The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Patricio Elicer]

Yesterday Aug 26 at about 10:30 PM eastern, I was involved in a discussion with one "Is_James_Randi_A_Liar" at the JREF Chat. I was called in because the guy was typing in Spanish all kind of insults against Randi and obscenities in general. He seemed to be very upset, and unable to communicate well in English.

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

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

The principal actors in this story are two different persons:

1) Carlos Swett
2) Is_James_Randi_A_Liar (who seemingly use other nicks in the Chat as well)

The first one is a man from Ecuador who sent an application for the million dollars challenge claiming that a certain paranormal activity took place during the WTC terrorist attacks. You can see the pictures and the notarized application here (http://groups.msn.com/JAMESRANDIJREFANDREWHARTERETC/onemilliondollarchallenge.msnw). A short movie of the alledged paranormal phenomenon is here (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=11)

The second one, Is_James_Randi_A_Liar, is a Chilean person (he/she said so, and I have good reasons to think it's true) who got to know about an e-mail exchange between Swett, Randi and Andrew regarding the application, and became a sort of defender of Swett's case. He started a thread at Skeptics Forum about it, which he/she entitled WHO KNOWS THIS STORY? (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=37&ShowDelete=0&CDir=-2)

This is, according to the Chilean, the e-mail exchange between Swett, Randi and Andrew, that is at the beginning of the cited thread.

Swett wrote to Randi: I SEND YOU A CHALLENGE.

YOU RECIEVED IT ON APRIL 4, 2002, THURSDAY´S MORNING.
I HAVE THE GUIDE OF FEDERAL EXPRESS THAT COMFIRMS THAT IS WAS RECIEVED ON THE FOUNDATION.

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

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

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

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

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

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADORRandi replied Who are you, and what in hell are you raving about?

James RandiSwett replied JAMES RANDI,OCTOBER 12, 2001, WEEK´S COMMENTARY:
IMAGINE OF JOHN LENNON:
Imagine there´s no heaven
it´s easy if you try
NO HELL BELOW
above us only sky........"THIS DOES IT FOR ME".....SIGNED JAMES RANDI
.................................................. ......................

I THOUGHT YOU DIDN´T BELIEVE IN HELL,SO WHY YOU SEND ME THERE????????

JUST RELAX, AND INVESTIGATE IN "YOUR FOUNDATION" WHO I AM. REMEMBER I HAVE COPIES OF THE "NOTHARIZED FORM" THAT YOU RECIEVED FROM ECUADOR (NOT THE LINE, IT IS MY COUNTRY IN SOUTHAMERICA), AND ALSO I HAVE THE FEDERAL EXPRESS GUIDE SIGNED BY JREF THAT CONFIRMS THAT IS WAS RECEIVED ON THURSDAY 4 OF APRIL IN THE MORNING.

THIS IS NOT A FIGHT BETWEEN YOU AND CARLOS SWETT, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU MUST KEEP ALL YOUR SENSES CLEAR AND DON´T INSULT ME IN YOUR ANSWERS, PERHAPS YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT MY CHALLENGE, OR THEY(JREF) DON´T WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT YET(I HOPE THAT).

RAVING=MADNESS????????????
WE ARE NOT MAD PEOPLE, WE ARE WELL EDUCATED, I WAS AN EXCHANGE STUDENT IN THE USA (1969), I WON ARTISTIC CONTEST IN MY COUNTRY, MY FATHER WAS AWARDED
BY THE NATION FOR HIS CULTURAL WORKS AND LIFE, ETC, ETC, ETC...

I REPEAT YOU, I DON´T BELIEVE IN MAGIC, I DON´T BELIEVE IN UFOS, I JUST BELIEVE IN ME................................................ ..........

POST DATA: YOU ARE A FAN OF JOHN LENNON AND THE BEATLES AS I AM.

CONGRATULATIONS

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR

593-04-2391025
593-04-2391655Then, Randi wroteI get hundreds of such pompous claims every week. I don't remember yours. Refresh my memory.

I want to deal with you, make you shut up, and get back to my life.Andrew entersWe 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 FoundationSwett wroteSubject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (12 DAYS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

CARLOS SWETT
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR-SOUTHAMERICA-EARTH

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

I´m sure that you get hundreds of pompous claims every week, but also I´m sure that you DON´T GET MANY OFICIALS APPLICANTS TO THE CHALLENGE.
Well, I´m that kind of applicant.

Sorry,if your JREF DIDN´T TELL YOU ABOUT IT (?????), that explains why: you send me to hell, don´t remember me ,want to make a deal to shut me up, etc.

I received yesterday an e-mail with the oficial answer (by ANDREW HARTER) for my aplication to the challenge. Is poor, deficient,and full of lies. I HOPE (AS YOU USE TO) YOU PUBLICATE THAT POMPOUS ANSWER IN YOUR WEB PAGE BUT WITH MY NOTHARIZED DEMAND. People will decide who is telling the truth.
I SEND TO YOU(in the same package )a letter giving you aditonal information of my application. Ask for it, if you want,at the JREF.

I admired your work, but don´t loose energies making FREE PUBLICITY(?$) to people(lyke SYLVIA BROWNE)that never applies to the official challenge.

Mr.ANDREW HARTER said that he saw this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
I ASKED IN YOUR WEB PAGE FOR THAT ESPECIFIC COMMENTARY.
RESULTS:NOTHING
¿WHO ARE OTHERS? ¿A SELECTED GROUP?

THE CLOCK IS TICKING AGAIN.........13 DAYS

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

CARLOS SWETT.-
GUAYAQUIL, ECUADOR

P.S. USE A REAL TRANSLATOR , NOT A VIRTUAL TRANSLATOR.Randi replied,Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious.

Your application is closed.

James RandiSwettSubject: RESULTS WILL BE SELF-EVIDENT TO ANY OBSERVER.....james randi

THANKS FOR TAKING OFF YOUR MASK. KEEP ON GOING WITH YOUR BUSINESS. YOU WILL NEED IT. YOU DON´T HAVE TO ANSWER THIS E-MAIL....C´est finit...

TIME IS ON MY SIDE.
CARLOS SWETT.-Guayaquil, Ecuador

post data:
RESULTS WILL BE SELF-EVIDENT TO ANY OBSERVER.....james randi
....¨"..Y SIN EMBARGO SE MUEVE".....GALILEO GALILEYRandi,Re: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (12 DAYS)

Go away.SwettSubject: THANK YOU LIAR

RESULTS WILL BE SELF- EVIDENT TO ANY OBSERVER......james randi(?????) GO BACK TO YOUR BUSINESS ($$$$$$$)
YOUR CLOCK: 14 DAYS
YOU DON´T NEED TO ANSWER THIS E-MAIL...

CARLOS SWETT.- GUAYAQUIL, ECUADOR .....20/20 (?)Randi,Subject: Re: THANK YOU LIAR

Your address has now been blocked.Swett,Subject: HI LOSER !

JAMES RANDI:

I WANT TO CHALLENGE YOU AGAIN.

DON¨T WORRY, IT WILL BE IN A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

THE QUESTION IS : ¿CAN I ?

I DON´T TRUST YOU ANYMORE, SO I NEED YOU TO DEFY ME ON YOUR WEB PAGE AS YOU USE TO WITH OTHERS (LYKE SYLVIA B. AND THE BRASILIAN).

REMEMBER THAT IS VERY SUSPICIOUS THAT AFTER 9 DAYS THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED MY TAPE AND NOTHARIZED APPLICATION AT THE JREF( APRIL 4) , YOU WERE ASKING ME WHO AM I, WHAT THE HELL I WAS RAVING ABOUT, TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE A DEAL WITH ME(?$), AND JUST BECAUSE OF MY FIRST E-MAIL (APRIL 12) DEMANDING YOU AND YOUR FOUNDATION AN ANSWER FOR MY APPLICATION.

IT IS VERY SUSPICIOUS TOO THAT THERE ARE NO COMMENTS ON YOUR WEEK¨S COMMENTAIES ABOUT MY FORMAL CHALLENGE. THERE ARE NO MOCKERY, JOKES, RIDICULE DECEIVE ABOUT MY NOTHARIZED APPLICATION AS YOU USE TO DO WITH OTHERS. WHY NOT?

YOUR SILENCE MEANS A LOT TO ME. GIVES ME AREASON TO BELEIVE I WAS RIGHT ON MY CONCLUSION. YOU LOST JAMES RANDI.

ARE YOU A CHICKEN?

I AM GIVING YOU A SECOND CHANCE. REMEMBER ALSO THAT I DON´T DO IT FOR THE MONEY ,per se; THE MILLION DOLLAR PAPERS WERE GOING TO SHARE BETWEEN THE VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY OF NEW YORK AND THE POOR PEOPLE OF MY COUNTRY ( BUILDING SCHOOLS OR SOMETHING LYKE THAT ).REMEMBER: I AM AN ARTIST AND MONEY IS NOT MY PRIORITY. ! LA VERDAD ANTE TODO ¡

I WILL WAIT FOR YOUR ANSWER.

CARLOS SWETT

3 JUNE, 2002

YOUR FIRST CLOCK¨S UPDATE : 60 DAYS

P.D. BE HONEST. SAY HELLO TO ANDREWI hope this will help to make things clearer on this case.

Mr. Swett repeatedly calls Randi a liar, but I really fail to see where Randi or Andrew may have lied on their replies. IMO Andrew's reply made perfect sense to the case.

I think this is another example of how badly a person (two persons in this case) can delude himself when strong emotions come into play while contemplating a picture. Let's not forget that we had a similar case on the boards, of someone who strongly believed he saw demons on his basement wall :D


[edited for minor corrections]
[edited for a second time to add a link]

[The Fool]

Is this guy Agurs cousin?

Actually, I wouldn't like loonies like this sending me e-mails. I don't envy James Randi one little bit.

[RichardR]

Did I understand this correctly? – This guy has a copy of a film from the TV, showing the Twin Towers in NYC (I’m guessing) and the plane crashing into it, and there appears to be something flying across the screen, or out of a one of the towers (or something). And he wants a million dollars for this, yes?

Did I miss something?

[LeFevre]

thanks Patricio :) I'm sure I will see latin or Swett in the chat again, but at least now I kinda have a clue as to why they have been freaking out in chat.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by RichardR
Did I understand this correctly? – This guy has a copy of a film from the TV, showing the Twin Towers in NYC (I’m guessing) and the plane crashing into it, and there appears to be something flying across the screen, or out of a one of the towers (or something). And he wants a million dollars for this, yes?

Did I miss something? According to the Chilean chatter, Swett tape recorded a movie from the TV news showing the "paranormal event". He also said that the movie was censored some days later.

Yes, he applied for the million dollars for this. Besides this event being real or not, I think it doesn't qualify for the challenge, because there's no personal paranormal or psychic ability involved.

[darling]

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

[Thanz]

While I agree that such an application would not qualify for the million dollars, even it was an alien spaceship, but it seems to me that Randi got a little harsh too soon. Carlos then becam abusive, and the whole thing fell apart.

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

Has anyone seen the whole video? How fast is it compared to the second plane? Is it debris from the second explosion?

Thanz

[Ipecac]

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

Exactly.

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

[thatguywhojuggles]

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

Of course, I don't know much about video, so that is just my guess. Anyone with more knowledge care to comment?

[EvilBiker]

My first thought in watching the clip was that whatever the object is, it must be very close in the foreground, so the actual distance travelled is extremely short. I'm not sure of the camera used and all, but I suspect that the fact that the focus is set at close to infinity contributes to the apparent size of the close object as well.

[Pyrrho]

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

Of course, I don't know much about video, so that is just my guess. Anyone with more knowledge care to comment?

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

A slowed-down version (1 second per frame):


http://psandoval.0catch.com/gif.html

[Yahzi]

Randi got a little harsh too soon
Given the fact that he deals with hundreds of these raving loonies every week, I think we're all lucky he didn't just block the guy's address after the first email.

If you think you can submit a video tape you copied off of television and collect a million dollars, you are an idiot. Period. If there really was paranormal activity there, the money would belong to the guy who filmed it in the first place, not some dweeb sitting on his butt in Chile watching TV.

[Uther]

If I'm ever elected to Congress, I will make a law that requires background checks and psychiatric testing before you are allowed buy a keyboard with a capslock key.

-Uther

[Patricio Elicer]

These (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=19) are two still images of the "phenomenon" taken to a TV sreen. Both TV channels are Chilean channels, and it's likely it was a movie broadcast in the news. Anyway, I don't recall the local TV making any comment about the alledged mysterious event.

[Lisa]

Thanks for your work on this Patricio. Since it has been (mumble mumble) years since I've taken a Spanish class, and about (mumble) years since I've used what I learned, I was having a tough time keeping up last night.

[rwald]

Thanks for the translation, Patricio Elicer. At the time, I didn't understand what you and is_james_randi_a_lier were saying, but now I realize that you were having the same conversation with him that I had a few nights before. For the record, one of is_james_randi_a_lier's claims is that Randi recently changed the rules, and that this claim was valid under the old rules. I consulted with Randi on this, and he told me that the only change he has made recently was adding the "all correspondence must be in English" rule. So, Swett's claim still fails on numerous counts.

Actually, I'm kinda comforted that someone with knowledge of Spanish was around to talk to is_james_randi_a_lier. Before, I thought that maybe his extream confusion was just an artifact of the language barrier. But if you couldn't explain the truth to him in his native language...let's just say it makes me more confident about my initial thoughts about is_james_randi_a_lier.

Isn't this the same anomaly as the mysterious "rods" that Randi talked about several months ago? As I recall, several websites were devoted to investigating these rods. Does anyone else remember this?

Reb

Here's one of the sites:
Roswell Rods (http://www.roswellrods.com/pre.html)

[Dr. Imago]

I can understand why Randi's patience is wearing thin (IF these are indeed his exact comments, although there's no immediate reason to either confirm or deny that they are), but I think that patience is exactly what was called for here. Harter could have, as budddyh put it, more definitively dismissed Swett. Then you state that his "claim" (which it clearly wasn't in any way, shape or form, as others have pointed out) is dismissed - and block his address.

Further, I understand that Randi must deal with delusional people all the time. A delusion, in medical parlance, is...

a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained despite of what everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. (DSM-IV, p. 765)

I think that Randi needs to remember when dealing with such people that they are, more likely than not, incapable of being truly rational. They are convinced that they are correct, and no evidence to the contrary will change that belief. Belittling and attempting to "slam-dunk" someone into quietude only makes one look demeaning, crotchety, and déclassé.

I know he already knows these facts, but he is a spokesperson - maybe the spokesperson - for our cause. As such, he should always keep his guard up. Responding to people in such a manner (if true) is, quite simply, beneath him. It may serve some immediate gratififcation but, ultimately, it hurts the cause. We are trying to win people over, not beat them into submission. At least I thought we were. :(

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by rwald
For the record, one of is_james_randi_a_lier's claims is that Randi recently changed the rules, and that this claim was valid under the old rulesYes rwald, he told me so as well. He also repeatedly tried to convince me that the "paranormal event" in Swett's video was real and that Randi was close minded for not wanting to analize it. I couldn't argue much with him on this since I didn't know anything about the case at the moment.

When I asked him why he claimed that Randi was a liar, he said it was because Randi at first had agreed to examine the videotape Swett sent to him, and then he only examined a low resolution internet video.

By the way, at this point I'm a bit confused as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same video in their separate accounts.

On one side Swett speaks about a dark hat shaped object coming out of one tower at the precise moment the plane hit the other (I think he's referring to the animation and pictures I linked above).

But on the other side Andrew says it's probably a bird, which I really fail to see in those same pictures. So I think that what Andrew examined was another video, that is probably this one (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC2.html) (you have to click on "video" to see it). If this is the case, then I totally agree that it was a bird, it's also possible to see its waving wings.

Anyway, the mystery still remains as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same piece of evidence.

[Linda]

Interesting.....Sr. Swett just registered for the message boards today. I expect we'll be hearing from him.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
By the way, at this point I'm a bit confused as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same video in their separate accounts.

On one side Swett speaks about a dark hat shaped object coming out of one tower at the precise moment the plane hit the other (I think he's referring to the animation and pictures I linked above).

But on the other side Andrew says it's probably a bird, which I really fail to see in those same pictures. So I think that what Andrew examined was another video, that is probably this one (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC2.html) (you have to click on "video" to see it). If this is the case, then I totally agree that it was a bird, it's also possible to see its waving wings.

Anyway, the mystery still remains as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same piece of evidence.

I agree that it appears they may be looking at different videos. The video in this post seem to me to be a bird, much closer to the camera than the towers, just flying by. I am not supprised that the people shooting the film don't remember a bird - why would you, given what was happening? It is not like a bird flying by is a memorable event.

If there is a better video of what this site calls "ufo 1" I would like to see it.

Thanz

[JoxterTheMighty]

After looking at the video it looks like a bug or bird flying by the camera. The shape of the blob even kinda looks like something flapping wings (fat in one frame and narrow the next).

-Joxter-

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by LeFevre
thanks Patricio :) I'm sure I will see latin or Swett in the chat again, but at least now I kinda have a clue as to why they have been freaking out in chat.

Yeah, this is the same person that came by one night when I was in the chatroom, as well. He was logged in as "latin" back then.

I was engaged in some translation efforts for one of the other people in the room at that time. I was translating what he/she was saying. From what I recall, latin resorted to ad-hominem attacks after some discussion. He/she got agitated after only a little while of having to prove the assertions.

G6

[Doubt]

I remember when latin was in the chat room. One of the things he claimed was that the object was moving at “30 times super speed”. I assume he was talking about supersonic speed. I did some math and found this to be pretty close to the velocity needed to reach orbit.

Most likely the object on the video did not exist. No sonic boom or other effects. Latin would not accept that there could even be an alternative explanation. He also did not understand why replication would be needed.

[Brown]

The collision of the aircraft into the southern tower was one of the most photographed events in history.

If this object were a sizable craft, certainly we would expect the object to appear in other photos as well. ¿Verdad?

Am I missing something here? Is this guy actually saying what the dark blob is? Or is he just saying it is unexplained?

If the criteria for winning the million is to offer something unexplained then I want the money. Why? Because nobody can explain why my wife has anything to do with me!

[Sauron]

I don't know about anyone else's opinion on this, but I'm very tired of the Carlos Swett malarky. This time, on IRC, the very man himself claimed to be talking to us about his horrible mistreatment. The unfairness of the JREF is just too much, it seems, and he wants his money for seeing "something".

Abercrombie said it best in a single line:

Abercrombie: You have no claim. "You owe me money for seeing something in a video I cannot reproduce, cannot explain, and cannot prove."

He says he is concerned about his art, not the video. He says he is famous, so he doesn't want the money. He just made an "OFFICIAL CHALLENGE" for giggles, I guess. All hail humanity at its pinnacle. :mad:

...

Strangely enough, this guy's IP addy is almost identical to latin's.

[Nasarius]

The apparent speed of the object (again, I just saw the crappy thing linked to) seems to go against the 'bird' hypothesis.

Has anyone seen the whole video? How fast is it compared to the second plane? Is it debris from the second explosion?

Yes, apparent. It is impossible to tell how far from the camera lens the object is without a good point of reference. Second, I have heard people elsewhere claim that it could not be debris because it is moving faster than the plane was. Assuming we could determine the speed and it is higher, the argument doesn't make sense. Conservation of momentum allows that a large object striking a much smaller object (elastic collision, of course) can induce a significantly higher velocity in the small object.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Yes, apparent. It is impossible to tell how far from the camera lens the object is without a good point of reference. Second, I have heard people elsewhere claim that it could not be debris because it is moving faster than the plane was.

As an example of the problem here, think of the following: suppose you were to videotape the moon in the sky. Suddenly, you see a plane cross past your field of vision. No one would be silly enough to think that the plance is actually moving faster than the moon, would they?

Yet, that could be exactly what's going on here.

Is my first time here at the forum. i respect all your opinions, besides, they are only opinions.

I want to clarify one thing ; I have been expulsed from the chat with no reason,Idid not paste anything or flooded,etc. Maybe the people that were connected at that time are enough honest to certify what I am telling. I received insults in the chat but I just responded all of them with reasons, yes. my reasons.

now that you are discussing MY AFFAIR I will answer all rational or sceptic questions in the future. Try to be directly ,do not come with juvenile expressions, please.

Sorry, for my English .
Have sweet and swett dreams.
S&S

[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?

[Ipecac]

Hi Carlos.

My question goes to why you think you are eligible for the prize. Did you shoot the video in question? If you just saw the video on TV after the fact, what makes you eligible rather than anyone else who happened to see the same broadcast?

There are many natural explanations for what it could be. Some have been listed on this thread. Why do you believe it was something paranormal? What exactly do you think it was?

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?

------------------------------------------------
Thank´s Patricio for your welcome and the same to all the forum.
It was a surprise for me that you open a discussion in this forum with my name on it.
I need to clarify a lot of things I had been reading from almost all the members; it will be time for it, I hope so.

But first , in honor to the truth, I am asking you a favor: please translate my notharized application to the challenge ( in spanish), please do not forget a word, so this forum bembers can tell why I called Mr. Harter a liar when he answered my application(is posted here).
Answering your request for the link: I never said it was a link; I send Jref a VHS tape with the same image transmmited live by different tv networks of the world ( telemundo-Florida, TVE.Spain; TVN-Chile; Chanel 2-NewYork ; some channels of Ecuador;etc.

Yes, I taped all of them, I have a satelite signal tv., I did not filmed the experience but I am the one who made the observation of the paranormal experience. Andrew Harter is the one who answered me that his analisis of my challenge was based on an video he saw on internet. He can tell us the exact link, and why he used that poor method. I went to my local TV stations and verify with their own 3/4 or betacan tape (non mine)
the image in a really slow frame by frame, besides the scene was completed ( before the plane crashed) so you can have references of speed or size and all we saw it in a big screen tv.
That´s the difference. In the tape I send To the JREF is also an interview Telesistema(local channel) made me ,the same week of that awful tragedy, about my paranormal observation. The interview was on the tv News and no in a ufo or yellow program. I don´t agreed with that kind of programs or charlatans.

