Your attempts to discredit anyone who disagrees with you seem to know no limits.

While I accept PinkRabbits' account and thank him for it, it ultimately is not needed as one only needs to view another perspective of the event to prove without a doubt that your theory is incorrect.

If you ever decide to actually show this miraculous tape to the rest of us then we can all see what ever it is you think is so incredibly important.

Perhaps you should get off your butt and provide a quality representation, then we won't have to relay on PinkRabbits account.


I only agreed to answer your questions.

I did not agree to convince you as I have no hope of doing that. I also did not agree to provide any visual aids you desire nor did I agree to follow any order you decide.

I intend to show what information I have that I base my opinions on. That is the honest way to do it.

If I don't have quality information that supports your position simply because you haven't provided it then that's tough. I cannot see it if you do not post it.


You have a lot more answers coming. You're not going to like any of them.

[compjan]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Compjan:

Maybe if you put some arguments I will "beleive" you.

Just put it , you can, now you have a basis., just read my quotes.

Thanks,
S&S


Sure thing. Based on my previous message

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not
convince anyone here.

Based on my observations of how claims like yours are handled on the JREF forum, I am confident yours will receive the same treatment. Skeptics here tend to trash poorly researched claims like yours. Witness how Lucianarchy's beliefs are handled. Additionally, after 19 pages the best you can get from anyone on this thread is that Harter brushed you off too quickly. No one except your brother has even coincided that there is the slightest possibility of a paranormal event. You are known as a joke on other threads as well. You have no credibility at the JREF forums.


2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have
forgotten all about it.
Randi has never mentioned you in his weekly articles. The JREF is more concerned about the Horizons show, Sylvia, PsiTech, etc.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you
respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".
My opinion is based on the utter lack of celebrity attention paid to people with beliefs like yours. The crop circle guys get more celebrity, and they aren't exactly household names. You've got to be a psychic these days to get famous. At best you'll get 30 minutes on Art Bell. He'll, even I got five minutes on NPR as a kid for being in a model rocket contest!

I'm not going to argue the merits of your claim. That's been done to death. I am curious what you hope to gain by continuing to post. You've defended your honor. You've posted the truth as you see it. Now what? Will you spend the rest of your life posting to this thread about the paranormal hat and Randi's silence? When will you be satisfied?

CompJan

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Carlos,

PinkRabbit has provided exactly as much proof as you have as to what is on the tape.

Exactly.

The CNN tape provided by Purple Tentacle proves there is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.


.

Hi BlueMonk:

You are still afraid.
I already answered Pink Rabbit and I answered YOU about "purple tentacle's video", the CNN tape

But it seems that you are still refusing to analize the tape I send to the JREF and that correspont to the first and second of "your link" , specially the second one, of channel 7 (abc) which shows all the sequence. Why? Don't you have arguments?

You are also afraid to put my notarized application in "your link.
Why?Are you don't honest enough? or you don't want people compare my claim to the video?.
Your position remind me Patricio Elicer when he originally created this thread, he was also refused to put my translated application to the challenge, remember is in page 2.

Don't be afraid Blue Monk, is your opportunity to beat me.
Or you "think" you need more time , like Harter's lies?

You are refering to a "Carlos" in YOUR LINK , I assume that is me, so to be honest enough put my translated application to the challenge with my complete name on it: Carlos Swett.

Now that I see there are many fans or "believers" of the "bird" assumption, let me remember what you said in that page:
" I agree with Harter that the object is probably a bird. "

So Harter and you Blue Monk are not sure that is a bird.

Let me remember you and Harter what I said in my application WITH REASONS ON IT why is not a bird or an insect:

"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."

Now blue Monk or followers of "the bird" , can anybody say here that the "bird" can be seen after it enterd the hole at the right side of the wall of the north tower? Can you Blue Monk or somebody else have the honesty to put a picture demonstrating that the bird is over that side of the building?
Is a paranormal bird that just dissapear at that point?
Patricio Elicer admited HERE this:"It turned out that one of those gaps coincided precisely with the moment the bird passed in front of the building."

That was the basis of my conclution in MY application:

"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."

Now you can see Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that. Can be seen also in your link.

That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that,.Can be seen also in your link.

The only difference is that you are using an internet tape, I made the final study based in a 3/4 tape property of a tv network, with persons that worked in the same station and with their proffesional equipments, best resolution, really slow frame by frame, no jumps or gags, watched in a big 52 inchess wide screen television, more than hundreds reviews, so I am SURE to tell you BLUE MONK and followers, "that thing" entered the hole, and its form remains to what latinijral posted here.

Just by saying "IS a bird; Is a bird" without arguments , is not necesarilly a truth, and you know that sceptics.
Your mission now is to debate my reasons exposed in my notarized application to the challenge.

So blue Monk , don't forget to put my translated notarized application, and to complete the honesty put Andrew Harter's answer to my application. Or you are afraid like James Randi?