I am giving here my public excuses if my words on my e-mails to Harter or Randi sounds rude or insulting.
That was my reaction of an action:
Mr. James Randi wrote me : "Who are you , and what the hell are you raving about?".........(.Is that an insult?)

Mr. Andrew Harter answered the application: " You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect......"
I answered him : you are a liar........( Is that an insult?)

Now that Patricio , or someone else, will do the favor to translate my notarized application , all of you members can have the opportunity to call me all the insults you did to me before knowing my position.

I do not want to block the sun with one finger, I recognice Randi´s work, he is a kind of heroe because of his work demonstrating how different kind of charlatans try to fool people.
I didn´t challenge him for the money perse, I just wanted to share a truth and give him the chance to analize it, but.....

Thanks again, and sorry for my English.

S&S

P.S. You must go to the movies. Do you think the directors or film makers notice the mistakes on it or they are different persons that make the "observations" of the errors after the film is open to the public. The observation is the clue.
How many times "famous paints" have been hang upside down in famous museums until someone (not the painter) notice the mistake,. The observation is the clue.

[rwald]

Hi again, Swett. Let me go through your points one by one.

First, about your notarized application: I'm not sure what could be there which would show why Andrew Harter is a liar. Could you try to mention that point specifically in English? If this is not possible, I understand; just know that without proof, we cannot assume that the application proves Harter to be a liar.

Next, about the quality and nature of the video: I agree that it is not your fault; I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you. Did you have the important part of the tape near the front, or was it more toward the middle? I imagine that if Harter watched it for 5 minutes, and didn't see anything relevant, he would just have turned it off and gone to the internet, figuring that the important part would never show up.

As far as your complaints about insults: I, personally, would take Randi's comment ("Who are you , and what the hell are you raving about?") as not being an insult, while your comment ("you are a liar") is. First of all, ravng just implies that you feel strongly about something; while it has the connotation of somewhat-incoherent language, it is by no means an insult. However, accusing someone of intentional misrepresentation of the truth is an insult. Also, while Randi's comment had some basis in truth (your initial email could be called "raving" by some extreme definitions), yours has no basis in fact (regardless of what the truth is, Harter was reporting the truth as he saw it, and this is not lying). So, in conclusion, you were the first one to cast insults.

And lastly, your comment about movies. While I would agree that observing things can be important, it is by no means a valid challange for the JREF prize. In order to win the JREF prize, one must be able to do something supernatural or pseudoscientific, or at least be able to produce some functioning supernatural or pseudoscientific product. Merely making an observation is neither of these things.

I hope these explanations help you understand your mistake. I have found you to be a relatively reasonable person, and am willing to believe that you have merely made a few gross misinterpretations. Perhaps, with our help, we will be able to correct this misinterpretations.

I want to clarify something else:

Patricio Elicer never translated the e-mails , they were and are originally in my poor english.
That´s why I am asking him to translate the only thing I wrote in spanish ( my notharized application to the challenge) before Mr. Randi changed the rules about the language.

Patricio is talking about a translation in the chat with another guy(latin, IJRAL,etc.)
In the chat I was S or Sw and I always identified me as swett. But now I am xpulsed of the chat and nobody have the honesty of telling I just answered your request or insults.
Did I do flooding?give me an answer.Perhaps I was expulsed by error.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Carlos, upon looking at what I have logged, I think you are right. You were expulsed in error. From what I've seen, you have done nothing wrong. While I think that you are confused about a few things, this is by no means reason for you to be kicked off. What happened was that with people like latin/is_james_randi_a_liar and espi defending you, we all thought that you would be even worse than they. We thought that, like them, you would constantly post the address to the MSN forum, and would make no attempt to debate reasonably. We never really gave you a chance to prove yourself for who you really are. I apologize for this. It is my belief that you should be allowed to again talk on the chat room. Also, I would recomend that, if you are familiar with latin/is_james_randi_a_liar, you kindly ask him to stop arguing in your favor. You are better off with no one arguing your side than with latin/is_james_randi_a_liar arguing your side.

Originally posted by rwald
Hi again, Swett. Let me go through your points one by one.

First, about your notarized application: I'm not sure what could be there which would show why Andrew Harter is a liar. Could you try to mention that point specifically in English? If this is not possible, I understand; just know that without proof, we cannot assume that the application proves Harter to be a liar.

Next, about the quality and nature of the video: I agree that it is not your fault; I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you. Did you have the important part of the tape near the front, or was it more toward the middle? I imagine that if Harter watched it for 5 minutes, and didn't see anything relevant, he would just have turned it off and gone to the internet, figuring that the important part would never show up.

As far as your complaints about insults: I, personally, would take Randi's comment ("Who are you , and what the hell are you raving about?") as not being an insult, while your comment ("you are a liar") is. First of all, ravng just implies that you feel strongly about something; while it has the connotation of somewhat-incoherent language, it is by no means an insult. However, accusing someone of intentional misrepresentation of the truth is an insult. Also, while Randi's comment had some basis in truth (your initial email could be called "raving" by some extreme definitions), yours has no basis in fact (regardless of what the truth is, Harter was reporting the truth as he saw it, and this is not lying). So, in conclusion, you were the first one to cast insults.

And lastly, your comment about movies. While I would agree that observing things can be important, it is by no means a valid challange for the JREF prize. In order to win the JREF prize, one must be able to do something supernatural or pseudoscientific, or at least be able to produce some functioning supernatural or pseudoscientific product. Merely making an observation is neither of these things.

I hope these explanations help you understand your mistake. I have found you to be a relatively reasonable person, and am willing to believe that you have merely made a few gross misinterpretations. Perhaps, with our help, we will be able to correct this misinterpretations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rwald:

Thanks for your defense of my expultion of the chat.

You will tell why I called Harter a liar after Patricio Eliecer or anybody in the forum translate my notharized aplication to the challenge ( is better). http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=2

About the video, is not my fault that Harter used an internet video.I told them (JREF) to go to the nearest tv station , but they prefered that poor method of looking it at internet.
Remember I went to a tv station and with their own tape (3/4 and betacam) and equipments they all also saw the paranormal event.

About the insults , read again and check this: who insulted first?:
Randi:" what in hell are you raving about..." or
Swett:" Harter you are a liar"

Patricio , please post the dates when all the emails were send.


I agree with you ,Rwald, observing things can be important .
Gravity always has been on earth, until Newton observed it...........should we give the honors to the apple?

I found you a complete reasonable person ( not relatively) and I hope this explanation help you understand my position.
Thanks for the help.

S&S

[Patricio Elicer]

Carlos,

I don't have time right now to translate your notarized application. I will read it tomorrow, and if I find something new or revealing on it I will translate it.

Now, to clear things up, I'd like to ask you a few questions, and please respond them one by one in the most precise way.

1) Which one of the following images correspond to the ones you sent to Randi on your video:
a) This one (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=11)
b) This one (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC2.html) (click on "video" to see it)
c) None of the above

2) What paranormal activity do you think took place in the WTC tower during the attacks?

3) Why do you think that a videotape showing something apparently inexplicable is proof of a paranormal activity?

4) Why do you think that your claim qualifies for the "million dollars"?

5) If something paranormal actually happened there, then how to explain that nobody of the thousands of people looking at the towers during the attacks reported anything abnormal?

Thanks

[rwald]

I think I've found the root of the confusion. Here is a quote from the page introducing the JREF challange, http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

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


Corrected some mistakes in vB Code.

I have been debating Mr. Swett and is_james_randi_a_liar on this subject at the Skeptics Forum for close to two months now. I would just like to wish you all good luck, for Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments, a person who has referred to everyone that doesn't agree with him "unreasonable". There isn't much that I can add to this exchange that hasn't already been said, but I would like to say that when Mr. Swett says "do not come with juvenile expressions" what he is referring to is:

Why did no one on the ground see a gray object hundreds of feet in length? Specifically, the people facing the apparent flight path, and the people on the opposite side of the building, where you claim it origionates?

When I asked these questions of Swett, he told me to answer them myself.

Originally posted by Smiley01
I have been debating Mr. Swett and is_james_randi_a_liar on this subject at the Skeptics Forum for close to two months now. I would just like to wish you all good luck, for Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments, a person who has referred to everyone that doesn't agree with him "unreasonable". There isn't much that I can add to this exchange that hasn't already been said, but I would like to say that when Mr. Swett says "do not come with juvenile expressions" what he is referring to is:

Why did no one on the ground see a gray object hundreds of feet in length? Specifically, the people facing the apparent flight path, and the people on the opposite side of the building, where you claim it origionates?

When I asked these questions of Swett, he told me to answer them myself.

--------------------------------------------
Hi Smiley:
I never said "juvenile questions", I said "juvenile expressions"
lyke the ones quoted by: Sauron. Abercrombie,Jimmygun,Uther, The Fool,and similars.
You were not at this Forum before , so I never mentioned you. Control your paranoia.
Your questions are so easy to answer in my position: BECAUSE IS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. as I said in my notharized application.
Do you have another question?

But first , the first: Patricio Elicer needs time to translate (no missing a word) my notarized application to the challenge. When he finish , he can also will answer the questions he is asking to me. Let¨s give him time.

I agree with you ,Rwald, observing things can be important .
Gravity always has been on earth, until Newton observed it...........should we give the honors to the apple?

Originally posted by Rwald:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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

No comments,
Thanks,
S&S

I never said "juvenile questions", I said "juvenile expressions"
lyke the ones quoted by: Sauron. Abercrombie,Jimmygun,Uther, The Fool,and similars.
You were not at this Forum before , so I never mentioned you. Control your paranoia.
Your questions are so easy to answer in my position: BECAUSE IS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. as I said in my notharized application.
Do you have another question?

You're begging the question, Swett. Your line of reasoning boils down to "The object couldn't be seen because it's paranormal". You are assuming that it's paranormal. You haven't proven that it is.

Do I have another question? Yes, I do. How do you know what properties the object has when you can't even identify it? Here's another question: How would you know what properties a paranormal object of any type would have when this is apparently the first you've ever seen?

Originally posted by Smiley01


You're begging the question, Swett. Your line of reasoning boils down to "The object couldn't be seen because it's paranormal". You are assuming that it's paranormal. You haven't proven that it is.

Do I have another question? Yes, I do. How do you know what properties the object has when you can't even identify it? Here's another question: How would you know what properties a paranormal object of any type would have when this is apparently the first you've ever seen?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not assuming, I said it is paranormal and the reasons are in my notharized aplication to the challenge that will help you answer all your questions.

But first , the first: Patricio Elicer needs time to translate (no missing a word) my notarized application to the challenge. When he finish , he can also will answer the questions he is asking to me. Let¨s give him time.

Thanks.
S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

S&S,

I want to point out that in your notarized form in Spanish, in the last sentence before you make your "Conclusion," you clearly state that if JREF can demonstrate that this event is a natural event, you would accept this, as you are grateful that such an organization like this exists, where their primary objective is to seek out the truth.

And your response from Andrew:

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

clearly demonstrates to you that it is not a paranormal event.

What will it take to convince you that this is not a paranormal event?

I can tell you what it would take to convince us that it IS a paranormal event, but I doubt you are willing or able to produce such evidence.

Let it go.

S&S,

I want to point out that in your notarized form in Spanish, in the last sentence before you make your "Conclusion," you clearly state that if JREF can demonstrate that this event is a natural event, you would accept this, as you are grateful that such an organization like this exists, where their primary objective is to seek out the truth.

And your response from Andrew:



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



clearly demonstrates to you that it is not a paranormal event.

What will it take to convince you that this is not a paranormal event?

I can tell you what it would take to convince us that it IS a paranormal event, but I doubt you are willing or able to produce such evidence.

Let it go.


__________________
\/\/ALTER

Juggler-Artist-Atheist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Walter:

So you also Knows spanish?
Why you didn´t translate the all notharized application, just only the segment before my "Conclusión"?
Please, try to translate it ALL, this will be appreciate by the members of the forum.

Harter clearly demonstrates that is not a paranormal event?
Clearly?
Looking an internet video?
To whom and where Harter pointed out what was taking place?Did he go to the tv stations?
Did I make two assumptions?
A bird could (?) certainly be the culprit?
Why not an insect?
Why not superman?
Are you a true beleiver of Harter?

Please translate all the notharized application.
Thanks,
S&S

I am not assuming, I said it is paranormal and the reasons are in my notharized aplication to the challenge that will help you answer all your questions.

Yes you are. You have yet to prove that anything occured that isn't explainable by natural causes. The object is more consistent with a bird flying within the camera's focal length than a paranormal object hundreds of feet in length. And again, how do you know what properties the object has when you can't (or won't) identify it?

Originally posted by S&S


--------------------------------------------
BECAUSE IS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.
S&S

watch out for the Caps Lock-addicts!

Another Paul Bethke/Bigfig/Aforce1 has arrived...

The JREF Loonies List(tm) is getting long

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Smiley01
Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments, a person who has referred to everyone that doesn't agree with him "unreasonable". Hello Smiley, and welcome to the JREF boards!

I'm beginning to suspect that Swett came here with that same "strategy". Myself and other posters have asked him several clear questions about his claim, but haven't heard any answer from him so far. Well, perhaps he needs some more time.

BTW, I've read part of your long exchange with Swett and IJRAL on Skeptic Forums, and I find your viewpoints pretty reasonable. Good work!

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Hello Smiley, and welcome to the JREF boards!

I'm beginning to suspect that Swett came here with that same "strategy". Myself and other posters have asked him several clear questions about his claim, but haven't heard any answer from him so far. Well, perhaps he needs some more time.

BTW, I've read part of your long exchange with Swett and IJRAL on Skeptic Forums, and I find your viewpoints pretty reasonable. Good work!

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

Hi Patricio:

I said : first the first: translate my notharized application( is only one page and is not too long) How many days you need?

Is the only thing I am asking in this forum but you all want me to answer a lot of questions.You are loosing time reading long exchange, concentrate in traslating the notharized application(without missing a word),I remember that you are the one who opened this discussion and appears lyke the oficial translator of this forum.

Do you think that´s an "strategy" or a rational way to beging a discussion of an oficial challenge with a real notharized application.?

I can do the traslation , but I am giving you or others the chance to do it, so there can be no chance of doubts that is true what I am telling there.

First the first ............or you better try to insult me first.

Thanks,
S&S

[Patricio Elicer]

Well, I have translated the notarized application for the million dollars sent by Carlos Swett to the JREF.

I hope that this will help to clear things up, and also will help Carlos answer the questions he's been asked.

Note: 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
Phones 2391025 – 099353611
Guayaquil, Ecuador


[edited to fix minor details]

Swett's notarized application
Well, I have translated the notarized application for the million dollars sent by Carlos Swett to the JREF.

I hope that this will help to clear things up, and also will help Carlos answer the questions he's been asked.

Note: 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
Phones 2391025 – 099353611
Guayaquil, Ecuador



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Patricio for your effort; is more or less OK
I hope you put also The aditional information (letter to Mr. James Randi)that I send him in my poor english.

Now you can compare with Mr. Harter¨s answer to it if he is lying
or not.
If Harter used a correct a method to analyze the image.
If I made two assumptions.
If I did tell them why it can not be a bird or an insect
If tha internet tape shows you all the sequence of what I am demostrating
If the paranormal activity is in trough the smoke
If The P.A. gets into the hole of the first or north tower
If I did not go to the tv stations
If I do not support Randi´s work
If I am Talking about UFOS
Etc.,Etc.

I give you all the time to answer this facts.

Thanks again,
S&S

Hello all. Long time reader/infrequent poster here. I just had to chime in on this ‘cause I had nothing better to do and it is so Agur-like that I could not resist.

So, Swett, this thing is paranormal because you say it is paranormal? And for doing nothing more than noticing this "PARANORMAL ACTIVITY” you deserve the million bucks?

As others have pointed out this does not qualify for the Challenge. However, even if it did the onus would be on you to prove this event was paranormal, something you clearly have not done. Besides, as also pointed out, Andrew Halter did provide an explanation “that it is a normal and natural occurrence.” That you don't like his explanation is your problem, but it certainly seems that neither Randi nor Halter lied to you.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by S&S
Thanks Patricio for your effort; is more or less OK
I hope you put also The aditional information (letter to Mr. James Randi)that I send him in my poor english.

Now you can compare with Mr. Harter¨s answer to it if he is lying
or not.
If Harter used a correct a method to analyze the image.
If I made two assumptions.
If I did tell them why it can not be a bird or an insect
If tha internet tape shows you all the sequence of what I am demostrating
If the paranormal activity is in trough the smoke
If The P.A. gets into the hole of the first or north tower
If I did not go to the tv stations
If I do not support Randi´s work
If I am Talking about UFOS
Etc.,Etc.

I give you all the time to answer this facts.

Thanks again,
S&S
As I understand how the $1,000,000 challenge works (and I believe this is clearly spelled out in JREF materials), there are several steps to the process.

First the applicant must make a clear claim about what they think it is they can do or demonstrate. In this case, the claim appears to be that a paranormal object appeared in NYC on September 11.

The second step is that the applicant and JREF meet and agree on an objective test that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really do or show what they claim. The test must be mutually agreeable before things proceed.

If a test can be agreed to for determining that the claim is valid, then the test is carried out. If the test shows that the claim is valid, the person is entitled to the $1,000,000.

If that is indeed the process, then it seems clear that Carlos Swett is not entitled to $1,000,000 yet. Assuming that the application claim is clear enough, then the first step would be complete and it would be time to move to step 2.

The key question now, it would seem to me, is: what test do you (Carlos) suggest that would demonstrate to a reasonable person that the object you have seen is paranormal?

Please keep in mind that it is your burden to find a way prove that the object is paranormal, not Randi's to prove that the object is not paranormal. This is known as the burden of proof.

Just as, in a court of law in this country, the state has the burden of proof to show that a person has committed a claimed action (rather than the person having to prove they did not the action), so here you must show that a paranormal event took place, not demand that someone else prove it did not take place.

So it is not enough to say, Harter and Randi can't prove it was a natural object rather than a paranormal one so give me the money. What you need to do is come up with a way of demonstrating that the object in the video cannot be a natural object or a photographic flaw and can only be a paranormal object. Can you suggest a way to demonstrate this?

[thatguywhojuggles]

Hi Walter:

So you also Knows spanish?
Why you didn´t translate the all notharized application, just only the segment before my "Conclusión"?
Please, try to translate it ALL, this will be appreciate by the members of the forum.



I didn't want to translate because it would be pointless. YOU HAVE NO CLAIM! But you got lucky. It seems someone out of the kindness of their heart translated it for you.



Harter clearly demonstrates that is not a paranormal event?
Clearly?
Looking an internet video?
To whom and where Harter pointed out what was taking place?Did he go to the tv stations?
Did I make two assumptions?
A bird could (?) certainly be the culprit?
Why not an insect?
Why not superman?
Are you a true beleiver of Harter?
S&S

You asked for assistance in examining this video from an organization you apparently had a lot of respect for. You clearly state that you trust their judgement. Do you deny this?

Harter DID examine the video and offer you an explanation. This is what you asked him to do. You said you would trust his conclusions. You did not.

There must have been dozens of cameras on that same scene from multiple angles. Can you provide another shot from another angle that shows the same "paranormal" event?

BTW, this is cute:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=7

You are clearly obsessed. Obsession does not always help with rational thinking. Calm down. And go looking for those other video angles that show the same "paranormal" event.

[Reb]

I still think this "object" resembles the rods that the loonies at Roswell Rods keep obsessing about. Compare the image in the original movie that was posted:
"Evidence" (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=11)

with this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/tempe.jpg
or this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/rrods.jpg
or this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/Rod.MPG

Haven't these been debunked time and time again? Anyone have any links?

Reb

[Reb]

Here are a couple links I found in one of the Swift articles:

http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/
and
http://www.opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm

Comments? More links?

Reb

[Reb]

bump

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Reb
I still think this "object" resembles the rods that the loonies at Roswell Rods keep obsessing about. Compare the image in the original movie that was posted:
"Evidence" (http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=11)

with this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/tempe.jpg
or this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/rrods.jpg
or this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/Rod.MPG

Haven't these been debunked time and time again? Anyone have any links?

Reb The object in the first link, if not an ordinary cloud, strongly resembles the "paranormal activity" claimed by Swett.

This is the first time I read about the "rod phenomenon". From roswellrods.com, I got this definition: "Rods are cylindrical shaped objects that appear over cities and oceans at such high velocities that they can barely be seen with the naked eye

If they have already been studied and debunked, I 'd like to know about it. It can be the explanation Swett is looking for.

[Wyrd1]

Patricio, video number two is so obviously a bird I don't see how anyone could mistake it for anything else. Sure it seems like it's moving very fast but as others have pointed out if it's in the foreground closer to the camera it's going to seem much faster than stuff in the background. The still pictures make it seem like something else but in the video you can see it flapping it's wings. The first image appears to me to be the same thing although the bird is so far out of focus it's probably very close to the camera. Thanks for posting these links.

[Wyrd1]

BTW I want to establish that while my name appears on the .gif from the Skeptics forum I posted it to get a reference point from Mr Swett so I could check my video tape from 9/11. Even though I posted the pic I don't agree with Mr Swett about it being paranormal.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos has not written in a while. I hope this means he came to his senses, and has realized that it was nothing paranormal.

Its okay, Carlos, we all make mistakes. Doesn't mean you can't join us in exposing people who are right out frauds.

Cheers,

Originally posted by S&S
Swett's notarized application
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
Phones 2391025 – 099353611
Guayaquil, Ecuador


S&S

So where is the hole in the ground AWAY from the towers.?
The "object" clearly passes thru the tower so fast it can stop and as you say would hit the ground (I dont see any secondary impact). And it clearly wouldnt strike the ground in the WTC area.
It must be another area of devastation some blocks away from ground zero

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Wyrd1
Patricio, video number two is so obviously a bird I don't see how anyone could mistake it for anything else.Hello Wyrd1, and welcome to the boards.

As I said before, what puzzles me is that Swett speaks about a hat-shaped object, and Andrew Harter said it's likely a bird. I fail to see a bird in the first video, that's why I think they are speaking of different images.

But what puzzles me even more is the fact that Swett has not cared to answer the simple question of which one is the video he refers to.

Swett's notarized application translated by Patricio Elicer

Notarized Application( received at Jref by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002)

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
Phones 2391025 – 099353611
Guayaquil, Ecuador


[edited to fix minor details]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Andrew Harter`s answer to Carlos Swett`s notarized application to the challenge ( April 15, 2002)

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

Randi replied, (April 16 , 2002)
quote:

Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious.

Your application is closed.

James Randi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
-P.S. to Walter the juggler :

According to the Bible
even God rest one day.
I guess you and I can do the same.
Thanks for missing me at the forum
only one day ( Sunday)

S&S

Originally posted by Nova Land

As I understand how the $1,000,000 challenge works (and I believe this is clearly spelled out in JREF materials), there are several steps to the process.

First the applicant must make a clear claim about what they think it is they can do or demonstrate. In this case, the claim appears to be that a paranormal object appeared in NYC on September 11.

The second step is that the applicant and JREF meet and agree on an objective test that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really do or show what they claim. The test must be mutually agreeable before things proceed.

If a test can be agreed to for determining that the claim is valid, then the test is carried out. If the test shows that the claim is valid, the person is entitled to the $1,000,000.

If that is indeed the process, then it seems clear that Carlos Swett is not entitled to $1,000,000 yet. Assuming that the application claim is clear enough, then the first step would be complete and it would be time to move to step 2.

The key question now, it would seem to me, is: what test do you (Carlos) suggest that would demonstrate to a reasonable person that the object you have seen is paranormal?

Please keep in mind that it is your burden to find a way prove that the object is paranormal, not Randi's to prove that the object is not paranormal. This is known as the burden of proof.

Just as, in a court of law in this country, the state has the burden of proof to show that a person has committed a claimed action (rather than the person having to prove they did not the action), so here you must show that a paranormal event took place, not demand that someone else prove it did not take place.

So it is not enough to say, Harter and Randi can't prove it was a natural object rather than a paranormal one so give me the money. What you need to do is come up with a way of demonstrating that the object in the video cannot be a natural object or a photographic flaw and can only be a paranormal object. Can you suggest a way to demonstrate this?

[Nova Land]

Hi! I'm delighted to have my post re-posted, but unclear why since you didn't add any comment. My guess is that, by posting this in conjunction with your previous post, you are saying that if this is indeed the process you have made a claim and are ready to move on to agreeing on a test.

If so, let me just repeat part of my post, edited slightly for clarity and emphasis. (Yay! It gets printed 3 times!)

Please keep in mind that it is your burden to find a way prove that the object is paranormal, not Randi's to prove that the object is not paranormal.

So it is not enough to say, Harter and Randi can't prove it was a natural object rather than a paranormal one so give me the money. What you need to do is come up with a way of demonstrating that the object in the video cannot be a natural object or a photographic flaw and can only be a paranormal object. Can you suggest a way to demonstrate this?
I look forward to reading your suggestions for such tests.

[rwald]

Swett,

Remember, we all can read the forum. There is no need for you to quote what someone else has said without adding any other comment. Also, even if you have something to add, there's no need to quote the entire original posting. All you need to do is say who you are replying to; we'll figure out what you are replying to.

This post is an example. I am replying to you, so I started out this post with your name. However, I did not actually include anything that you wrote. If people want to know what you wrote, they can scroll up and see.

This is just a suggestion; I know that you may not be as familiar with web boards as others of us, and I am just trying to help you.

I made a mistake with my keyboard, I am answering now your good point, sorry for the re, re ,re. Thanks Rwald.


Originally posted by Nova Land

As I understand how the $1,000,000 challenge works (and I believe this is clearly spelled out in JREF materials), there are several steps to the process.

First the applicant must make a clear claim about what they think it is they can do or demonstrate. In this case, the claim appears to be that a paranormal object appeared in NYC on September 11.

The second step is that the applicant and JREF meet and agree on an objective test that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really do or show what they claim. The test must be mutually agreeable before things proceed.

If a test can be agreed to for determining that the claim is valid, then the test is carried out. If the test shows that the claim is valid, the person is entitled to the $1,000,000.

If that is indeed the process, then it seems clear that Carlos Swett is not entitled to $1,000,000 yet. Assuming that the application claim is clear enough, then the first step would be complete and it would be time to move to step 2.

The key question now, it would seem to me, is: what test do you (Carlos) suggest that would demonstrate to a reasonable person that the object you have seen is paranormal?

Please keep in mind that it is your burden to find a way prove that the object is paranormal, not Randi's to prove that the object is not paranormal. This is known as the burden of proof.

Just as, in a court of law in this country, the state has the burden of proof to show that a person has committed a claimed action (rather than the person having to prove they did not the action), so here you must show that a paranormal event took place, not demand that someone else prove it did not take place.

So it is not enough to say, Harter and Randi can't prove it was a natural object rather than a paranormal one so give me the money. What you need to do is come up with a way of demonstrating that the object in the video cannot be a natural object or a photographic flaw and can only be a paranormal object. Can you suggest a way to demonstrate this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Nova Land: Are you studying to be a lawyer ? You can be a good one.

I replied (before the Re, Re, Re,by mistake of your reply) this :

A) the translated notarized application to the challenge, that becomes "the first step". Is a clear claim of what I can demostrate.
It was received at the JREF by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002 also with a VHS tape (as a referential guide) and a letter to Mr. James Randi. There is nothing misterious on this "first step " as you agreed.

B) The answer of Andrew Harter to my notarized application to the challenge. At this point I want to remind everybody at this forum that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid. Mr. Harter said :..."I´ve gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that¨s available on the Internet.", etc, etc." You have no claim.there is nothing supernatural taking place". April 15, 2002.

C) The answer of Mr. James Randi ( April 16, 2002) "Andrew made the right decision with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed"

Now I respond you for the "SECOND STEP" :

"The applicant and JREF meet and agree on an OBJECTIVE TEST that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really SHOW what they CLAIM"

THE CLAIM:is in the translated notharized application, the VHS tape (referential guide) contains the complete image of a particular shot :before, when and after the second plane crashed to the second tower of the WTC that tragic day. The tape contains the same shot but broadcast by different tv networks( Spain, Chile, USA, Ecuador, etc. with their logos on it). The tape also contains an interview Telesistema (Ecuador) made me in their own room of files and equipmets , where the tv tecnicians and operators are checking with me the own Telesistema tape also broadcast to the public that fatidic day.

THE OBJECTIVE TEST : The study frame by frame of the complete image (the applicant is claiming) of the particular shot broadcast and transmitted by almost all the tv networks of the world. I
f it was a tv broadcast to millions of persons in the world , the tape is available in almost all tv stations of the world.

THE METHOD USED BY HARTER: The study frame by frame through a copy of the video available on internet.
An incomplete low resolution video, An unknown video, a poor method . Why he didn´t go to the nearest TV station ( I recommended James Randi to go to Telemundo in Florida) and check up with my referential tape their own broadcast tape?

THE METHOD USED BY SWETT: I went to the different local channels and over there,with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes of the complete image , on a big screen television, a really very slow frame by frame with profetional tv equipments , verify what I am claiming. Another thing was the fear and the prohibitions the channels had to transmmit that "curious notice" to air. Remember only Telesistema did it , the same week of the tragic succes.

Now Nova Land and members of the forum, try to focus on those points and give your comments about it, so I can go to another point.

To Patricio: If you are not sure of what video is from the internet, I tell you this :

Is the one that corresponde to the picture IJRAL posted on the "Skeptic Forum" a picture I guess you already put here.
But remember is not the complete sequence, is low resoluted,small, and we don´t know if it had been modify while the digitalization.

S&S

THE OBJECTIVE TEST : The study frame by frame of the complete image (the applicant is claiming) of the particular shot broadcast and transmitted by almost all the tv networks of the world. I
f it was a tv broadcast to millions of persons in the world , the tape is available in almost all tv stations of the world.

THE METHOD USED BY HARTER: The study frame by frame through a copy of the video available on internet.
An incomplete low resolution video, An unknown video, a poor method . Why he didn´t go to the nearest TV station ( I recommended James Randi to go to Telemundo in Florida) and check up with my referential tape their own broadcast tape?


How many times have Wyrd and Iggy explained to you that in this country, you just don't walk into a major news provider and demand to see their archives? It doesn't work that way. And the objective test referred to in the ground rules means a double blind, scientific test. There is no way to test this scientifically.

Originally posted by Smiley01


How many times have Wyrd and Iggy explained to you that in this country, you just don't walk into a major news provider and demand to see their archives? It doesn't work that way. And the objective test referred to in the ground rules means a double blind, scientific test. There is no way to test this scientifically.

So, the scientific test is studying frame by frame on an poor, low resolution,and uncomplete internet video.
Poor method.

Thanks,

S&S

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S&S
[B]

So, the scientific test is studying frame by frame on an poor, low resolution,and uncomplete internet video.
Poor method.

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

Like Andrew Harter (JREF researcher) did it.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Swett, while I would agree that your method is closer to "proper observing conditions" than Harter's, who's to say that either are good enough? With only one camera, which isn't even trying to look for the paranormal activity, this certainly doesn't count at "proper observing conditions." As a matter of fact, the only way to have "proper observing conditions" would be to agree in advance as to what "proper observing conditions" are! Since Randi and Harter never agreed in advance that your one camera constituted "proper observing conditions," you have no reason to assume that they think you have "proper observing conditions." (And don't tell me that this is just my theory, and that Randi and Harter don't believe this. You're not one to talk about believing only things which are absolutly proven.)

Also, are you saying that the observers on the ground didn't see it because it was a paranormal event? That's like saying, "I can turn invisible, but only when people aren't looking." While it might be true, it demands that you have even greater physical evidence (more than one video tape!).

And, for the last time, the words written at http://www.randi.org/research/index.html notwithstanding, you must personally be able to do something to win the JREF prize. Observation may be good enough for science in general, but the JREF prize is not science in general. It's Randi's money, and he's free to put whatever restrictions on it he wants. He's restricted it to people who can cause paranormal events to happen at will. Since you do not claim this you do not qualify for the JREF prize!

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by S&S
At this point I want to remind everybody at this forum that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid. Mr. Harter said :..."I´ve gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that¨s available on the Internet.", etc, etc." You have no claim.there is nothing supernatural taking place". April 15, 2002.Carlos, read more carefully what Andrew said: "you have no claim, there's nothing supernatural taking place". This is clearly tantamount to say that your application is not valid.

You have to understand that in order to apply to the challenge, you must be able to DO something that qualifies as supernatural.

[Nova Land]

Rwald's post seems pretty clear: simply observing something that might be paranormal is not enough to apply for the prize; you have to be able to do something yourself which is paranormal.

But I think that Carlos Swett may find that an unsatisfying way to end this, and may want to talk more, so I'm going to post this, which I began writing before reading Rwald's post, as my attempt to better understand his claim and to help him understand why he failed to win the prize.

Carlos: I'm going to try to paraphrase some of what you've written to make it a little easier to read and understand. I hope this is all right with you. If I have done this poorly and altered your meaning please accept my apologies; I am trying to be helpful. (Anyone quoting this page should keep in mind these are my paraphrases of Mr. Swett's wording, not his actual words; if something is incorrect in them, it's my fault, not his.)

You start by saying that the claim is in your application.
The translated notarized application to the challenge... is a clear claim of what I can demonstrate.
Reading from the translation, a few posts back, it looks to me like these are the 2 sentences that make the actual claim: 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... It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud.
So it sounds to me as if your claim is that something hat-shaped appears in a video of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center Tower.

Is that a correct reading of what you are claiming?

If it is not, please write down clearly, in one or two short sentences, what it is of a paranormal nature that you are claiming. Get a friend who speaks English well to help you in writing this as simply and clearly as possible.

Next you give a short account of what happened when you made the application.
[The application] was received at the JREF... on April 4 2002 along with a VHS tape [to support the claim] and a letter to James Randi... Andrew Harter [replied to] my notarized application [on April 15, 2002].. At this point I want to remind everybody at this forum that Mr. Harter never said that my application is not valid. What he said was: "I´ve gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that¨s available on the Internet... You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place." [On April 16, 2002] James Randi [also replied to me, saying]: "Andrew made the right decision with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed."
So it sounds as if you sent in the application along with a video of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center, and Andrew Harter and James Randi replied that they did not see anything mysterious or paranormal in your claim.
Now I [am ready to go on to] the second step: "The applicant and JREF meet and agree on an objective test that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really show what they claim." The claim [is given in the application] [and is supported by the VHS tape] [which shows the complete video-taped sequence] before, during, and after the plane crashed into the second tower on that tragic day.

The tape contains the same shot, but broadcast by different tv networks... The tape also contains an interview [with me] by Telesistema, [the Ecuadoran tv station], [where the tv technicians checked the tape I made] [and compared it with their own tape they had made of the broadcast].

The objective test [which I propose is to] study frame by frame the complete image [of the hat-shaped object which appears as it appears in the particular shot broadcast and transmitted by almost all the tv networks of the world...
This would establish whether or not a hat-shaped object appeared in the video or not. It would not, however, establish whether the hat-shaped object was in some way paranormal or not.

The method used by Harter [was to] study frame by frame a copy of the video available on internet. [This is] an unknown video, [incomplete, and with low resolution]. Why didn´t he go to the nearest TV station? (I recommended to James Randi that he go to Telemundo in Florida and [compare the tape I sent with] their own broadcast tape.)
I can guess the answer to that. Harter and Randi do not have unlimited time. If they had to go traveling around on a variety of errands like this for every application received, they would have no time to do anything else. This, as I understand it, is why it is important for people making applications to state their claims simply and clearly, and to provide whatever materials will be needed for Harter and Randi to understand exactly what the claim is.

It may have been a mistake for Harter to have studied a video on the internet. I don't know. But whether it was a mistake or not is not really very important. I assume all he was trying to do at that point was understand what your claim was and see whether it could be tested.

What might be helpful to you in understanding the testing process would be to read some of the accounts of testing JREF has done of other applicants, such as the ones detailed in Randi's weekly commentaries. I would suggest finding someone who reads English well and going over some of these accounts together. This might clear up a lot of the misunderstandings about what has happened.

The method used by Swett: I went to the different local channels over here and [viewed their own] 3/4 or betacam tapes of the complete image, on a big screen television, at a very slow frame by frame [rate], [using] professional tv equipment, to verify [that a hat-shaped object appears in the video]...
What you did would show that a hat-shaped object appears in the video. If a hat-shaped object appears, the question arises, "What is it?" What you would need to do next is show that the only possible explanation is a paranormal one.

That is hard, since as far as I can tell you don't have any idea what the hat-shaped object is. It could be a bird, or insect, or flaw in the film, or trick of light, or many other ordinary things. You need to show convincing proof that it could not be any of these things. That's difficult, especially if you don't know what it actually is.

I think that is likely why Randi and Harter dismissed your claim; they could not see any simple way to test the claim. If you claimed to have some paranormal power yourself -- the ability to fly, or to read minds, or to levitate objects, or to make hat-shaped objects appear on film -- that could be tested.

But what you have is a video-tape of an event you did not see in person, and there is something appearing in the video which that you can't identify. What is unusual about this? I have many photographs with odd streaks and blotches on them, for a wide variety of different reasons. I can't explain why my cat looks lighter in some pictures than he did in real life, but that doesn't mean there is anything paranormal going on in those pictures.
To Patricio: If you are not sure what the video from the internet is, I will tell you this. it [looks like] the picture that IJRAL posted on the "Skeptic Forum." But remember that this is not the complete sequence, that it is small and low resolution, and that we don´t know if it was modified when it was digitized.

Now Nova Land and members of the forum, try to focus on these points and give your comments about them, so I can go on to other points.
As you asked, I have focused on your points and tried to share with you my thoughts on them. I hope this helps you to understand better how others see your claim so you can move on to other matters.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&S
-P.S. to Walter the juggler :

According to the Bible
even God rest one day.
I guess you and I can do the same.
Thanks for missing me at the forum
only one day ( Sunday)

S&S

I try not to read the Bible... Its too confusing.

Now, would you like to answer my question? I asked you if you could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle. There were probably dozens of people filming that general area when it happend. If something that large flew through the skys, OTHER cameras would have caught it too. Please provide another video source. If you start avoiding questions, CFLarsen is going to put you on his list!

[Dr. Imago]

Mr. Swett:

Thank you for coming here and sharing your passion for what you believe to be the truth. But, I think you will have to receoncile within yourself with the fact that, as has been pointed out by many posters, you simply do not have a claim that satisfies the challenge. Additionally, you may be at the point where you are deceived by your own beliefs. I'm not sure how we get that point across to you, or if we even can. But, if you continue to bother Mr. Randi about this matter you will be teetering dangerously on the fine line between annoyance and harrassment.

Furthermore, you said twice in your posts that "Gravity always has been on earth, until Newton observed it...........should we give the honors to the apple?" as a valid line of reasoning as to why you should be entitled to this prize. What you fail to perhaps fully realize in making this sophistic comparison is that gravity can be tested, measured, and proved, over and over again, by demonstrating through repeatable experiments, that it exists. Your tape, which is a property you do not own, you did not film yourself, and have no personal rights to in the first place (i.e. it is public domain, if it is not already owned by a particular person or news agency at this point), cannot in anyway be submitted to the same level of scrutiny and reproducibility on its individual merits. Likewise, I'm certain that various other news agencies and multiple tapes of this event fail to show a similar view (or even close approximation) of this "object" that appears on this particular version at the same time that the tapes you offer were recorded. On a personal note, I watched live and non-stop as the towers burned during the period of time the tapes you offer would have been recorded (i.e., from the time after the first plane hit until both towers fell). I never saw such an object. I have a complete confidence that the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of other video cameras that were tuned to buildings and recording those events, during that exact same time frame you purport this mysterious, paranormal object flew through the building, would fail to corroborate your assertions.

Lastly, I looked at the pictures on the MSN website. You appear to be quite a talented artist. However, I think that your caricature of James Randi is in poor taste, makes you appear childish and petulant, and does not help your cause. I hope you will consider removing it.

You have not provided any evidence of anything paranormal, despite what you may believe with all your heart - your video is insufficient in that it is not reproducible and is not corroborated by the multiple, separate other video-recorded footage available of this event. Furthermore, there are simpler and much more plausible explanations for what appears on these two tapes, which are consistent with the law of parsimony and principles of Occam's razor and are therefore, by default, automatically more valid than yours.

I hope you will someday be able to rationally understand this and move on to more important things in your life. Likewise, I'm sorry that this was not more cordially explained to you during your initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Very well stated Third Twin. Mr. Swett, I eagerly look forward to your reply to Third Twin's eloquently stated message, and my question to you about your producing a alternate video recording from a different angle.

I hope you are ready to let your claim go to rest and move on.

Cheers,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles

Carlos has not written in a while. I hope this means he came to his senses, and has realized that it was nothing paranormal.

Its okay, Carlos, we all make mistakes. Doesn't mean you can't join us in exposing people who are right out frauds.

Cheers,


__________________
\/\/ALTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Swett (S&S)

P.S. to Walter the juggler :

According to the Bible
even God rest one day.
I guess you and I can do the same.
Thanks for missing me at the forum
only one day ( Sunday)

S&S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


I try not to read the Bible... Its too confusing.

Now, would you like to answer my question? I asked you if you could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle. There were probably dozens of people filming that general area when it happend. If something that large flew through the skys, OTHER cameras would have caught it too. Please provide another video source. If you start avoiding questions, CFLarsen is going to put you on his list! [/QUOTE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To confused thatgaywhojuggles:

Try not to read " El Quijote de la Mancha".....is more confusing and long. I have a long list of confusing books for you.

About your smart question about if I could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle, I remember you the last time ( I hope I don't confuse you) that I didn't produce the first video of my notarized application to the challenge, I just made the observation of the paranormal event.

Remember what I told you about gravity, Newton and the apple.
Ask the apple about Newton and gravity.

I will not sleep tonight afraid that CFLarsen put me in his list, as the same I am waiting to Mr. James Randi or Harter write in their page about my notarized application to the challenge.

Thank's for your advice.
S&S
P.S. sorry for my English

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles

Carlos has not written in a while. I hope this means he came to his senses, and has realized that it was nothing paranormal.

Its okay, Carlos, we all make mistakes. Doesn't mean you can't join us in exposing people who are right out frauds.

Cheers,


__________________
\/\/ALTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Swett (S&S)

P.S. to Walter the juggler :

According to the Bible
even God rest one day.
I guess you and I can do the same.
Thanks for missing me at the forum
only one day ( Sunday)

S&S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


I try not to read the Bible... Its too confusing.

Now, would you like to answer my question? I asked you if you could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle. There were probably dozens of people filming that general area when it happend. If something that large flew through the skys, OTHER cameras would have caught it too. Please provide another video source. If you start avoiding questions, CFLarsen is going to put you on his list! [/QUOTE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To confused thatgaywhojuggles:

Try not to read " El Quijote de la Mancha".....is more confusing and long. I have a long list of confusing books for you.

About your smart question about if I could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle, I remember you the last time ( I hope I don't confuse you) that I didn't produce the first video of my notarized application to the challenge, I just made the observation of the paranormal event.

Remember what I told you about gravity, Newton and the apple.
Ask the apple about Newton and gravity.

I will not sleep tonight afraid that CFLarsen put me in his list, as the same I am waiting to Mr. James Randi or Harter write in their page about my notarized application to the challenge.

Thank's for your advice.
S&S

P.S. sorry for my English

[rwald]

For the nth time, merely making an observation is not enough for the JREF prize! It doesn't matter what Newton did. Did Newton apply for the JREF prize? If he did, Randi would have turned him down. No matter what types of observations you make, or what theories you derive from them, you do not qualify for the JREF prize unless you personally can do something paranormal!

Because you still don't understand this, I will continue to post this exact post in reply to each one of yours, until you realize that the mere act of obervation is not enough for the JREF prize!