Arguments , please, arguments.
What's new in "your tape" Blue Monk?

Thanks,

[PinkRabbit]

I will put this as simply and succinctly as possible because I don't think you understand more complicated English very well, Carlos, and I think you misread some things I wrote.

We tracked the object as it came into frame on the upper left hand side, then arced from left to right, in front of the buildings in a downward arc to the lower right hand side.

The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times.

It took several viewings, and some adjustments to contrast and brightness (darkening the image and boosting contrast) to be certain. It was not easily seen, but IT WAS THERE.

No, I do not know for certain what the object is, but I am certain that it did not go through the building, so if that is a factor that defines it as paranormal, then it's not paranormal, because it does NOT go through the building. It goes in front of it.

The optical illusion is that when looked at as stills, the eye can lose track of the shadow because it is very light colored and, depending on your equipment, difficult to see. Someone who did not think to readjust settings or who did not WANT to see the object could easily overlook it in this fashion and convince themselves that it was not there.

The other optical illusion is that it appears to be moving incredibly fast if you believe it to be much farther away, since that would be crossing a much longer distance.

I looked at a tape identical (though at a greater resolution) to the clip online. It's the original from a local new station's file. They have no reason to have doctored it, and it's listed as what was received that day from their satellite feed. Believe me or not, not my problem. However, given that they're not pursuing this as a story, and he was doing this for fun, not work, no I'm not going to tell you what station or give you any other info. However, everything I've commented on can actually be seen on the mpeg that was posted. It's just somewhat more difficult.

I listed his and my experience in the field because you have been quite insulting to several people in questioning their credentials for doubting your opinion, which, by the way, is all you have ever really produced. No proof, just your opinion that it's a paranormal object based on your viewing of a videotape that you didn't even take of an event that you didn't see in person. That wouldn't even hold up in court, much less a scientific laboratory.

Meanwhile, I looked at the same thing, and it's my opinion it's not the least bit paranormal, just a minor optical illusion because of the way cameras work coupled with uncontrolled shooting conditions. By the way, if you actually had any experience with video or motion picture cameras, you would know that things like this happen all the time.

Personally, I think you decided what you'd seen before you ever stepped foot in a TV station, and as a result, saw exactly what you wanted to see. The station, wanting a personal interest story, went along unquestioningly. You have proven nothing, just shown a mildly interesting videotape that can be interpreted one way, but can also be interpreted several others.

Barb

Originally posted by PinkRabbit



The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times.

It took several viewings, and some adjustments to contrast and brightness (darkening the image and boosting contrast) to be certain. It was not easily seen, but IT WAS THERE.

No, I do not know for certain what the object is, but I am certain that it did not go through the building, so if that is a factor that defines it as paranormal, then it's not paranormal, because it does NOT go through the building. It goes in front of it.

The optical illusion is that when looked at as stills, the eye can lose track of the shadow because it is very light colored and, depending on your equipment, difficult to see. Someone who did not think to readjust settings or who did not WANT to see the object could easily overlook it in this fashion and convince themselves that it was not there.

The other optical illusion is that it appears to be moving incredibly fast if you believe it to be much farther away, since that would be crossing a much longer distance.


You have proven nothing, just shown a mildly interesting videotape that can be interpreted one way, but can also be interpreted several others.

Barb :

Pink Rabbit:

Do I have to beleive you?

You refused to say the location, the network and the channel station where YOU "studied" a 3/4 broadcasted tape.

Should I trust a nick saying that?.:

You said this:"The optical illusion is that when looked at as stills, the eye can lose track of the shadow because it is very light colored and, depending on your equipment, difficult to see. Someone who did not think to readjust settings or who did not WANT to see the object could easily overlook it in this fashion and convince themselves that it was not there."

But remember Andrew Harter studied just an internet video "frame by frame" and he did not have that problem, he did not even mention nothing about an optical illusion, he can see "the BIRD" in front of the wall of the tower at the right side of the hole . And YOU are saying you can not see "the bird" when you use slow motion , stills or frame by frame, give me a break.

What is the "new stuff" in your " 3/4 tape study"?

I already said the same , the only difference is that I said also:

"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."

About optical illusions I already wrote in my application:
"It is not a bird or an insect crossing the space between the cameraman and the towers, because the image of the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it."

Of course only in NORMAL SPEED"you can see"as you said : The object NEVER disappeared. Not for a moment. It was there the entire time, and could NOT have gone through the building as it was visible at all times. "

But when you still "it dissapears" (??????)

It "never dissapears at normal speed of the tape" just because the speed of the object is so FAST that create in your eye the OPTICAL ILLUSION that never dissapears.

That¿s the main reason why you have to study it "frame by frame", like I did and ANDREW HARTER did,
Or Harter also lied in that point?

Of course , you will find someones who will "beleive " in you.

Confused about optical illusions?
Well I just work in art.

Thanks,

S&S