[thatguywhojuggles]

About your smart question about if I could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle, I remember you the last time ( I hope I don't confuse you) that I didn't produce the first video of my notarized application to the challenge, I just made the observation of the paranormal event.



I understand that the video that you are presenting as evidence is NOT one that you filmed. I understand that you recieved this video from a television station. The point I was trying to make is this: If you can show us ANOTHER tape taken from ANOTHER angle that shows the SAME paranormal event THEN we might have something to discuss.


Here, I will try to simplify this for you: Look at the image below. X represents the camera angle you are using as YOUR evidence of a paranormal event.

Now you and I both know that there were probably hundreds of other video cameras video taping the same event. We will call three of those video cameras A, B, and C. As you can see by the diagram, each of those cameras would be able to capture the "paranormal event"

Now, what I am asking AGAIN, is can you produce another video like A, B, & C that show the same paranormal event?

[rwald]

Now, what I am asking AGAIN, is can you produce another video like A, B, & C that show the same paranormal event?

Thatguywhojuggles, I think I know what the problem may be. In your request (quoted above), you ask for Swett to produce a video. While you and I know that you only want Swett to show us such a video, Swett may think you want him to make such a video. So, Carlos, for your information, all we want is a copy of a video which shows your paranormal event from a different angle. This would provide more evidence that your theory is correct. Without this additional evidence, we will continue to believe that your theory is wrong.

And just for the record, you wouldn't win the JREF prize even if your theory were right. The JREF doesn't award money for theories; it awards money for supernatural abilities.

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Mr. Swett:

Thank you for coming here and sharing your passion for what you believe to be the truth. But, I think you will have to receoncile within yourself with the fact that, as has been pointed out by many posters, you simply do not have a claim that satisfies the challenge. Additionally, you may be at the point where you are deceived by your own beliefs. I'm not sure how we get that point across to you, or if we even can. But, if you continue to bother Mr. Randi about this matter you will be teetering dangerously on the fine line between annoyance and harrassment.

Furthermore, you said twice in your posts that "Gravity always has been on earth, until Newton observed it...........should we give the honors to the apple?" as a valid line of reasoning as to why you should be entitled to this prize. What you fail to perhaps fully realize in making this sophistic comparison is that gravity can be tested, measured, and proved, over and over again, by demonstrating through repeatable experiments, that it exists. Your tape, which is a property you do not own, you did not film yourself, and have no personal rights to in the first place (i.e. it is public domain, if it is not already owned by a particular person or news agency at this point), cannot in anyway be submitted to the same level of scrutiny and reproducibility on its individual merits. Likewise, I'm certain that various other news agencies and multiple tapes of this event fail to show a similar view (or even close approximation) of this "object" that appears on this particular version at the same time that the tapes you offer were recorded. On a personal note, I watched live and non-stop as the towers burned during the period of time the tapes you offer would have been recorded (i.e., from the time after the first plane hit until both towers fell). I never saw such an object. I have a complete confidence that the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of other video cameras that were tuned to buildings and recording those events, during that exact same time frame you purport this mysterious, paranormal object flew through the building, would fail to corroborate your assertions.

Lastly, I looked at the pictures on the MSN website. You appear to be quite a talented artist. However, I think that your caricature of James Randi is in poor taste, makes you appear childish and petulant, and does not help your cause. I hope you will consider removing it.

You have not provided any evidence of anything paranormal, despite what you may believe with all your heart - your video is insufficient in that it is not reproducible and is not corroborated by the multiple, separate other video-recorded footage available of this event. Furthermore, there are simpler and much more plausible explanations for what appears on these two tapes, which are consistent with the law of parsimony and principles of Occam's razor and are therefore, by default, automatically more valid than yours.

I hope you will someday be able to rationally understand this and move on to more important things in your life. Likewise, I'm sorry that this was not more cordially explained to you during your initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi ThirdTwin :

I am sorry too that this was not cordialy explained to me during my initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF. But that is not my fault, I made a notharized application to the challenge and was answered in others terms, they analized the copy of the video that's available on the internet, frame by frame (?), and gave a reason of what it is : a bird.
It is not my fault again, they made a poor,poor analisis , poor answer , and lies about what I was claiming ( lyke I did two assumptions)

That's why I continue with my "passion". The money is in a second place,remember I want to share a truth.

It is not my video, is a shot that you and millions in the world received in their homes, broadcasted by almost all the tv networks of the world, live and in a clear morning(no clouds). Now that particular shot you won't see it anymore, don't ask me why, but now that almost all tv stations will reproduce that tragic moment for the aniversary, please pay attention prepare your super vhs and tape that particular shot if you can. At least not completed , it will be lyke the one you and Mr. Harter analized on the internet(edited)

The evidence is there in my notharized 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.
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.


Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

Thank's for your words about my artistic work, I am still working in another series of murals for my city, is a hard swett and sweat work, so every afternoon after that hard job I try to respond your replys. (sigh)I will not stop until.......
About the caricature, I didn't poste it. I agree with you to be removed if that will make you all confortable.
I did not start insulting, read again the mails between JREF and me.
I repeat again here my excuses for calling Mr Harter a liar, I should have said not prepared or confused with the spanish lenguage; and for calling Mr. Randi a Chicken , I should have think that he trusted Harter and have no time for anonimous "lunatics"( I am not a Geller or a Browne).

I hope you some day will be able to rationally understand all this, but if you do not you are free to move to another discussion. By the way, "my stupid Affair" had more than 1000 visits. Conratulations, and thank's to all the visitors.

Thank's to you Third Twin ("original")

S&S

[rwald]

Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

Just because you havn't been able to find where it passes by the first tower, doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure that Harter looked for that when he first analyzed the video. Besides, since we all do not agree that this is unquestionable evidence for the event's paranormality, you cannot say that this alone proves your point. We need more evidence before we will believe you.

And again, just in case you've forgotten, even if we did believe you, even if Randi believed you, it woudln't matter, since your claim does not qualify for the JREF challange. You do not claim to have any supernatural powers, and therefore you cannot claim the JREF prize.

The evidence is there in my notharized 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.
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.


Say, after reading your application, I thought of something else that seems to be missing. If the object was moving at supersonic speed, as you claim, where was the sonic boom?

Hi Rwald, I am a little tired now, but I do another effort.
I am still out of the chat (unless my computer). Nothing you can do in my defense?

Well, you ( and some guys) still are acting lyke lawyers.
Remember , neither Harter or Randi said that my application is not valid. Please I do not want to be repetitive . Try to focus in others points, do not loose energy.

"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"

Or event, or event, or event
"Show .....any............or event."

Their are not my rules, are JREF rules.

I talked before about the proper observing conditions.(not internet)

Please no more arguments about this , focus in my claim.

Is enough for today.
Thank's Rwald

[rwald]

I know that that's what the page says. However, you're not interpreting it correctly. When it says "event," it means "event which you cause." I know it doesn't say that. Don't bother telling me. Trust me, as someone who has read all the rules (and not just one sentence on the page introducing the rules), this is the correct interpretation. Randi has no intention of paying you or anyone else money for merely showing that a paranormal event has occured, unless you had some part in making it happen.

Harter said, "You have no claim." What could he have said that would convince you that he thought your claim was not valid? No, he did not use the exact sentence, "Your claim is not valid." But that's the wonderful thing about language. You can say the same thing using different words. Trust me, as a native English speaker, when Harter says, "You have no claim," he means, "Your claim is not valid."


I just remembered, Randi also said, "Your application is closed." That means that he no longer considered you to be a applicant. If this doesn't show you that Randi thought your application was invalid, I don't know what would.

And I'm not sure what's keeping you out of the chat room, because I have no power there. If you're using a line near where latin is, it might be that, because we k-lined latin (I think). But other than that, I don't know what the problem would be.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I understand that the video that you are presenting as evidence is NOT one that you filmed. I understand that you recieved this video from a television station. The point I was trying to make is this: If you can show us ANOTHER tape taken from ANOTHER angle that shows the SAME paranormal event THEN we might have something to discuss.
This is an excellent suggestion.

Carlos: I hope you will consider doing what Walter suggests. If you are truly interested in helping find out the truth about the "hat-shaped object" that appears in your video, this would be a good step in doing that.

As Walter points out, there were probably many videos made of the World Trade Center tragedy. If some of these can be located and compared with yours, it may help settle some questions about the nature of the hat-shaped object.

If, for instance, the hat-shaped object appears in other videos that were made of the same scene at the same time, this would help rule out some flaw in the camera or film and would indicate the object is real; if on the other hand, the object does not appear in any other video, it most likely is simply a flaw in the film or camera, or a trick of light.

Having other videos of the same event to study would be helpful in other ways. Often, seeing the same thing from several different angles helps us to better identify what something is.

You may be hesitating about following Walter's suggestion because you think it would be too difficult for you to locate the people who might have other videos and talk to them to see if you can have a copy of their videas.

One way to go about this which might not be too difficult would be to create a web-site describing the video you have and asking anyone with their own video of the same scene at the same time to let you make a copy of theirs. I am sure there are many people who are interested in claims of the paranormal who would be willing to help you spread the word about what you are looking for, so that people with videos could be located and talked to.

One thing seems clear: you can either spend a lot of time and energy arguing with people about what you said to Randi and Andrew, and what Randi and Andrew said to you, or you can spend your time and energy trying to find out what the object in the video is.

[Mr. Skinny]

S & S,

It occurs to me that could be some confusion as to how you define "proper observing condition".

To my way of thinking, this means that the JREF is able to establish proper test conditions under which to observe your claim (paranormal event).

Is it possible that you are misunderstanding this statement? How do you define "proper observing conditions"?

Notwithstanding the possibility of confusion over that phrase, I agree with the others. Your observation of this supposed "paranormal" event does not qualify you for the million dollar prize. You did not create, or have any part in this event, so it does not qualify you for the prize.

Originally posted by rwald
I know that that's what the page says. However, you're not interpreting it correctly. When it says "event," it means "event which you cause." I know it doesn't say that. Don't bother telling me. Trust me, as someone who has read all the rules (and not just one sentence on the page introducing the rules), this is the correct interpretation. Randi has no intention of paying you or anyone else money for merely showing that a paranormal event has occured, unless you had some part in making it happen.

Harter said, "You have no claim." What could he have said that would convince you that he thought your claim was not valid? No, he did not use the exact sentence, "Your claim is not valid." But that's the wonderful thing about language. You can say the same thing using different words. Trust me, as a native English speaker, when Harter says, "You have no claim," he means, "Your claim is not valid."


I just remembered, Randi also said, "Your application is closed." That means that he no longer considered you to be a applicant. If this doesn't show you that Randi thought your application was invalid, I don't know what would.

And I'm not sure what's keeping you out of the chat room, because I have no power there. If you're using a line near where latin is, it might be that, because we k-lined latin (I think). But other than that, I don't know what the problem would be.


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

Hi again:

Laws and rules can not be interpretated. They are "death words".

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Please, give me a break on that point, and focus on what I am denouncing.
I promise I will make a resume of all the same constant questions already respond by me or others members of this forum who had noticed the JREF fault.

Than's anyway for my wrong expulsion of the chat, I never was flooding or posting anything., I use to defend myself with reasons.

Thank's

S&S

[rwald]

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Yes. They said, "You have no claim." They said, "Your application is closed." These words mean that your claim is invalid. It's that simple.

Once again: Since you do not claim to be able to do anything paranormal, your claim was never valid. When Harter said, "You have no claim," he basically said this.

As far as interpretation goes, since the relevent sentence is contradicted elsewhere, we must use our interpretive skills to see which is the intended meaning, and which is the error. From my knowledge of English, as well as my knowledge of the JREF, I am certain that the sentence saying that events are allowed is an error. If this is really what you're getting at, I can go word by word and show you where the contradiction is, and then show you why we should listen to the other version.

And as far as whether or not your paranormal event actually occured, until you find more evidence supporting it, I will not believe that it occured. One video proves nothing. Maybe, if the paranormal event was so obvious that no one, not even Harter, could denounce it, it would suffice. But since Harter was able to denounce it, your one video is clearly not evidence enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and since you do not have extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim, we must use Occum's razor and assume the most likely solution, namely that there was a bird, or a bug, or a speck of dust, or a camera malfunction, or something explainable by science.

You will not convince anyone here of your veracity without further evidence. I suggest you go out and find more evidence to prove your point before trying to convince us.

Originally posted by Nova Land

This is an excellent suggestion.

Carlos: I hope you will consider doing what Walter suggests. If you are truly interested in helping find out the truth about the "hat-shaped object" that appears in your video, this would be a good step in doing that.

As Walter points out, there were probably many videos made of the World Trade Center tragedy. If some of these can be located and compared with yours, it may help settle some questions about the nature of the hat-shaped object.

If, for instance, the hat-shaped object appears in other videos that were made of the same scene at the same time, this would help rule out some flaw in the camera or film and would indicate the object is real; if on the other hand, the object does not appear in any other video, it most likely is simply a flaw in the film or camera, or a trick of light.

Having other videos of the same event to study would be helpful in other ways. Often, seeing the same thing from several different angles helps us to better identify what something is.

You may be hesitating about following Walter's suggestion because you think it would be too difficult for you to locate the people who might have other videos and talk to them to see if you can have a copy of their videas.

One way to go about this which might not be too difficult would be to create a web-site describing the video you have and asking anyone with their own video of the same scene at the same time to let you make a copy of theirs. I am sure there are many people who are interested in claims of the paranormal who would be willing to help you spread the word about what you are looking for, so that people with videos could be located and talked to.

One thing seems clear: you can either spend a lot of time and energy arguing with people about what you said to Randi and Andrew, and what Randi and Andrew said to you, or you can spend your time and energy trying to find out what the object in the video is.

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

Hi novaland and thatguy....., and all the "lawyers"

Do you lyke american football? There is a rule when is something in discussion of a decission of the referee. I guess the manager and the referee go to a special tv room to see the taped play in discussion from different angles . What happen if in only in one(only in one angle) of this views they demostrate that the referee was wrong? Do they change the decission? YES, and in only one view from different angles. Well , that's football, and you are pretending me with a paranormal activity to look it in every angle. Give me a break.!

I told JREF the image to be analize, the only one, they gave me a poor, antitechnical and full of lies answer of that particular image
I was claiming in my notarized application.

Thank's

S&S

P.S. I do not need to create a web page of this, I am serious, If I was not , do you think I will need that poor advice?

Originally posted by rwald


Yes. They said, "You have no claim." They said, "Your application is closed." These words mean that your claim is invalid. It's that simple.

Once again: Since you do not claim to be able to do anything paranormal, your claim was never valid. When Harter said, "You have no claim," he basically said this.

As far as interpretation goes, since the relevent sentence is contradicted elsewhere, we must use our interpretive skills to see which is the intended meaning, and which is the error. From my knowledge of English, as well as my knowledge of the JREF, I am certain that the sentence saying that events are allowed is an error. If this is really what you're getting at, I can go word by word and show you where the contradiction is, and then show you why we should listen to the other version.

And as far as whether or not your paranormal event actually occured, until you find more evidence supporting it, I will not believe that it occured. One video proves nothing. Maybe, if the paranormal event was so obvious that no one, not even Harter, could denounce it, it would suffice. But since Harter was able to denounce it, your one video is clearly not evidence enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and since you do not have extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim, we must use Occum's razor and assume the most likely solution, namely that there was a bird, or a bug, or a speck of dust, or a camera malfunction, or something explainable by science.

You will not convince anyone here of your veracity without further evidence. I suggest you go out and find more evidence to prove your point before trying to convince us.

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

Hi again:

Laws and rules can not be interpretated. They are "death words".

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Please, give me a break on that point, and focus on what I am denouncing.
I promise I will make a resume of all the same constant questions already respond by me or others members of this forum who had noticed the JREF fault.

Than's anyway for my wrong expulsion of the chat, I never was flooding or posting anything., I use to defend myself with reasons.

Thank's

S&S

[The Fool]

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

[rwald]

Do you lyke american football? There is a rule when is something in discussion of a decission of the referee. I guess the manager and the referee go to a special tv room to see the taped play in discussion from different angles . What happen if in only in one(only in one angle) of this views they demostrate that the referee was wrong? Do they change the decission? YES, and in only one view from different angles. Well , that's football, and you are pretending me with a paranormal activity to look it in every angle. Give me a break.!

You make a good point. However, you fail to account for one thing: burden of proof. In American football, the burden is upon the referee to prove that he was correct. If there is any suggestion that he may wrong, then it is assumed that he is wrong.

Another example of burden of proof is in the court of law. If there were many video angles, and all showed that the defendant was innocent, except for one, what would the jury say? Innocent. The prosecution has the burden of proof; they must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

In the same sense, with scientific matters, the burden of proof is upon the person whose claim contradicts known science. Since the burden of proof lies on you, you must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are right. Clearly, you have not done that, as there are many people who doubt your claim. With only one camera angle, it is very hard for you to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are correct. Until you have more evidence to prove that you are correct, please don't assume that we will take your one video as absolute truth.

Also, why would the rules of American football, a sport, have any bearing on science? It really doesn't matter what happens in sports; science has its own rules, and those are the rules you must abide by.

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Yes, your application was opened. Yes, you received an official answer from the JREF. And then, your application was closed. I think Randi made this clear when he said, "Your application has been closed." I don't know why you think "all the lawyers" agree with you; if you can cite a single person who agrees that Randi never told you your application was invalid, I will be satisfied (latin doesn't count). Let others speak for themselves.

Also, if you would like to have an intelligent debate, you must read what I say, and respond with new material directly relevant to what I am saying. Repeating word for word your response to my previous post shows that you are unable to answer the questions I have asked. If you have any cogent reply which includes new material, feel free to respond. But do not just post the exact same thing you posted already. As I pointed out before, we all can read the board, and there's no need to repeat material which is already there.

[Pyrrho]

A proper analysis of the images on the tape would require the original tape and the original video recorder. Copies of the tape would be invalid, because the process of making a copy always introduces more noise into the copy, and detail is obscured each time the copy is copied.

Only the original should be examined. Nothing else will do.

Without the original tape and tape recorder, there is nothing to claim. Attempting to corroborate copies with other copies would be futile and unscientific.

One cannot avoid the rest of the JREF Challenge rules by trying to take advantage of a line of text taken out-of-context. That tactic has been attempted by other people, who merely sent Randi a large amount of information, and then demanded to be paid the million dollars for "providing a method".

===========

Personally, I am tired of people trying to gain notoriety by taking advantage of the sad events of September 11, 2001. Even if a fleeting "paranormal event" happened that day, it is meaningless.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by S&S
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.

Again, your conclusion - simply because you have made - does not demonstrate anything. That is the key. I hope you will be able to understand that. It is no more valid than any other conclusion.

Originally posted by S&S
Do you lyke american football? There is a rule when is something in discussion of a decission of the referee. I guess the manager and the referee go to a special tv room to see the taped play in discussion from different angles . What happen if in only in one(only in one angle) of this views they demostrate that the referee was wrong? Do they change the decission? YES, and in only one view from different angles. Well , that's football, and you are pretending me with a paranormal activity to look it in every angle. Give me a break.!

Again, Mr. Swett this is an interesting, but specious and syllogistic argument. There ARE many angles from many other cameras that clearly and definitively show nothing is there. That leads one only to a more reasonable theory that the most likely explanation was a local one involving the individual cameras that captured those anomalies, which is a far more simple and reasonable explanation (i.e., you still have nothing). You appear, again, to be a fairly clever man who is capable of constructing a decent argument. But, analogies do not win debates in science.

I know that you are not interested in the money, and I hope that you will be able to separate yourself from the emotional part of you that believes you are right and gain the ability to see this rationally. Again, I am sorry that Mr. Randi offended you. I hope that is enough.

[thatguywhojuggles]

S&S,

You have just enterd into the "Troll" category in my opinion, and I will no longer comment on this subject.

Originally posted by rwald

Yes, your application was opened. Yes, you received an official answer from the JREF. And then, your application was closed. I think Randi made this clear when he said, "Your application has been closed." I don't know why you think "all the lawyers" agree with you; if you can cite a [i]single person who agrees that Randi never told you your application was invalid, I will be satisfied (latin doesn't count). Let others speak for themselves.

Also, if you would like to have an intelligent debate, you must read what I say, and respond with new material directly relevant to what I am saying. Repeating word for word your response to my previous post shows that you are unable to answer the questions I have asked. If you have any cogent reply which includes new material, feel free to respond. But do not just post the exact same thing you posted already. As I pointed out before, we all can read the board, and there's no need to repeat material which is already there. [/B]
-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------


Hi Rwald and "the lawyers": so you better do not repeat the same I already answered. Here is an example , they are more:

Originally posted by Buddyh:

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


Well,I cited you a single person, satisfy?

You have no claim.There is nothing in Harter's answer, he never told me my application is inavalid.
Your reply is closed.

Do not insist, let the others members focus on the video, is the only way to demostrate I am a lunatic.

Burden of proof:
Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

Thanks ,
S&S

Burden of proof:
Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

I think you misunderstand the concept of "Burden of proof". What that means is that you have to prove, beyond a shodow of a doubt, that the object was not normal in nature. Part of that means answering any and all reasonable questions asked of you. So far, you haven't given a legitimate explanation as to why no one on the ground saw it, ("It was paranormal" doesn't cut it, that assumes that the object is paranormal, something you haven't proven yet) why it appeared on no other cameras, etc. Likewise, you must remember that even if you prove that it couldn't be a bird, that still isn't legitimate proof that it was paranormal. You have to prove that, too. A good start would be obtaining additional footage of the object from different angles. And proving the identity of the object will also be necessary, especially if you continue to claim that it wasn't visible because it was paranormal. This claim requires that you be aware of the properties of the object, which requires that you know what it is.

Why couldn't you see the bird in front of the towers? I don't have access to the full footage, just the part after it passes before the towers, so I'm afraid I can't comment on that. However, I submit as a possibilaty (admittedly as a non-expert in the field of photography) that the bird was flying away from the camera, so that in the first few frames it was nearly invisible, not becoming clear until it had reached the range from which the camera could at least properly focus upon it.

Finally, as to your repeated "lawyer" comments:

You have no claim.There is nothing in Harter's answer, he never told me my application is inavalid.
Your reply is closed.

Just because Harter didn't say outright that it was invalid doesn't mean that isn't what he meant. Clearly, he insinuated that the challenge wasn't legit. By saying "You have no claim" as opposed to, say, "Your claim is not valid", he was insinuating that there wasn't enough substance to continue with the challenge. This is also why it didn't make SWIFT, and it's probably why they didn't view a better quality tape; those are the kind of things done for challenge that have passed the preliminary phase, which requires that the JREF find enough substance in the claim to validate testing. Yours didn't pass those criteria. This is obvious to everyone else here. Why don't you get it?

Originally posted by ThirdTwin


Again, your conclusion - simply because you have made - does not demonstrate anything. That is the key. I hope you will be able to understand that. It is no more valid than any other conclusion.



Again, Mr. Swett this is an interesting, but specious and syllogistic argument. There ARE many angles from many other cameras that clearly and definitively show nothing is there. That leads one only to a more reasonable theory that the most likely explanation was a local one involving the individual cameras that captured those anomalies, which is a far more simple and reasonable explanation (i.e., you still have nothing). You appear, again, to be a fairly clever man who is capable of constructing a decent argument. But, analogies do not win debates in science.

I know that you are not interested in the money, and I hope that you will be able to separate yourself from the emotional part of you that believes you are right and gain the ability to see this rationally. Again, I am sorry that Mr. Randi offended you. I hope that is enough.

__-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third twin : Thank's for your advice, I know you are acting sincerely, but I am alone here and I have the right to defend what any reasonable person will agree with me that I received a poor answer from the JREF. That's they fault. Sorry for that.
Yes Mr. Randi ofended me with no reason, before Harter's poor answer. I was dissapointed, but I still think we need people lyke him, everybody makes a mistake once ln a while.

"Some gay" called me TROLL here. That gay is going to presure the news ( larry King, 20/20, etc.) to try to force Sylvia Browne(1 year's clock)to enter the challenge. I did the challenge, "some gay", why you don't turn that press to my oficial challenge. They have the complete video and the equipments, and tomorrow is five months I send JREF the challenge and the only thing I received was a poor answer.
No comments in Randi's commentaries, Why not? The more than 1000 viewers of this "Carlos Swett affair" deserves an answer from them.
What's going on? What do they are afraid of? a demand from me?
If they are sure of their answer , so comment please.

You know I work in arts, what I know best is forms of birds. Natures and ecological (before the mood) and birds had been my favorites art tematics. This "paranormal thing" has a hat form, that means that Harter's " bird " is flying upside down. Check the plctures( not the incomplete video) Patricio posted here or IJRAL posted on the MSN "Skeptics Forum".

Now , if you all agreed , I must go to the analisis of the complete video when you all stop telling a video is not a proof . Where is that rule.? It was a particular event, Understand that.

Thank's again and you are free to keep on going in the same or.......Check the truth.

Keep on going,
S&S

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by S&S


__-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third twin : Thank's for your advice, I know you are acting sincerely, but I am alone here and I have the right to defend what any reasonable person will agree with me that I received a poor answer from the JREF. That's they fault. Sorry for that.
Yes Mr. Randi ofended me with no reason, before Harter's poor answer. I was dissapointed, but I still think we need people lyke him, everybody makes a mistake once ln a while.

"Some gay" called me TROLL here. That gay is going to presure the news ( larry King, 20/20, etc.) to try to force Sylvia Browne(1 year's clock)to enter the challenge. I did the challenge, "some gay", why you don't turn that press to my oficial challenge. They have the complete video and the equipments, and tomorrow is five months I send JREF the challenge and the only thing I received was a poor answer.
No comments in Randi's commentaries, Why not? The more than 1000 viewers of this "Carlos Swett affair" deserves an answer from them.
What's going on? What do they are afraid of? a demand from me?
If they are sure of their answer , so comment please.

You know I work in arts, what I know best is forms of birds. Natures and ecological (before the mood) and birds had been my favorites art tematics. This "paranormal thing" has a hat form, that means that Harter's " bird " is flying upside down. Check the plctures( not the incomplete video) Patricio posted here or IJRAL posted on the MSN "Skeptics Forum".

Now , if you all agreed , I must go to the analisis of the complete video when you all stop telling a video is not a proof . Where is that rule.? It was a particular event, Understand that.

Thank's again and you are free to keep on going in the same or.......Check the truth.

Keep on going,
S&S

Thank you for reading my posts. Past this post, I have nothing further to add because this has, sadly, turned into a circular argument. So, in summary, I will only add the following sentiments. And, I admonish you to read them carefully and try to understand them in order to save yourself any continuing embarrassment.

With all respect, this is what you are not understanding: the video - for the many reasons already stated that you either can't or won't acknowledge - is irrelevant, you have no claim, and your interpretation of the same is likewise irrelevant. Period. Please move on. You will not get any satisifaction from your continued efforts.

Best of luck to you in other endeavors.

[Patricio Elicer]

Carlos,

I'm going to make a summary of what I think are your main points on all this discussion, and I will comment them one by one. I'll take the ideas that others have pointed out before, as well as some of my own.

You claim that:

1) A paranormal event took place during the WTC terrorist attacks. Comment: since it's an extraordinary claim, you have to produce evidence both in quality and quantity to back it up. Two or more shots of the scene from different angles are needed to rule out a tape defect or any other simple explanation. Independant eyewitness testimonies would be useful as well

2) Your claim is valid to apply for the million dollars challenge. Comment: This is the main problem. To apply for the million dollars prize, you have to state a personal testable paranormal ability or, in case it is an event, you have to clearly state what kind of event it is, and produce evidence of your own to back it up. You have to understand that in saying it is a "paranormal activity" you aren't claiming anything about the nature of the event. For example, if your case were something like "an alien spacecraft landed in my yard, and I took these pictures and videos to back up my claim", I'm sure that Randi would be eager to accept you application and examine the evidence.

3) Randi didn't say that your claim is not validComment: Andrew said "you have no claim" and this is the same as saying that your claim is not valid. Randi backed Andrew's reply, so Randi said that your claim is indeed not valid

4) Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the eventComment: according to his e-mail response this is true. But in view of what I commented in 3), it was pointless for him to do so, there was no need for him to waste his time on that.

5) Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer. But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies

Well Carlos, I urge you to think hard on this, and also on what other posters have said. There's nothing to be tested, there's no valid claim in your application, there's nothing Randi can do about it, your claim is out of the scope of the million dollars challenge.

Hope this helps.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Carlos,

I'm going to make a summary of what I think are your main points on all this discussion, and I will comment them one by one. I'll take the ideas that others have pointed out before, as well as some of my own.

You claim that:

Patrcio:

1) [B]A paranormal event took place during the WTC terrorist attacks. Comment: since it's an extraordinary claim, you have to produce evidence both in quality and quantity to back it up. Two or more shots of the scene from different angles are needed to rule out a tape defect or any other simple explanation. Independant eyewitness testimonies would be useful as well

Swett:

If it is an extraordinary claim, why only you the members of this forum (not JREF) are just only talking about legal forms, and don´t focus if my extraordinary claim is true or not.

Patricio:

2) Your claim is valid to apply for the million dollars challenge. Comment: This is the main problem. To apply for the million dollars prize, you have to state a personal testable paranormal ability or, in case it is an event, you have to clearly state what kind of event it is, and produce evidence of your own to back it up. You have to understand that in saying it is a "paranormal activity" you aren't claiming anything about the nature of the event. For example, if your case were something like "an alien spacecraft landed in my yard, and I took these pictures and videos to back up my claim", I'm sure that Randi would be eager to accept you application and examine the evidence.

Swett:

I didn´t make the shot. It was taked in a particular tragic event, broadcasted to all the world and the most viewed on the history of television. It was not shot on my private yard.
Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.
You all the members of the forum are the one who are always talking about the one million dolllars. I already wrote to JREF what is my position about it. You can check it again.

Patricio:

3) Randi didn't say that your claim is not validComment: Andrew said "you have no claim" and this is the same as saying that your claim is not valid. Randi backed Andrew's reply, so Randi said that your claim is indeed not valid

Swett:

No, Andrew said "you have no claim, there is nothing supernatural taking place". That´s the difference. Your interpretation of Andrew´s answer is that my claim is not valid.

No again, Randi said "Andrew made the right decission with my aproval. Your aplication is closed". That´s the difference.So, Randi indeed (like Harter) never said my application is not valid.

Patricio:

4) Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the eventComment: according to his e-mail response this is true. But in view of what I commented in 3), it was pointless for him to do so, there was no need for him to waste his time on that.

Swett:

If it was pointless to Harter to examine my video, why JREF researcher "studied frame by frame" a poor, low resolution, incomplete video from internet. Why the same poor video from internet, you are doubting that it is a bird, as you posted before when you were doubting if Harter examined the right video.

Patricio:

5) Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer. But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies

Swett:

So, you agree with me that JREF gave me a poor answer to my application. It is not my problem if Randi is busy only talking about Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne every week.
Patricio it is a poor excuse that you tell to me that Randi is a busy guy. He is only afraid of comment about me and my real notarized application and the poor answers they gave to me.

************************************************** **

Don´t you have the natural human curiosity to find out and investigate if what I claimed in the application is true?
Don´t loose energy defending only the "formal" rules, let that part to Randi´s lawyers.

Thanks,

S&S

Originally posted by ThirdTwin


Thank you for reading my posts. Past this post, I have nothing further to add because this has, sadly, turned into a circular argument. So, in summary, I will only add the following sentiments. And, I admonish you to read them carefully and try to understand them in order to save yourself any continuing embarrassment.

With all respect, this is what you are not understanding: the video - for the many reasons already stated that you either can't or won't acknowledge - is irrelevant, you have no claim, and your interpretation of the same is likewise irrelevant. Period. Please move on. You will not get any satisifaction from your continued efforts.

Best of luck to you in other endeavors.

_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third Twin:
I apreciate your wish of luck to me in other endeavors. In this particular case(my notarized application to JREF challenge) I don´t need luck, the only thing I need is people with the courage to defeat me with reasons. No with feelings, no with interpretations, no with poor answers. My only satisfaction is that i am telling the truth and that this particular "affair" deserves a JREF answer on their web page.

Thanks again, Third Twin, good luck to you in all aspects of your life (if luck exists for you).

S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

http://img-fan.theonering.net/middleearthtours/images/troll_mov.jpg

[Smalso]

This debate having reached its limit, I conclude that there is still a course open to SS. Get you to a telephone soonest and contact Art Bell. If you can make it to his show, you will get full agreement with and support for your position with absolutely no proof or evidence required or asked.

[Patricio Elicer]

Carlos,

If it is an extraordinary claim, why only you the members of this forum (not JREF) are just only talking about legal forms, and don´t focus if my extraordinary claim is true or not.You continually complain that Randi dismissed you application, and we've been long trying to explain to you why it was so, why yours is not a valid claim for the million.

I myself would love to examine a detailed evidence to figure out if your claim is true or not, but the burden of providing such evidence lies on you. As I said, only one video is not enough to rule out any mundane explanation of the alledge "paranormal activity". I think that any skeptic and rational person will find your evidence very weak, and consecuently won't bother to take your claim seriously.

If you gather additional, independant and more convincing evidence for your claim, there will always be people interested in examining it. TV channels are hungry for striking news, and maybe even you can re-apply for the million.I didn´t make the shot. It was taked in a particular tragic event, broadcasted to all the world and the most viewed on the history of television. It was not shot on my private yard.Yes, and that's one of the reasons why, in my opinion, your claim is not valid for the challenge.

Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.Even professionals and experts can make mistakes, there are a lot of examples of that. Professionals and experts on image processing claimed that a picture from the Cydonia region on Mars taken by the Viking spacecraft, showed a carved sculpture of a human face. But it turned out to be wrong, as the Mars Global Surveyor later showed.

How can we be sure that you and the professionals that examined the footage didn't misinterpret it? One possible solution is to find independant evidence of the phenomenon. No, Andrew said "you have no claim, there is nothing supernatural taking place". That´s the difference. Your interpretation of Andrew´s answer is that my claim is not valid.

No again, Randi said "Andrew made the right decission with my aproval. Your aplication is closed". That´s the difference.So, Randi indeed (like Harter) never said my application is not valid.Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi. But I repeat for the nth time: "you have no claim, there's nothing paranormal taking place" is the same as "your application is not valid", understand that!, there are different ways to express the same idea, that's a wonderful capabilitiy of human languages.If it was pointless to Harter to examine my video, why JREF researcher "studied frame by frame" a poor, low resolution, incomplete video from internet.Because it was enough for him to realize that you had no claim and that your application wasn't valid. By the way, in my opinion the internet animation has a good resolution, I don't think a TV image can do any better tahn that.Why the same poor video from internet, you are doubting that it is a bird, as you posted before when you were doubting if Harter examined the right video.Yes, as I said before, I fail to see a bird in the animation, but it is well within the range of a possible explanation. In fact, any object passing close to the camera at a high speed would produce such a blurred image. I could be a bird, it could be debries from the impact, it could be a tape defect, etc...

Your main argument is that the object was not seen against the tower, thus implying that it passed through the hole. But a flaw on the tape or a shadow may very well account for that. Again, what is needed is more evidence to rule out those possibilities.So, you agree with me that JREF gave me a poor answer to my application. It is not my problem if Randi is busy only talking about Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne every week.
Patricio it is a poor excuse that you tell to me that Randi is a busy guy. He is only afraid of comment about me and my real notarized application and the poor answers they gave to meYes, I agree with you that he gave you a poor answer, but remember that he said that your application was not valid, so why a busy person like him would bother on a more comprehensive answer?Don´t you have the natural human curiosity to find out and investigate if what I claimed in the application is true?Oh yes, I have an enormous curiosity to know and learn, especially when it comes to events that would take me out of my routine life, but I need good evidence.

The regularities of our world are sometimes exasperating, aren't they?, we would love to believe that there is "something else". But if the world is not the way we would wish, so be it!. The world is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition


[edited to fix minor details]

[Wyrd1]

I think the Forum is already arriving at the sameconclusion that Smiley, Iggy, and I arrived at in Skeptic's Forum some time ago and that is that Carlos isn't going to give and admit he's wrong. EVER. You can mark the number of this post and check back in every one hundred posts or so and he will still be going at it. He will not change his tune. He will not realize that we will never buy his description of this "thing" as paranormal. Round and round we go and where we stop nobody knows. Mr Swett, you are a great artist. I like your work. Do everybody a favor and stop wasting your time here.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Wyrd1
............ that Carlos isn't going to give and admit he's wrong. EVER. You can mark the number of this post and check back in every one hundred posts or so and he will still be going at it. He will not change his tune. He will not realize that we will never buy his description of this "thing" as paranormal. Mr Swett, you are a great artist. I like your work. [/QUOTE]

Hi Wyrd1:
I met you at the Skeptics Forum. You are wright, I will never give up, not only in this easy subject, but in all aspects of my life.
I am not a looser. Remember I am here alone and everybody received an answer from me, but the best thing is that you members of this forum did not receive an answer from the members of the JREF about the "Carlos Swett affair". They are in silence because they know they made a mistake with me giving me poor answers, using poor methods and lying iabout my notharized application ( lyke I made two assumptions, etc. ).

You also lied at the Skeptics Forum . You said you taped the image, too, and analized it "frame by frame" in your "SUPER VHS", the only thing you needed was to confirm what shot it was.Now that you knew which one was, means that you have the complete sequence( not the incmplete image of internet that Harter analized). I challenge you to put your complete tape in this forum, remember I did it ( to the JREF, as Harter said).

Don't waist your time here, if you are not able to prove you have the complete sequence.

Thanks for your words about my art work.

S&S

P.S.
I give my personal feelings of support to all the families involved tragiccally in this unsucces, to the people who fighted to rescue anothers, to the people who died in the war, to all the world involved ibecause of the insanity of very few.
That's why I did not challenged JREF for the money perse (as I told them). I just want to share a truth with the world, I am not buying anything .

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos,

You may have noticed that nobody but yourself has responded to this thread in at least 3 days. That means we are tired of your whinning. Nobody likes a troll. Go away!

England?

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos,

None of us are impressed by your sock puppets and their pathetic photoshop skills. Go away, troll.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Carlos,

None of us are impressed by your sock puppets and their pathetic photoshop skills. Go away, troll.

You are the one who put that stupid picture. Those are your arms, you can not put reasons, you can not put smart questions, Go fight for the Silvya Browne case, you are with the same I, Q, of her.

Thank's for still writing stupidities. The "Swett affair" has 5 stars of rating and more than 1700 visits in less than one month.
I am here alone and I respect different smarts points of view from the members of this particular case ; what I do not care are your out of brain questions and answers. Please go away .Respect the rest of the members, trolly.

Thank's
S&S

Originally posted by Linda
Interesting.....Sr. Swett just registered for the message boards today. I expect we'll be hearing from him.

I remember I wrote you asking for your advice about if I can write in the forum. After 20 messages you put the message I am quoting here from you . Your expectation by that time has been satisfied.
Now is time fo give you my special thanks to you for that opening,
I guess this case had many visitors and writers, differents points of view that I respect, and that I tried to give them true answers.
I only have one question ; ¿ When one of the members of the JREF will give their oppinion of my case, or you are satisfied with Andrew Harter's poor answer ? If you can , please answer me that simple question. I hope that does not cause you troubles at the JREF.

Anyway I still respect you all and support your works.

Gracias Belleza,
S&S

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Carlos,....
......How can we be sure that you and the professionals that examined the footage didn't misinterpret it? One possible solution is to find independant evidence of the phenomenon. Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi.
...... By the way, in my opinion the internet animation has a good resolution, I don't think a TV image can do any better tahn that.Yes, as I said before, I fail to see a bird in the animation

......Yes, I agree with you that he gave you a poor answer, but remember that he said that your application was not valid, so why a busy person like him would bother on a more comprehensive answer?Oh yes, I have an enormous curiosity to know and learn, especially when it comes to events that would take me out of my routine life, but I need good evidence.

[edited to fix minor details]

Hi Patricio:
Thanks for your curiosity , but I see contradictions in your answers:

Yes , the professionals of tv and I that examined the footage have affirmation and conclution of this case, that's why I recommended The JREF to do the same ( an independent opinion of your local tv proff. ). It was Harter's choise to study it "frame by frame " in an incomplete tape from the internet. Who cares about Harter's oppinion , is he a professional of tv images?. Did he told us, members of this forum the link he used to "studied " it ?Is that image with the complete sequence?

If you think the internet image has a good resolution is because you have not see the 3/4 or betacan tape the channels have.Besides on the internet the image is incomplete to analyze what you translated from my notharized application (that's the most important point)

If you aggre with me that Andrew Harter and James Randi gave me a poor answer, and NEVER said in your own translation that my application is not valid, what else can I say? The rest is your own interpretation, and that is not relevant in this case.
Interpretations are not for real sceptics.

Ask Mr. Harter or Mr. Randi the reasons of their silence, I have myself an "interpretation" or suspects of that " ostrich"actitude.
You started this "Carlos Swett Affair" , so is your obligation to go to the last consequences..

Thanks
S&S

Originally posted by bidlack


Reasonably stated, and I shall attempt to reasonably reply. I believe there are two problems with your claim. The first and most basic is a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to language, on what constitutes a claim. You must yourself be able to create a paranormal event, under controlled circumstances. A tape of this does not suffice. For example, let's say you were in fact a true paranormalist, and could bend spoons truly with the power of your mind. If I videotape you doing this, would you argue that I myself can claim the prize? Or would you have the more legitimate claim, as the actual doer of the deed?

Secondly, even if you are correct about the image you taped seeming paranormal, I state that I believe it to be a bird. Why should your statement that it is a UFO (or such) have more value than my statement?

Simply put, a challenge must be a demonstration of a power, by the claimant him/her self, under controlled circumstances all parties agree to a priori.

Hopefully, this is helpful...

Hi bidlack:

Perhaps you just read few posts here, I recommended you to read it all. Your interpretations are already answered by me.I was with the old rules of the challenge, no matter the language and there was nothing in JREF researche's answer to my application that confirms your interpretation, pleas check it again.

Thanks anyway,
S&S

"We wish to persue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact".

Episode 1, The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean



"Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, ... and we are wanderers still"

Episode 7, The Backbone of Night

[Pyrrho]

A simple question:

Do you have the original videotape?

If not, you have no basis upon which to base a claim.

[Wyrd1]

Sorry I do not have the capability to transcribe the video I have of the bird flying i front of the camera. I suppose I could go forth and learn how to do it but what would be the point? You won't admit you're wrong as it is. You aren't ever going to admit you're wrong. That's why JREF isn't going to deal with you further. In your first post to skeptic forum you lied to the group. You said you were a skeptic. You have amply demonstrated this is not so. Tomorrow you will perhaps get a chance to watch the WTC attack again. You will not see a paranormal object in any footage. You will say this is because the footage has been taken away or altered somehow. You will not admit that out of all the shots of the tradgedy the have been seen there is no paranormal object in any one of them. Out of all those angles there are only two you think did have the paranormal object in it. You can't even conceive of the possibilty that it was birds in both shots. That is MY prediction. I have psychic powers so if you spit out your typical "stupids" comments post I should get the million dollars. Randi?

[thatguywhojuggles]

A small sample taken from this thread:

(Please note that the first two quotes are not direct quotes from Randi and Harter, but are taken from a post that claims to quote them.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[thatguywhojuggles]

Oh, and by the way, Carlos. It looks like you lost a couple of stars.

I know you lost one of them right after I placed my one vote. Which would indicate that not many people have voted on this thread.

I imagine if a fair number of people did vote on this thread, you would probably loose even more stars.

[Jeff]

Bump lower...

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Do you have the original videotape? Do you have the original videotape recorder? Nothing else will suffice for any kind of analysis.

If you do not have the original tape and the original video recorder, you have nothing upon which to base a claim.

Hi Pyrro2000:

You posted twice that argument.
I already answered that inquire before., but you deserves a long explain.

"The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was the most documented EVENT in history" HBO special (2002 Sept)

As you see they were documenting a terrorist attack (terrible, criminal, etc.), their minds were focused in another angle, the attack.
The difference is that I made only an "extra observation" which I put in my notharized applicattion to JREF challenge. I am the one who did the observation of a paranormal activity during that terrible and criminal EVENT.
I send JREF a tape with the same shot and image broadcasted by differents networks of the world (USA, Spain; Germain; Chile, Ecuador, etc.). As you see "everybody" was receiving that image in their homes, the news were focused in the crash of the plain; I did not.

I recommended JREF to analyze the shot using the correct or best technical method, but Mr. Harter(JREF) studied the tape "frame by frame" in a tape available on the internet and gave me a poor answer based on a poor method. Was not my fault, was Harter's mistake. No a single word from him about that my application was not valid.

By the way, do you see "events " of different type on your t.v.?

Do you think the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Amstrong was the first man walked on the moon?Have you checked the original tape and video tape recorder to be sure ?

Is the same with the broadcast of sports "live", sometimes are something else in the images that nothing have to do with the sports they are transmmiting.

I saw yesterday the HBO special, was based on the work of 16 news organizations. The only shot not included was the one we are talking about here.(???)

I am still waiting the answer here or in the home page of Mr. Randi (JREF) saying I am a troll , idiot, stupid and similars, but also the reasons why and with the honesty of publishing my notarized application and the answer his researcher gave me.There are more than 2000 visitors that deserves a little respect

Until then..........

Thanks
S&S

P.S: The same answer to "thatgaywhojuggles", but I guess he said last week he will never write anymore in "the Carlos Swett affair". Perhaps he is worried abot the rating ( the stars) so he decided to vote. I tell you that my "rating" are the more than 2000 visitors to this case in only two weeks. For them are my respects , not for the stars.
Sorry for my English.

QUOTE]Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Do you have the original videotape? Do you have the original videotape recorder? Nothing else will suffice for any kind of analysis.

If you do not have the original tape and the original video recorder, you have nothing upon which to base a claim. [/QUOTE]

Hi Pyrro2000:

You posted twice that argument.
I already answered that inquire before., but you deserves a long explain.

"The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was the most documented EVENT in history" HBO special (2002 Sept)

As you see they were documenting a terrorist attack (terrible, criminal, etc.), their minds were focused in another angle, the attack.
The difference is that I made only an "extra observation" which I put in my notharized applicattion to JREF challenge. I am the one who did the observation of a paranormal activity during that terrible and criminal EVENT.
I send JREF a tape with the same shot and image broadcasted by differents networks of the world (USA, Spain; Germain; Chile, Ecuador, etc.). As you see "everybody" was receiving that image in their homes, the news were focused in the crash of the plain; I did not.

I recommended JREF to analyze the shot using the correct or best technical method, but Mr. Harter(JREF) studied the tape "frame by frame" in a tape available on the internet and gave me a poor answer based on a poor method. Was not my fault, was Harter's mistake. No a single word from him about that my application was not valid.

By the way, do you see "events " of different type on your t.v.?

Do you think the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Amstrong was the first man walked on the moon?Have you checked the original tape and video tape recorder to be sure ?

Is the same with the broadcast of sports "live", sometimes are something else in the images that nothing have to do with the sports they are transmmiting.

I saw yesterday the HBO special, was based on the work of 16 news organizations. The only shot not included was the one we are talking about here.(???)

I am still waiting the answer here or in the home page of Mr. Randi (JREF) saying I am a troll , idiot, stupid and similars, but also the reasons why and with the honesty of publishing my notarized application and the answer his researcher gave me.There are more than 2000 visitors that deserves a little respect

Until then..........

Thanks
S&S

P.S: The same answer to "thatgay", but I guess he said last week he will never write anymore in "the Carlos Swett affair". Perhaps he is worried abot the rating ( the stars) so he decided to vote. I tell you that my "rating" are the more than 2000 visitors to this case in only two weeks. For them are my respects not for the stars.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by S&S
[B
P.S: The same answer to "thatgay", but I guess he said last week he will never write anymore in "the Carlos Swett affair". Perhaps he is worried abot the rating ( the stars) so he decided to vote. I tell you that my "rating" are the more than 2000 visitors to this case in only two weeks. For them are my respects not for the stars. [/B]

You have 2000 views because people think you are a loon. It's funny, like watching the Muppet Show or something.

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


You have 2000 views because people think you are a loon. It's funny, like watching the Muppet Show or something.

Hi Shaun:

So you are a Muppet Show fan? Your answer said so.

You do not have arguments for the rest of my reply only that juvenile quote?

Go see the Teletubbies, do not miss them.

Thanks.
S&S

Originally posted by S&S
QUOTE]Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Do you have the original videotape? Do you have the original videotape recorder? Nothing else will suffice for any kind of analysis.

If you do not have the original tape and the original video recorder, you have nothing upon which to base a claim.

Hi Pyrro2000:

You posted twice that argument.
I already answered that inquire before., but you deserves a long explain.

"The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was the most documented EVENT in history" HBO special (2002 Sept)

As you see they were documenting a terrorist attack (terrible, criminal, etc.), their minds were focused in another angle, the attack.
The difference is that I made only an "extra observation" which I put in my notharized applicattion to JREF challenge. I am the one who did the observation of a paranormal activity during that terrible and criminal EVENT.
I send JREF a tape with the same shot and image broadcasted by differents networks of the world (USA, Spain; Germain; Chile, Ecuador, etc.). As you see "everybody" was receiving that image in their homes, the news were focused in the crash of the plain; I did not.

I recommended JREF to analyze the shot using the correct or best technical method, but Mr. Harter(JREF) studied the tape "frame by frame" in a tape available on the internet and gave me a poor answer based on a poor method. Was not my fault, was Harter's mistake. No a single word from him about that my application was not valid.

By the way, do you see "events " of different type on your t.v.?

Do you think the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Amstrong was the first man walked on the moon?Have you checked the original tape and video tape recorder to be sure ?

Is the same with the broadcast of sports "live", sometimes are something else in the images that nothing have to do with the sports they are transmmiting.

I saw yesterday the HBO special, was based on the work of 16 news organizations. The only shot not included was the one we are talking about here.(???)

I am still waiting the answer here or in the home page of Mr. Randi (JREF) saying I am a troll , idiot, stupid and similars, but also the reasons why and with the honesty of publishing my notarized application and the answer his researcher gave me.There are more than 2000 visitors that deserves a little respect

Until then..........

Thanks
S&S

P.S: The same answer to "thatgay", but I guess he said last week he will never write anymore in "the Carlos Swett affair". Perhaps he is worried abot the rating ( the stars) so he decided to vote. I tell you that my "rating" are the more than 2000 visitors to this case in only two weeks. For them are my respects not for the stars. [/QUOTE]

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by S&S


Hi Shaun:

So you are a Muppet Show fan? Your answer said so.

You do not have arguments for the rest of my reply only that juvenile quote?

Go see the Teletubbies, do not miss them.

Thanks.
S&S

When you consistently display the intelligence level of La-La what do you expect?

Do you think Tinky Winky could also claim the JREF prize? I mean bloody hell, a talking puppet, that MUST be supernatural.....

Originally posted by Jeff
Bump lower...


Only in this thread?????????????????????????????


ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????????????

[Charlie in Dayton]

Come on over to the JREF chat room on IRC...some shlub nick'ed ijral is trying to defend Swett, and doing a damn poor job of it. We've been accused of ...SPECULATING...(gasp!)...

Come on over here and help us put this clown out of our misery... :D

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&S
P.S: The same answer to "thatgay", but I guess he said last week he will never write anymore in "the Carlos Swett affair". Perhaps he is worried abot the rating ( the stars) so he decided to vote. I tell you that my "rating" are the more than 2000 visitors to this case in only two weeks. For them are my respects not for the stars.

If you haven't noticed, what I said was that I would not comment on your STUPID "paranormal" claim (because you are a troll and don't listen to what people say!.) And I haven't. All my energies have been spent on pointing out that YOU are a TROLL.

Why do you have 2000+ views? I think Shaun from Scotland said it best! :D

[Shaun from Scotland]

"Tinky Winky, Dipsy, La La, Po
S&S, S&S say haaaaaaaallo"

[Shaun from Scotland]

In fact, I think I WILL claim the JREF prize. My niece has this Teletubbie video, right, and theres a talking hoover in it. If this isn't evidence of the Supernatural I dont know what is.........no one else spotted the talking hoover because they were focused on La La's handbag. I dont have the original videotape, but did you ask for the original when Bambi got lost in the forest?

Do I get a million dollars?

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
In fact, I think I WILL claim the JREF prize. My niece has this Teletubbie video, right, and theres a talking hoover in it. If this isn't evidence of the Supernatural I dont know what is.........no one else spotted the talking hoover because they were focused on La La's handbag. I dont have the original videotape, but did you ask for the original when Bambi got lost in the forest?

Do I get a million dollars?

I don't know Shaun, I think we have exhaustively pointed out that you need more than a video tape to prove the paranormal. But, I am willing to bet your paranormal sighting is at least in focus! :D :D :D

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


I don't know Shaun, I think we have exhaustively pointed out that you need more than a video tape to prove the paranormal. But, I am willing to bet your paranormal sighting is at least in focus! :D :D :D

Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew I should have got her Rugrats........................

:D

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew I should have got her Rugrats........................

:D

I know what you mean about the characters on that show, though... there have been times when I wake up at 6:00am, and turn the TV on, and find those furry creatures bouncing around, rolling in the grass, and looking up at a sun that has a baby face in it while rabbits bounce across the grass. It makes me wonder if I am on some kind of weird acid trip!

EN MEMORIA DE LAS VICTIMAS DE LA ESTUPIDEZ HUMANA.

el mundo entero sufre las concecuencias de la violencia,
no a las guerras.

S&S

[Pyrrho]

Do you have the original videotape? Do you have the original videotape recorder? Nothing else will suffice for any kind of analysis.

If you do not have the original tape and the original video recorder, you have nothing upon which to base a claim.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by S&S
Small samples of what?, what is your point in posting all those quotes?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew's reply made perfect sense to the case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 08-27




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




Thanks,
S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Do you have the original videotape? Do you have the original videotape recorder? Nothing else will suffice for any kind of analysis.

If you do not have the original tape and the original video recorder, you have nothing upon which to base a claim.

This makes me think of the conversation a mother would have with her child:

Mother: Did you hit your brother?

Child: He started it. He said that...

Mother: Did you hit your brother?

Child: This isn't fair, he gets to have...

Mother: Did you hit your brother?

Child: You're not listening to me!

Mother DID YOU HIT YOUR BROTHER?

Child: He started it...


Good luck on getting your VERY SIMPLE, "yes" or "no" question answered, pyrrho2000.

[Testudo]

[sigh]

Yet another Troll feeding thread. :(

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew's reply made perfect sense to the case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Eliecer 08-27




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




Thanks,
S&S [/B][/QUOTE]

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by latinijral


Hi Pyrro2000:

You posted twice that argument.
I already answered that inquire before., but you deserves a long explain.

"The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was the most documented EVENT in history" HBO special (2002 Sept)



Irrelevant opinion, which we can discard.


As you see they were documenting a terrorist attack (terrible, criminal, etc.), their minds were focused in another angle, the attack.
The difference is that I made only an "extra observation" which I put in my notharized applicattion to JREF challenge. I am the one who did the observation of a paranormal activity during that terrible and criminal EVENT.


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


I send JREF a tape with the same shot and image broadcasted by differents networks of the world (USA, Spain; Germain; Chile, Ecuador, etc.). As you see "everybody" was receiving that image in their homes, the news were focused in the crash of the plain; I did not.


What they were focused on is irrelevant. Once again, what they broadcast was from a copy of the original tape or digital video -- we don't know which it was.


I recommended JREF to analyze the shot using the correct or best technical method, but Mr. Harter(JREF) studied the tape "frame by frame" in a tape available on the internet and gave me a poor answer based on a poor method. Was not my fault, was Harter's mistake. No a single word from him about that my application was not valid.

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


By the way, do you see "events " of different type on your t.v.?


Yes. Glitches occur from time to time.


Do you think the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Amstrong was the first man walked on the moon?Have you checked the original tape and video tape recorder to be sure ?


Sorry, that is not the same as what you are claiming. You cannot use uncertainty as evidence that your claim is correct. At best, doing so leaves us at the same place we began.


Is the same with the broadcast of sports "live", sometimes are something else in the images that nothing have to do with the sports they are transmmiting.


That's essentially what I meant.


I saw yesterday the HBO special, was based on the work of 16 news organizations. The only shot not included was the one we are talking about here.(???)


Irrelevant.


I am still waiting the answer here or in the home page of Mr. Randi (JREF) saying I am a troll , idiot, stupid and similars, but also the reasons why and with the honesty of publishing my notarized application and the answer his researcher gave me.There are more than 2000 visitors that deserves a little respect


Appeal to Popularity...



Until then..........

Thanks
S&S

P.S: The same answer to "thatgay", but I guess he said last week he will never write anymore in "the Carlos Swett affair". Perhaps he is worried abot the rating ( the stars) so he decided to vote. I tell you that my "rating" are the more than 2000 visitors to this case in only two weeks. For them are my respects not for the stars.

The rating is irrelevant to the claim. The number of views of the thread does not equate to 2000 different people.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Linda 08-27-2002
Interesting.....Sr. Swett just registered for the message boards today. I expect we'll be hearing from him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hola Linda:


I remember I wrote you asking for your advice about if I can write in the forum. After 20 messages you put the message I am quoting here from you . Your expectation by that time has been satisfied.

I started writing here at 08-29-2002
Now is time fo give you my special thanks to you for that opening,

I guess this case had many visitors and writers, differents points of view that I respect, and that I tried to give them true answers.

All the reasonable questions of the members of this forum I have answered. Those members (after my answers) have no more "smarts" replies.

Now I see a tactic from the "juveniles" or "brainless" members based on the insults to minospreciate my real notarized application to the challenge. Is rare for me that in a forum of an educational foundation they can not defeat me with reasonable arguments, only insults. Well,I guess, our earth has space for everybody, now.

I am defending alone a truth : I made an application to the challenge and I received a poor answer by e-mail from one of the members of the JREF, and that poor answer was after I asked several times Mr. Randi about the answer to my application ( "who are you and what the hell are you raving about ?" was Mr. Randi answer).

I only have one question ; ¿ When one of the members of the JREF will give their oppinion of my case, or are you satisfied with Andrew Harter's poor answer ? If you can , please answer me that simple question. I hope that does not cause you troubles at the JREF.


I still respect you all and support your works at the JREF.
I asume that you (JREF) made a mistake with me, but sometimes that occurs in the "better families".

Gracias Preciosa,
S&S

P.S. Sorry for my english.
My e- mail is swettcarlosluis@hotmail.com I don't have nothing to hide. Thanks again.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos,

I keep seeing references to you calling me "thatgay." Understanding your language barrier, I was willing to let it slip a few times, assuming that it was just a spelling mistake. But lately I am begining to wonder if you are actually using the word "gay" as an insult to me?

Do you consider the word "gay" to be an insult? Someone who uses the word "gay" as an insult is obviously a homophobic bigot. Are you a homophobic bigot, Carlos? Are there other social groups that you have a dislike, maybe hatred towards (Jewish people? Asians? Blacks? Women?)

I'm just trying to figure out what kind of person you are.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
[B]Carlos,

I keep seeing references to you calling me "thatgay." Understanding your language barrier, I was willing to let it slip a few times, assuming that it was just a spelling mistake. But lately I am begining to wonder if you are actually using the word "gay" as an insult to me?


Hi guy:

Do you have something against trolls?You forgot latins, too.

No reasonable arguments from you to the "Carlos Swett affair"

You are supposed to be away of this, you are invisible (or imbecile) , or you came to vote again ?

Go play with your balls , don¨t miss the teletubbies.
Go away, this is an Educational Foundation Forum, first pass the elementary school,
Don´t waist your time. Fight for S Browne, don´t loose energies.

Thanks.

S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&S

Hi guy:

Do you have something against trolls?



:D :D Why, yes Carlos, I do have something against Trolls! How could you tell? Nothing gets by you, does it?



You forgot latins, too.



Do I have something against latin people? No. It just so happens that I grew up in Cochabamba Bolivia. I was there until I was 15. I was quite fond of the Bolivians. My best friends were Bolivians. My brother and sister both married Bolivians. So, no, I don't have anything against Latin people.

Now, would you like to answer MY question, since I have answered yours? Are you a homophobic bigot?



No reasonable arguments from you to the "Carlos Swett affair"

You are supposed to be away of this, you are invisible (or imbecile) , or you came to vote again ?



The forum is designed to only let you vote once. You KNOW why I am here. I am here to make your life miserable. I like to make Trolls feel unwanted! Its fun!



Go play with your balls , don¨t miss the teletubbies.
Go away, this is an Educational Foundation Forum, first pass the elementary school,
Don´t waist your time. Fight for S Browne, don´t loose energies.

Thanks.

S&S

Thank you for the suggestions, Troll. I think I would rather just sit here and poke at you with a stick. :D

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by S&S


Hi guy:

Do you have something against trolls?You forgot latins, too.

No reasonable arguments from you to the "Carlos Swett affair"

You are supposed to be away of this, you are invisible (or imbecile) , or you came to vote again ?

Go play with your balls , don¨t miss the teletubbies.
Go away, this is an Educational Foundation Forum, first pass the elementary school,
Don´t waist your time. Fight for S Browne, don´t loose energies.

Thanks.

S&S

This week, La-La gets all in a tizz because she has lost her handbag. Was it stolen by a ghost?

Why not video it and try and claim a million bucks.......

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos,

Did you know that Tinky Winky is accused of being GAY? (http://www.gabrielmedia.org/news/falwell_teletubbies.html)

How does that make you feel? Do you hate Tinky Winky?

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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




Thanks,
S&S [/B][/QUOTE]

[Wyrd1]

"All the reasonable questions of the members of this forum I have answered. Those members (after my answers) have no more "smarts" replies."

You still haven't adequately answered the most basic question, Carlos, Why didn't anyone in New York report this paranormal sight? Your claim that they were focused on the planes hitting the buildings doesn't have any merit. It is fundamental human nature to follow fast moving large objects erupting from a source suddenly. If your paranormal object did in fact fly out of Tower two when Tower one was struck most or at least some of the people on the ground in position to see your object would have followed it with their eyes. Not one person reported it. Nobody saw it. It has been pointed out to you several times that the reason you saw something could be explained by any number of reasonable causes not dependent on supernatural/paranormal events. It has been pointed out to you that the burden of proof is on you. It is not on JREF. They don't don't have to prove nada. YOU have to prove it could NOT have been anything but paranormal. You have never made any reasonable reponse to anyone pointing out these things to you. Instead you tell them to "go to their dogs" or watch Teletubbies. This is why you are called a Troll. I'm starting a pool for when you decide to give up and leave this forum alone. I'm taking "never."

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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




Thanks,
S&S [/B][/QUOTE]

[Pyrrho]

Very well. I will assume that you have nothing else to say, since you have resorted to spamming the thread.

Plonk.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Carlos,

Did you know that Tinky Winky is accused of being GAY? (http://www.gabrielmedia.org/news/falwell_teletubbies.html)

How does that make you feel? Do you hate Tinky Winky?

It seems that is time for the clown´s act.
You all are doing your best
besides you are only clowns
with no brain and replies
In this big circus
I am still waiting
for the owner of the clowns:
the "amazing"
to say something,
in his big silence
we have only sighs

Thanks,
S&S

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&S

I am still waiting
for the owner of the clowns:
the "amazing"
to say something,
in his big silence
we have only sighs

Thanks,
S&S

Hey there Troll. Hows it going? I just wanted to point out that Randi did say something.

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

What else does he have to say? Go away Troll! If you don't, I am just going to keep poking you with a stick!

[rwald]

OK, I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything (Carlos, please don't tell me your video was originally broadcast live to everyone in the world, and couldn't have been edited; I already know this); I just think it is funny.


Yes, I know this is gallows humor, at best. I mean no disrespect to those who died on 9/11/01. I'm just making fun of the Swett video. Please don't turn around and say I'm anti-American; that simply isn't true. I'm just taking the existing video, and trying to find some humor in it.

[De_Bunk]

Dear spanish speaking f*ckwit, who thinks he observed something paranormal in the WTC murders...

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

You are truly insane....and your father won the award for being Spanish "Idiot F*ckwit" of the year...and it looks like you're trying to win this year..in his honour....:p

I reckon it was a rocket fired from an F18 to bring down the plane...but the F18 pilot hesitated...and only fired when it was inevitable that the plane was going to impact the Tower...

Yeh...

Thats what it was....



:D

Originally posted by rwald
OK, I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything (Carlos, please don't tell me your video was originally broadcast live to everyone in the world, and couldn't have been edited; I already know this); I just think it is funny.


Yes, I know this is gallows humor, at best. I mean no disrespect to those who died on 9/11/01. I'm just making fun of the Swett video. Please don't turn around and say I'm anti-American; that simply isn't true. I'm just taking the existing video, and trying to find some humor in it.


Hi rwald:
I am a little dissapointed of you. All your questions or interpretations you made me before are already answered and solved, but this thing you are posting here puts you in the same category of the brainless clowns that are before you, lyke thatguy and the scotch.

If you don't have more arguments lyke the rest of clowns to defeat the reality of my true notarized application to the challenge and a poor answer from the JREF, please stay in silence, too. It is better.

As you see, in your"gallows humor" is a fact that internet is not the correct method to analize the video, it can be tricked.
Sorry for the big favor you did to Andrew Harter and the JREF (The Amazing Randi) proving they used the stupid , antitechnical and poor method , That is a fact.

I don`t know if U:S: people aprooves your humor, perhaps some stupids yes (they will think lyke you: is about "SWETT`S VIDEO),
but the rest I am sure they will not.

I protest myself in name of the more of 30 ecuadorians that were working in the towers and died , and I protest in name of all the victims of the stupidity (past , present and future) . Please don`t put yourself in that side. I hope you were a little "high" when you did it.

It is time , as I said before, to open your mouth "Amazing Randi and Amazing Harter", besides only I know that those e-mails between us are true. The rest of the members and guess of this thread have the right to think the e-mails are edited.

Your members of this forum , Mr. Randi, want your help, they can`t defeat me , have no more reasons, and are transforming the JREF forum in a circus. Fire the clowns.

Thanks.
S&S

[De_Bunk]

Whoo, Whoo.....All aboard...

This has got to be a joke...

I bet its another one of "Grenard's attempt to get revenge...

or Bethke....or the jokers behind Agur, or any one of the other fruitcakes out there...that have had their delusional claims laughed off the face of the planet...

Its yet another case of.."My Eeeenglish is wery bade"....

But somehow they understand it and are able to read it perfectly....

Yeh..

Right...

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Dear spanish speaking f*ckwit, who thinks he observed something paranormal in the WTC murders...

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

You are truly insane....and your father won the award for being Spanish "Idiot F*ckwit" of the year...and it looks like you're trying to win this year..in his honour....:p

I reckon it was a rocket fired from an F18 to bring down the plane...but the F18 pilot hesitated...and only fired when it was inevitable that the plane was going to impact the Tower...

Yeh...

Thats what it was....



:D

Hi leader of the stupids clowns :

No., it was a bird ;said Harter(JREF) in his answer.
You are missing one thing (because you can`t read): "it can be see in trough the smoke of the tower with some difficulties, but it is there"(Harter`s words).

The only thing your father won was your mother, and you are the result.

Thanks,
S&S

[De_Bunk]

I lyke you wery much...

You reckon im a clown...

Im not the one claiming there is something paranormal about a load of dust, with bits of debris floating about.... and then asking for $1,000,000 for it...

Go figga...

Hurry up...the trains leaving the station...

( PS...you are nothing but another troll..who's been lurking and suddenly trying to replace Bethke...)

Hi De_Bunk:

The only thing your father won was your mother, and you are their result. Sorry for your mother( double lost)

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Carlos, I know that the internet video can be edited, as I proved. I never said that Randi and Harter did the best possible review of your case; I know that it would have been better had they looked at the original video. My argument has always been that you ignored the rules of the challenge, and should be disqualified solely based on that. As we were discussing on IRC last night, because you did not clearly state how your claim could be disproven, you broke rule #1 of the application rules, and therefore are disqualified automatically. It doesn't matter what Randi and Harter do; if you break the rules, you are disqualified.

And again, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I was just trying to be somewhat funny. If you are offended, I am sorry. However, my picture was not trying to prove a point; my point has never been based on pictures.

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

My.... how your english is improving...in such a small space of time as well...you must be a quick learner...

And im really cut up about my father winning my mother and me being the result...?????

I lay prostrate, in honour, at your cutting wit...and totally understandable humour....

The winter nights must fly by in your household...

Stick to pretending you dont "Speeaka da eeenglish"..thats funnier than thinking i give a **** what you say about me...

[thatguywhojuggles]

Small sample of this thread (Part II)

And the Troll STILL doesn't get the message!!!

If you missed Part I, check back on the previous page....



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

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

"Yet another Troll feeding thread." -Testudo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Small sample of this thread (Part II)

And the Troll STILL doesn't get the message!!!

If you missed Part I, check back on the previous page....



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

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

"Yet another Troll feeding thread." -Testudo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Yeah but we are obviously all wrong..........

Dipsy sends her regards S&S by the way............

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Small sample of this thread (Part II)

And the Troll STILL doesn't get the message!!!

If you missed Part I, check back on the previous page....



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

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

"Yet another Troll feeding thread." -Testudo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



hi thatguywhocries:

Thanks for posting the list of your Association of Brainless Clowns(ABC). That will help to make a difference into the members of this thread.

Keep on going, Randi and Harter are proud of you all, maybe you all get a t-shirt free.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, I know that the internet video can be edited, as I proved. I never said that Randi and Harter did the best possible review of your case; I know that it would have been better had they looked at the original video.

And again, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I was just trying to be somewhat funny. If you are offended, I am sorry. However, my picture was not trying to prove a point; my point has never been based on pictures.

Rwald: First put your brain in working, then your fingers will type reasonable on the keyboard.
You made a mistake , lyke Harter and Randi; the difference is that now you are recognizing your error; the "amazing duo" are still in silence.

I remind you all members and guess of this thread Mr. Harter¨s answer to my notarized application to the challenge:

From: "JREF" <jref@randi.org>
>To: "Carlos Swett"
>Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: <st1:date Month="4" Day="15" Year="2002">Mon, 15 Apr 2002</st1:date> <st1:time Hour="15" Minute="0">15:00:44</st1:time> -0400
>
>We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.

>You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

>Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower.

>This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.
>You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.
>
>Andrew Harter
>Researcher
>James Randi Educational Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

Rwald: please stop acting lyke JREF lawyer, they can defend themselves, I am still waiting them.

A)Can you tell me where is my "second assumption"?

B)Where are the words of Harter that my application is not valid ?

C)Do you know the link of the internet video that Harter studied "frame by frame"?

You better do merits in this test, so I will erase you from the list of the ABC (Association of Brainless Clowns )

Thanks,
S&S

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

You've been playing with the "Cybershamen" again ...havent you...

Kill John Lennon....

Isnt there a Peoples Liberation Army you can join or something...

I thought Ecuador liked a bit of revolution...

Kill John Lennon....

But anyway...you are definitely a candidate for trying Cybershamen and believing it will enlarge your penis through flashing lights and sounds...

Zombo.com...

Kill John Lennon....

I reckon your Bethke....or Agur...

De_Bunk

( Re-hashing the Ol' "subliminal message" gag again...)

[rachaella]

Originally posted by rwald
OK, I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything (Carlos, please don't tell me your video was originally broadcast live to everyone in the world, and couldn't have been edited; I already know this); I just think it is funny.


Yes, I know this is gallows humor, at best. I mean no disrespect to those who died on 9/11/01. I'm just making fun of the Swett video. Please don't turn around and say I'm anti-American; that simply isn't true. I'm just taking the existing video, and trying to find some humor in it.


Thanks ;)

[rwald]

Carlos,

I didn't make a mistake; from the beginning I said my picture proved nothing, and I still say this. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my first letter. However, there is still a problem. It is you who have made a mistake. The mistake is, your application is not valid. You did not comply with all the rules of the application, and therefore, you cannot be considered an applicant. It doesn't matter what Randi and Harter told you in their letters; if you did not follow their rules, you cannot win.

As to your complaints that Randi and Harter haven't told you any of this personally: They have already told you this. They told it to you, and the rest of the world, when they posted their rules online for everyone to see. If you choose to ignore what they have already said, than that is your choice. But do not pretend they have said nothing; to the contrary, they have already said enough.

Originally posted by De_Bunk

[B]S&S...You are truly insane....and your father won the award for being Spanish "Idiot F*ckwit" of the year...and it looks like you're trying to win this year..in his honour..



Hi virtual De-Bunk:

The only thing your father won in his life was your mother. You are the result of that.
Sorry for your mother, she lost twice.

Thanks,
S&S

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rwald
[B]Carlos,

I didn't make a mistake; from the beginning I said my picture proved nothing, and I still say this. ...................

------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Rwald,

Sorry , you did not pass the simple test of the 3 questions(A,B,C) you were supposed to answer.

Your note : F

You can be the secretary of ABC ( Assiociation of Brainless Clowns) , so you can put your own rules.
To be President of ABC are disputing "thathellokittyguy" and De-Bunk. The others clowns are in silence, now.

Until the "Amazing Duo" don´t come in your defense, your replies are from loosers.

Another simple questions about "my first assumption"(as Harter said)

Did you compare it (Harter´s) with "mine" in the translated notarized application.? Who is lying?

First the first,

Thanks,
S&S

[Wyrd1]

The others clowns are in silence, now.

We are ignoring you. Go visit the Skeptic's Forum. I posted something there for you that may help you. I figure if I help you find someone who may listen to you that you'll leave us alone.

[rwald]

I agree that Harter's response was not the best it could have been. But, the point is, since your application was flawed from the beginning, it doesn't matter what Harter said. If he said, "You're a poopy head, na, na, na na, na," it wouldn't matter. The problem occured before Harter said a word. Unless you can prove that your application was correct, it doesn't matter what Harter said.

And as the secretary of the Association of Brainless Clowns, I nominate you, Carlos Swett, as our patron saint. Do I hear any seconds?

Originally posted by rwald
I agree that Harter's response was not the best it could have been.


Your note : F

You did not answered a simple question.

You will be second by your friends of the ABC.
Mr. Randi was your saint patrol, why change him?

Thanks,
S&S

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

Why are you still here....????

[thatguywhojuggles]

You know... I thought I would be strong enough to battle against Mr. Swett. I was horribly wrong! I had no idea he was SO clever, SO witty! I must confess, when I saw the brilliance of his Association of Brainless Clowns (ABC), I knew right then and there, that I had been defeted by his brilliance.





NOT!!!



Get a ****ing LIFE you stupid troll!!!!

[De_Bunk]

A fine example of S&S humour....


"The only thing your father won in his life was your mother. You
are the result of that.
Sorry for your mother, she lost twice."


Oh how i laughed....

Agur / S&S.....you are a born comedian....

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
You know... I had no idea he was SO clever, SO witty! I must confess, when I saw the brilliance of his Association of Brainless Clowns (ABC), I knew right then and there, that I had been defeted by his brilliance.
Get a ****ing LIFE you stupid troll!!!!

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

Hi thathellokittyguy:

Your presidence for the ABC (Association of Brainless Clowns) are in a hard dispute with De-Bunk.

Now that you all have an official secretary(Rwald) , send a message to your "amazing patron saint" James Randi asking to come in your defense in this case, now that you don´t have more arguments.

I am still waiting for the "amazing" James Randi and his "amazing researcher" Andrew Harter to say something on the "week´s commentary" and put my notarized application and their poor answer to all the public.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. Keep on going , thatguywhocries, besides you and all of you are anonimous guys, just nicknames.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Looks like Carlos Swett is LIVE on IRC in the #JREF room...my extremely limited knowledge of Spanish tells me that so far, I've been called everything but White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
He thinks it's some sort of accomplishment to put my real name out on IRC, too...as if anyone who can click a mouse can't do the same thing.

C'mon over to IRC and let's give this guy a drubbing...

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Looks like Carlos Swett is LIVE on IRC in the #JREF room...my extremely limited knowledge of Spanish tells me that so far, I've been called everything but White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
He thinks it's some sort of accomplishment to put my real name out on IRC, too...as if anyone who can click a mouse can't do the same thing.

C'mon over to IRC and let's give this guy a drubbing...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Charlie in Dayton:

I hope Mr. James Randi comes in your defense, but I guess he stills on silence about me.

Don't worry I don´t bite, I just use my mind.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. sorry for my english, What is drubbing?

Your note : F

You did not answered a simple question.


This is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've heard all year. And if you knew the kind of things I read on a daily basis, you'd realise how insulting that truly is.

The hypocrisy here is staggering. That you should berate someone for not answering a "simple question" when, in more than two months of arguments, you haven't given a straight answer to a single question that anyone has asked - I don't know if I should be laughing or just walking around the house, trying to make sense of what I've just read. (I did the second, by the way)

Now, as much as I would just as soon leave this board and never returned, I have one thing to say to you. If you are going to act so damn superior, I have a few questions that you have never answered and, I believe, will never answer, but I feel that you need a recap on all the very valid points you've dodged here.



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

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

Now THOSE are basic questions that should have been answered weeks ago.

Based upon your previous posts, I'm guessing that you are probably going to completely ignore this post. But hey, it's worth a shot.

P.S. I dare you to respond to this post without calling me a "stupid clown", or a "lawyer", or a "Randis believer" or any of the other myriad titles you've come up with for me and the people here.

Smiley01 30/08/2002 20:10
So you are going to the JREF boards, eh? Good luck. You are going to be facing a swarm of hardened skeptics of the highest degree, where you will have no allies (unless your friend follows you). By the way, does this mean you are going to be leaving this board?



Skeptics Forum
Drew Jonhston 16 years old, Ohio, Usa

[Wyrd1]

Funny you should mention Carlos' friend. IJRAL, before he got banned from the Skeptic's Forum was one such. Since you have those initials in your handle may we assume you are he?

[De_Bunk]

I reckon we ought to invite "Drew Jonhston 16 years old, Ohio, Usa" to come here...

Looks like He / She ( you cant tell these days ) would fit in here nicely....

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

S&S (or Agur / Bethke / AFarce1 / whoever you are....because you have got to be one of those....)

Why are you still here....????

You are obviously mentally ill and delusional....you prove that by posting here on a board whos members are continually laughing at you...think your a f*ckwit, a woowoo...

You are no different to "That woman who posts nothing but smilies and who's name cannot be spoken"....


In short, your a total waste of the electricity thats powering your PC.....

Think of your fellow Ecuadorians....they could use that electricity for the Revolution...or keeping their donkeys warm at night...

Selfish...thats what you are....


:D

Originally posted by Smiley01



P.S. I dare you to respond to this post without calling me a "stupid clown", or a "lawyer", or a "Randis believer" or any of the other myriad titles you've come up with for me and the people here.

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

Reply at the msn Skeptics Forum
Message 127 of 133 in Discussion

From: Smiley01 Sent: 8/30/2002 8:10 PM

So you are going to the JREF boards, eh? Good luck. You are going to be facing a swarm of hardened skeptics of the highest degree, where you will have no allies (unless your friend follows you). By the way, does this mean you are going to be leaving this board?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply at the msn Skeptics Forum
Message 128 of 133 in Discussion

From: S&S Sent: 8/31/2002 1:03 PM
Thanks Smiley:
I appreciate your advice. Yes , I am alone ; but I have no fear, I am sure in my facts.
There were more than 30 discussions about :the "Carlos Swett affair" before I entered in that forum ( Randi´s home). You can imagine how I was treated.
But now that I become to write .......(you better read it).
There were more than 600 visits to that case( just visits) and that´s why I am giving you all my thanks( Skeptic Forum) because you were my first and most important step to bring this "notice" to a rational discussion. That´s why I never went to charlatans , ufos pages or similars.
I am not leaving your board. I will be there with more discussions in another subjects.
Thanks to Iggy for not expulsing me and for not eliminate the pictures at this forum.
Your link of your forum is now" famous" in JREF forum. Congratulations, is a referencial guide to them.
Check on th members of the Randi forum (S&S) and click "my affair"( not with Monica Lewinsky) .
Thanks again(including Wyrd),
S&S

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

Don't worry my dear Smiley ,you are not at the "ABC", yet.
People of this Forum can tell who is lying ,first the first.

It was not so hard in this forum, my only arm was the truth, I am still waiting for Mr. Randi to get out of his silence (only sighs, as you said). The clowns are working hard (including Wyrd).

Thanks, S&S

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

You complete and utter wanker....

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



Hacete cojer, chilito gilipollas....


...and you know exactly what that means...

De_Bunk

[Doubt]

I stopped by the chat room last night while Swett was trying to assert that plants have minds. He would not answer any questions, but was willing to call people names. He also asserted that my mother talks to plants. Of course, he knows no such thing.

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

Originally posted by Wyrd1
The others clowns are in silence, now.

We are ignoring you. Go visit the Skeptic's Forum. I posted something there for you that may help you. I figure if I help you find someone who may listen to you that you'll leave us alone.


Reply at the msn Skeptics Forum "Who knows this story?"

) Message 132 of 133 in Discussion

From: Wyrd1 Sent: 9/18/2002 1:14 PM

Everyone say goodbye to Carlos. I will be giving him the boot shortly. I posted a link to try and help him but instead of thanking me he began bragging about being a famous artist and insulted me. Therefore he will be out on his keister. I'll give him two days to check the link I gave him. After the two days he is gone. Anyone joining the forum after that who remotely sounds as if it's Carlos/ijral/latin will also get booted. Carlos, we have struck you square in the middle of your noggin with the 2X4 of truth and you have not seen the error of your claim. To continue striking you would be cruelty to a dumb animal.

-Sincerely, Wyrd1, President Emeritus, Skeptics Forum Clown College.

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

Reply
Message 4 of 7 in Discussion "Everyone's off to JREF"


From: Wyrd1 Sent: 9/16/2002 2:22 PM

Carlos, you are wasting your time at JREF. You aren't ever going to convince them you saw something paranormal. I'm going to do you a favor despite you calling me stupid, a clown, a liar etc... Contact a magazine called Fortean Times. They look into all sorts of unexplained phenomena and they will be far more sypatico with your point of view than JREF. Their web adress is http://www.forteantimes.com also http://217.206.205.125 and www.forteantimes.co.uk (some people have had trouble getting through. They don't like Randi any better than you do and they would probably love to print a story embarrassing him and JREF. They are a British publication.Their oct 2002 issue had an article on 9/11 conspiracies and coverups but didn't mention anything about what you're talking about. Contact them and they may make you famous. Now aren't you sorry you've been so mean to me?

--------------------------------
Reply
Message 5 of 7 in Discussion "Everyone's off to JREF"


From: S&S Sent: 9/16/2002 4:49 PM

Wyrd:
You are talking to the wrong guy. I don´t need fame. My art works are already famous.You don´t know my mind. You are light years of my spirit and culture.
I prove you all that they(JREF forum) didn´t beat me. They were easier than you ( if that consolate you)
All their replies were solved by me. The only guys now there are the clowns lyke you Wyrd,
The "amazing duo" are still in silence , I was alone in his own house , no excuses for Iggy, The "amazing Randi" is afraid of me , is a fact that they gave me a poor answer. Double lost for you.

Sorry.,

S&S
P. S. I don¨t want to talk about the challenge in this forum, but you deserve an answer.
Say hello to SMILEY, I wiill visiting you again

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

Reply msn Skeptics Forum ( who knows this story?)
Message 132 of 133 in Discussion

From: Wyrd1 Sent: 9/18/2002 1:14 PM

Everyone say goodbye to Carlos. I will be giving him the boot shortly. I posted a link to try and help him but instead of thanking me he began bragging about being a famous artist and insulted me. Therefore he will be out on his keister. I'll give him two days to check the link I gave him. After the two days he is gone. Anyone joining the forum after that who remotely sounds as if it's Carlos/ijral/latin will also get booted. Carlos, we have struck you square in the middle of your noggin with the 2X4 of truth and you have not seen the error of your claim. To continue striking you would be cruelty to a dumb animal.

-Sincerely, Wyrd1, President Emeritus, Skeptics Forum Clown College.


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


Sorry wyrd : you auto proclamed a brainless clown of a high deggree, those are your words and swow to the people of this JREF forum your misery and hipocresy . I don't care if people of your kind boot me from the msn skeptics forum, is a great favor, you finally appears as you really are: nothing, a no no, anonimous clown.

Is another fact

Thanks,
S&S

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

Yeh..

Right...

Of course...

Bye....

Originally posted by Doubt
I stopped by the chat room last night while Swett was trying to assert that plants have minds. He would not answer any questions, but was willing to call people names. He also asserted that my mother talks to plants. Of course, he knows no such thing.

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

Hi Doubt;

You are al little confuse, this thread is about a real notarized application to the challenge I made and the poor answer JREF(Andrew Harter and James Randi) gave me . Is also about the silence of the "amazing duo".

But , if you are asking for help and worried if your mother talks to the plants, I can tell you that even Prince Charles of England does
that, so is not a big deal.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by De_Bunk
S&S...

Yeh..

Right...

Of course...

Bye....

Congratulations De-Bunk :

You finally are the president of the "ABC", but your "boss" is still in silence.

I am giving you a short list about the difference of using the "mind "or the "brain"

MIND USERS ---------------------- BRAIN USER
Goethe --- - - - - - - - - - --- - Einsten
Mozart - - - - - - -- -- ------- -- Freud
Da Vinci - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- Nobel
Neruda - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- Randi
Jesus - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- Al Capone
Twain - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - Hitler
Lennon - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - Arquimides
Swett - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - ---- De- Bunk


Have a nice day, you are the BEST representant of this Educational Foundation, congratulations again,

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Swett, I think you're the first person I've ever seen who compared Hitler to Einstein and Archimedes. Besides, you've still yet to fully explain your concept of the "mind," including important qustions such as how it can exist throughout the whole body (not just in the head), or why we should believe that plants have one, too.

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

Originally posted by rwald
Swett, I think you're the first person I've ever seen who compared Hitler to Einstein and Archimedes. Besides, you've still yet to fully explain your concept of the "mind," including important qustions such as how it can exist throughout the whole body (not just in the head), or why we should believe that plants have one, too.

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


Secretary Rwald:

You forgot in your list Randi and DE-Bunk.

When you use your brain there are two options : good or bad
When you use your mind is only one option : the correct way

That´s the difference , try to use it so you will not make so stupid
replies, bad jocker.

This Thread is about my notarized application to the challenge and the poor answer(as you said) JREF gave me,

Thanks,
S&S

Drew Jonhston 16 years old, Ohio, Usa

IJRAL, if you're going to post personal information on me, the least you can do is get it right. I live in Kansas, not Ohio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-Bunk, I'm tempeted to agree with you on Swett's mental state. On our forum, he's decided that he won, even though he hasn't changed anyone's mind. I guess this just means that he's joining the ranks of other self-delusional crackpots who believe that they've beaten James Randi.

Originally posted by Smiley01



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-Bunk, I'm tempeted to agree with you on Swett's mental state. On our forum, he's decided that he won,


Hi Smiley:

You have potencial, please don´t join the clowns of "ABC".
Ask Randi for help.

Thanks, S&S

[De_Bunk]

Smiley01...

If you are Drew from Kansas...stick around....I threw you an invite to join...but it looks like you already have....

As for S&S...

No one on this board understands a word he posts...

Its like he is using real low class translating software...and then running it back through it...

90% of it is total nonsense....and the other 10% is members names...

Thats about it...

If he is genuine....then all people are doing is playing him for a f*ckwit.....

If he is a joker...then they are still playing him for a f*ckwit....

Either way....Hes a F*ckwit...

What is he talking about......Because no one here knows..

Does he work for a Circus...he keeps talking about clowns....;)

De_Bunk

[EvilBiker]

Sorry to flay a dead quadriped, just a little thing I picked up.
Originally posted by S&S


(ad hom snip)

No., it was a bird ;said Harter(JREF) in his answer.
You are missing one thing (because you can`t read): "it can be see in trough the smoke of the tower with some difficulties, but it is there"(Harter`s words).

(ad hom snip)

Thanks,
S&S

Andrew Harter's words? No, not according to the following:
Originally posted by S&S


(ad hom snip)

You made a mistake , lyke Harter and Randi; the difference is that now you are recognizing your error; the "amazing duo" are still in silence.

I remind you all members and guess of this thread Mr. Harter¨s answer to my notarized application to the challenge:

From: "JREF"
>To: "Carlos Swett"
>Subject: RE: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (9 DAYS)
>Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:00:44 -0400
>
>We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.

>You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

>Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower.

>This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.
>You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place.
>
>Andrew Harter
>Researcher
>James Randi Educational Foundation

(ad hom snips)

So, in the "Andrew Harter's words" quote we have:

"it can be see in trough the smoke of the tower with some difficulties, but it is there"

..and in the email from Andrew we have:

"The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there"

Trough/through or against? Well, seems it was originally against. Big difference from through - wishful thinking on Carlos' side, perhaps?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Doubt;

You are al little confuse, this thread is about a real notarized application to the challenge I made and the poor answer JREF(Andrew Harter and James Randi) gave me . Is also about the silence of the "amazing duo".

But , if you are asking for help and worried if your mother talks to the plants, I can tell you that even Prince Charles of England does
that, so is not a big deal.

Thanks,
S&S

Swett,

Your reply here shows your inability to reason clearly.

My post was specific about the nature of what you are doing here. I am also insulted that you took it upon yourself to make any statement about my family without knowing anything about them. How would you like it if I started making statements about your mother?

Your comment about my mother contained several assumptions:

1.) You assumed that my mother is alive.
2.) You assumed that my mother has plants.
3.) You assumed that my mother talks to plants.

You do not know if any of those things are true. (Also, I will not tell if they are or not, since it is none of your business.) You have assumed that they are true because it was convenient for your point of view. This is the same thing you do with your "proof" of the paranormal.

I can only conclude the following from the total of your posts:

1.) You care nothing about reason, logic or proof.
2.) You are a troll.
3.) You probably know nothing about the mind or the brain but have strong feelings about them.
4.) You would like to believe that the phrase "You have no claim" and "Your claim is not valid" are different, but you can not offer any reason for why that would be so.

Feelings are a poor substitute for clear headed thinking and facts.

(Edited to clear up a bad sentance.)

[IggyK]

With wit like this:
Sorry wyrd : you auto proclamed a brainless clown of a high deggree, those are your words and swow to the people of this JREF forum your misery and hipocresy . I don't care if people of your kind boot me from the msn skeptics forum, is a great favor, you finally appears as you really are: nothing, a no no, anonimous clown.
Is it any wonder Carlos is going bye bye? Too much stupidity and so little time. Time has run out on the S&S/IJRAL train. It's been real. It's been fun. It hasn't been real fun, but that's life. Feel free to use your insults instead of reason. Insults are all you really have.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Hello everyone! I was out of town for a couple of days. I was at the Bristol Circus Arts Convention. What an amazing place. I learned lots of new tricks. I can't believe Circomedia starts on Wednesday! A whole year of circus arts training. I confess to being a little nervous.

Carlos, is it exciting to you that I am in a circus arts school? I bet it is!! Well, Carlos, I didn't forget about you. I put together your list. I must say, I am impressed! Your trolling skills are improving! You got almost 3 new pages in the time I was gone!

Well, anyway, here is your list!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You are a troll." -Doubt

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


Carlos, is it exciting to you that I am in a circus arts school? I bet it is!! Well, Carlos, I didn't forget about you. I put together your list.

Well, anyway, here is your list!


-rwald

-rwald

-De_Bunk

-Smiley01

-Smiley01

-Smiley01

-Smiley01

-De_Bunk

-De_Bunk

-Doubt

-rwald

-De_Bunk

-Doubt

-Doubt

-Doubt


Hi thathellokittyguy:

Congratulations for don´t forget me.

I noticed you have new members in your "ABC" like Smiley and Doubt.
If you can , PLEASE get out Smiley from your list of clowns, he or she is a person with high potencial (a little confuse only).

If you have no more reasonable replies , please ask Randi to come in your defense, I guess he is a little worry because you all said that he gave me a poor answer to my application to the challenge.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by De_Bunk




90% of it is total nonsense....and the other 10% is members names...

Thats about it...

De_Bunk

Hi De Bunk;

According to you curriculum the only thing you understood from me is this:

De_Bunk, the only thing your father won in his life was your mother. You are the result of that. Sorry for your mother, she lost twice." ( S&S...9/ 15 /02 )

If you want to understand the rest of my quotes , please ask Mr. Randi or Mr. Harter for help, perhaps, they will explain you the reason of their poor answer to my application to the challenge.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Doubt


Swett,

Your comment about my mother contained several assumptions:

1.) You assumed that my mother is alive.
2.) You assumed that my mother has plants.
3.) You assumed that my mother talks to plants.

You do not know if any of those things are true. (Also, I will not tell if they are or not, since it is none of your business.) You have assumed that they are true because it was convenient for your point of view. This is the same thing you do with your "proof" of the paranormal.

I can only conclude the following from the total of your posts:

1.) You care nothing about reason, logic or proof.
2.) You are a troll.
3.) You probably know nothing about the mind or the brain but have strong feelings about them.
4.) You would like to believe that the phrase "You have no claim" and "Your claim is not valid" are different, but you can not offer any reason for why that would be so.

Feelings are a poor substitute for clear headed thinking and facts.

(Edited to clear up a bad sentance.)

Hi Doubt:

You are making merits as a thinker.

Congratulations, you are right. I gave you a poor answer ( lyke Harter and Randi gave to me)

The difference is that I have not obligation to pay you a million dollars in papers.What I did was an official application to the challenge of the JREF and received a poor answer from them.

I give you my public excuses again for my poor answer, I hope Mr. Randi and Mr. Harter have the honesty to do the same.

Thanks.
S&S

Originally posted by EvilBiker


"The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there"

Trough/through or against? Well, seems it was originally against. Big difference from through - wishful thinking on Carlos' side, perhaps?

Hi EvilBiker;

It seems that you are an english teacher, I appreciate your correction, but perhaps you don´t know that english is not my language, I made efforts to write you all and try to remember what I learned of your language from school ( I am 48 now ), I don´t use dictionaries or virtual translators. I try to use my mind.

Well, you posted what Harter said in his poor answer, now I am remembering you what I said in my notharized application to the challenge;

".......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......"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------

As you see the key of the question is:" the image of the paranormal activity is not seen against the wall of the first tower while passing by it".

If you have any doubt , please see the "internet video" posted by Patricio Elicer or ask Mr. Harter to tell you the link of "the internet video" where he studied it "frame by frame", I agreed with you that is a poor method to do it , but.........

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
I will appreaciate all your futures comments about my bad english.I am improving a little now. This forum is a good exercise for me.

You have potencial, please don´t join the clowns of "ABC".
Ask Randi for help.

If you can , PLEASE get out Smiley from your list of clowns, he or she is a person with high potencial (a little confuse only).

I suppose I should be flattered, yet somehow, being part of the "Ignorant clowns" as you have taken to calling everyone here sounds better than the alternative.

And yet, I would be even more flattered if you-a.) Answered my questions with a rational explanation, or b.) Left this board. Either way.


With wit like this:
Sorry wyrd : you auto proclamed a brainless clown of a high deggree, those are your words and swow to the people of this JREF forum your misery and hipocresy . I don't care if people of your kind boot me from the msn skeptics forum, is a great favor, you finally appears as you really are: nothing, a no no, anonimous clown.
Is it any wonder Carlos is going bye bye? Too much stupidity and so little time. Time has run out on the S&S/IJRAL train. It's been real. It's been fun. It hasn't been real fun, but that's life. Feel free to use your insults instead of reason. Insults are all you really have.


I don't know about Wyrd, but getting rid of folk like you gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. It means I won. Although, I was kind of hoping you'd stick around just long enough to give me another laugh by trying to defend this post. How has Wyrd been a hypocrite? How does him booting an individual like yourself make him "nothing, no no, anonimous clown"? And I'm not even going to try to comprehend that "S&S/IJRAL train" remark. As much fun as it's been listening to your inane rants, I for one am glad to see you off. And as far as insults go...you've called members of this forum "clowns" at least half a dozen times. Now granted, I've been called worse by true-believers, but somehow, I thought you might rise above that. Just goes to show that I'm a terrible judge of character.

[rwald]

Hi, everyone. I was talking with Swett, and I decided that we needed a complete club roster. So, here it is:

President: De_Bunk
Vice-President: Sauron
Recording Secretary: thatguywhojuggles
Corresponding Secretary: rwald

Other members:
Smiley01
Doubt
Shaun from Scotland
pyrrho2000
Testudo
Wyrd1

Remember, we're still looking for new members, so if you're interested in joining, just post to this thread. For that matter, we still have some offices which need filling, so if you think you can help out, feel free to speak up.

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

[Shaun from Scotland]

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

[rwald]

Hmm. I hadn't thought about the issue of lapel badges. The board can discuss this, but if you guys could give us suggestions for saying that we could put on the lapel badges, that would be great. For that matter, if you have any other ideas for ABC fund-raising merchandise, we could try to implement them. We're open to ideas!

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

(Edited to fix minor grammar error. I'm supposed to be the Corresponding Secretary; my grammar should be perfect.)

Originally posted by Smiley01




I suppose I should be flattered, yet somehow, being part of the "Ignorant clowns" as you have taken to calling everyone here sounds better than the alternative.



Hi Smiley :

Well is your choise, even Rwald posted the official list with your name on it (lyke "other" member of "Assiocaiation of Brainless Clowns).

You are lying again when you said "calling everyone here ignorants clowns", no , no , I do respect the rest of the members, they had their own point of view and they have received an answer from me and I imagine they have been satisfy,

If you check your "ABC" list they are very few and really did stupids and insulting replies to me.

That´s the reason I am asking you to leave them and ask for Randí´s help, to get him out of his silence and don´t give you only sighs.
Remember this? :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Swett, do you know that whenever I mention your name in an e-mail to radio@randi.org, Randi, Harter and LaTona all sigh? I find that funny.

Skeptics Forum
13/08/2002 17:58
Smiley01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only sighs? Give me a break¡¡¡¡¡

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Carlos, the groups is called the Association of Brilliant Chaps. I let your "creative" version of our name pass the first few times, but I'm getting tired of your attempts to defame us. The only "brainless clown" here is you.

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

P.S. Carlos, could you list those people who aren't members of our organization? We need to know who to direct our membership drive towards.

(Edited to add post-script.)

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos, the groups is called the Association of Brilliant Chaps. I let your "creative" version of our name pass the first few times, but I'm getting tired of your attempts to defame us. The only "brainless clown" here is you.

(Edited to add post-script.)

Bad clown Rwald :

You made a terible mistake and you are paying for it.

Your "gallows humor" of "having fun" of the tragedy of 9/11/01 by posting a tricked video and your proud of it (besides is still here) made you (I am talking in first person) a detestable and non original stupid person., a LOW POINT for this Educational Foundation.

Thanks,
S&S

[rwald]

Carlos, I haven't said anything about that in the past 40 messages, at least. Nor has anyone other than yourself said anything about it. Apparently, they all understood that I meant no offense to anyone. Please, just get over the video. It doesn't matter.

And could you post that list of people not yet members of the ABC? I would like to know who to recruit next.

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

[rachaella]

Originally posted by rwald
Hi, everyone. I was talking with Swett, and I decided that we needed a complete club roster. So, here it is:

President: De_Bunk
Vice-President: Sauron
Recording Secretary: thatguywhojuggles
Corresponding Secretary: rwald

Other members:
Smiley01
Doubt
Shaun from Scotland
pyrrho2000
Testudo
Wyrd1

Remember, we're still looking for new members, so if you're interested in joining, just post to this thread. For that matter, we still have some offices which need filling, so if you think you can help out, feel free to speak up.

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

Can I join?? Even though I'm not a chap?

[rwald]

But of course. I mean "Chaps" in the most general sense possible.

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

[Skeptoid]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Bad clown Rwald :

You made a terible mistake and you are paying for it.

Your "gallows humor" of "having fun" of the tragedy of 9/11/01 by posting a tricked video and your proud of it (besides is still here) made you (I am talking in first person) a detestable and non original stupid person., a LOW POINT for this Educational Foundation.

Thanks,
S&S

The low point was your first post. Ba-dingggg!

Am I in the ABC?

:D

[rwald]

Well, strictly speaking, the low point was when latin/ijral first started talking on the IRC channel...but I'll give you credit for that one, Skeptoid. You're in.

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

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by rwald
Hi, everyone. I was talking with Swett, and I decided that we needed a complete club roster. So, here it is:

(...snip...)


Remember, we're still looking for new members, so if you're interested in joining, just post to this thread. For that matter, we still have some offices which need filling, so if you think you can help out, feel free to speak up.

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

Is this kinda like the Jets and the Sharks?

*snapping my fingers to a beat*

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

Thanks,
S&S

Dear S&S,

May I humbly suggest that you instead formulate your future posts as psychedelic haikus and, above all, that you end them with "Thank you". You would be more in character that way.

You are lying again when you said "calling everyone here ignorants clowns", no , no , I do respect the rest of the members, they had their own point of view and they have received an answer from me and I imagine they have been satisfy,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This actually tops your previous posts for sheer stupidity. (Well, maybe not, but it's still great) Man, you are really delusional if you believe everyone here is satisfied. How could they be? You haven't given a straight answer to anyone since this thread started. You see, if you had answered anyone here with a satisfactory answer, you'd be hearing a lot more "Gee, Carlos, you're right. Let's take down the JREF!" and a lot less "Carlos, you are a dumbf*ck troll. You aren't convincing anyone. Get out."

Also, I don't know what alternate universe that you live in where you have been respecting the other board members opinions. The mere fact that you call anyone who disagrees with you "ignorant clown" is testament to that. As far as me "lying" about you calling eyeryone ignorant clowns...this might explain why you will never understand exactly what Andrew Harter said. You see, not every word in the English language is black and white. "Everyone" is an infinitive, like "some" or "few". It can refer to a variable number. In this language, "everyone" is used to refer to the majority, or just a large group of people. OK, you haven't insulted everyone; I noticed you haven't called latinijral/IggyK "ignorant clown", even though all he's done is spam the thread, double- and triple-posting your material.

And finally, as for your comment about your name elicting sighs on the JREF broadcast: I really thought I explained this to you, but apparently, in your little world, nothing I say is important unless you can post it out of context and make me look bad. I never said they only sighed. They still responded to your ramblings (I'm sure the others here can vouch for that).

Originally posted by Smiley01


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!............., as for your comment about your name elicting sighs on the JREF broadcast: I really thought I explained this to you, but apparently, in your little world, nothing I say is important unless you can post it out of context and make me look bad. I never said they only sighed. They still responded to your ramblings (I'm sure the others here can vouch for that).

Hi Smiley : So there where not only sighs from Harter,and James Randi.

Well, I guess you can prove that now.

I give you all (ABC ) a tip : ask them to write about it and to post my notarized application and their poor answer (that´s all).
Are they (JREF) afraid ? of what?
Or are they using "the ostrich method"?

Facts, my dear Smiley, facts, no bla, bla, bla and bad jokes.
Try to be originals, is not hard, just use your mind.

Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptoid]

Carlos -

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


edited for punctuation.

Originally posted by Skeptoid
Carlos -

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

Hi Skeptoid ;

No arguments only insults, but still you will get an answer .

First : Is your nickname from the WWF ?

Second: About my persistence :I have to fight when my name (not a nickname) is involved in a farse of people that don´t have the simple honesty to try to see is what I claimed is true.
I thought I was talking to real sceptics , but the most (ABC) are really Randi´s believers.

Third: check this :

Reply
Message 98 in Discussion "WHO KNOWS THIS STORY" (msn)

From: Smiley01 Sent: 8/24/2002 8:26 PM
FINALLY we have a chance to put this whole issue to rest. ......
A few other comments. First of all, the object is clearly coming from behind the tower, not through it. Second, I found it odd that the object was the exact same color as the sky directly above it. This seems to indicate that it is a photo anomaly, not a "paranormal force". Though I am certainly not an expert on photography, ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As you see Skeptoid , there is a different version than Harter´s poor answer. It comes I know from an impusive and hurried member lyke Smiley, but it is there. That is another fact.
I hope you are not the same kind.

Thanks,
S&S

[Shaun from Scotland]

As smiley01 said several posts back:

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

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


ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR GO AWAY!!!

[Skeptoid]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


No arguments only insults, but still you will get an answer .



No insult intended. Just making an observation.

First : Is your nickname from the WWF ?

No, it comes from an argument with a friend who, like you, believes in paranormal nonsense. When, out of frustration, I called him a creduloid, he called me a skeptoid. I consider it a compliment.

Just to be pedantic ... It's the WWE now, they lost a lawsuit.

I thought I was talking to real sceptics , but the most (ABC) are really Randi´s believers.

You'll never find more "real skeptics" than you've found right here. That's why you don't find acceptance for your claim. A skeptic requires evidence. You've provided little in that respect. You haven't convinced me.

As you see Skeptoid , there is a different version than Harter´s poor answer.

I agree with Randi and Harter. Your claim should have been dismissed out of hand ... I doesn't pass the sniff test.

[rwald]

Carlos, you're using the same strategy as creationists who attempt to prove that one small part of evoluton is wrong, and then say, "If that part is wrong, then the whole theory must be, as well." We never said that it must have been a bird, or that Harter's guess must have been correct. All we're saying is that it was almost certainly a natural phenomanon, not a paranormal one. If you were able to prove that it was not a bird, this would not automatically mean it was a paranormal object; there are plenty of other possible natural explanations, and until you have disproven them all, you have no evidence to support your claim.

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

[LucyP]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. It was just too apt.

S&S submits a claim to JREF.

JREF FORUM: I wish to complain about this claim what you submitted.

S&S: Oh yes, the, uh, the Paranormal Object. What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

JREF FORUM: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

S&S: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

JREF FORUM: Look, matey, I know a dead claim when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

S&S: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable phenomenon, the paranormal object. Beautiful resolution.

JREF FORUM: The resolution don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

S&S: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

JREF FORUM: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Claim! I've got a lovely fresh apparition for you if you show...(owner hits the cage)

S&S: There, he moved!

JREF FORUM: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

S&S: I never!!

JREF FORUM: Yes, you did!

S&S: I never, never did anything...

JREF FORUM: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes claim out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

JREF FORUM: Now that's what I call a dead claim.

S&S: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

JREF FORUM: STUNNED?!?

S&S: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Paranormal objects stun easily, major.

JREF FORUM: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That claim is definitely deceased, and when you submitted it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of credibility was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged examination.

S&S: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for Niburu.

JREF FORUM: PININ' for Niburu?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

S&S: The Paranormal object prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable phenomenon, id'nit, squire? Lovely resolution!

JREF FORUM: Look, I took the liberty of examining that claim when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

S&S: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that claim down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

JREF FORUM: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this claim wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

S&S: No no! 'E's pining!

JREF FORUM: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This claim is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! He's f*ckin' snuffed it!..... THIS IS AN EX-CLAIM!!

Reply
Message 98 in Discussion "WHO KNOWS THIS STORY" (msn)

From: Smiley01 Sent: 8/24/2002 8:26 PM
FINALLY we have a chance to put this whole issue to rest. ......
A few other comments. First of all, the object is clearly coming from behind the tower, not through it. Second, I found it odd that the object was the exact same color as the sky directly above it. This seems to indicate that it is a photo anomaly, not a "paranormal force". Though I am certainly not an expert on photography, ..............

Holy ****. I responded to this BS back on the Skeptic's forum, so all Swett is doing is proving my point about taking things out of context.

Geez, I make one mistake and, of course, Swett waves it like a flag. Here is my current, correct opinion: The object was a bird, flying too close for the camera to focus on it. It did not come from behind the building.

But of course, Swett (who seems to have selective amnesia) forgot completely about my retracting that statement.

On the plus side, I found a few interesting bits and pieces while reading that thread:

...I have received e-mails telling me the strange position of Randi and his negative of answering their questions about my official challenge,...

I forgot about this completely, but now that I've seen it again, I'd really love to hear more about these e-mails.

Also, will someone else here who gets the broadcast please tell this moron that Randi and co. responded to his ramblings?

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
As smiley01 said several posts back:

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

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


ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR GO AWAY!!!

Hi Shaun of Scotland:

You want me to answer this again? Well, I guess you don´t read all the posts.

First: several million of people on the ground watching the towers? you are wrong, there were several millions of people of all the world watching this tragic EVENT by T.V..
Everybody was looking the plane crashes and when that fatal moment happened people on the ground reacted according the human reflect does: run or protect yourself, no time for nothing else. But the cameramans and the tapes on it are the eyes you are looking for : so focus in the shot that shows the paranormal EVENT.

Second: you want it from another angle? notice that the shot of what I made my observation is censured (never more) . it is the most clear shot from one close nearest angle of all the impacts. But . yes there is another one (edited by the CNN) and sold by the cameraman in 1 million box( the same day of the tragedy), and broadcasted on air 6 months later in a special edition.I taped that too.And also that tape was not presented (at least not complete) this year anniversary of the tragedy.

I hope that now you can sleep well , and canalyze your anger destroying your computer and leaving this forum.Go see the real world, is beautiful. A cup of scoth? Salud!!!!

Thanks,

S&S

P.S. If you didn't lyke the answer , there is another one : because is paranormal, that's the reason. Which one do you like?

Originally posted by Smiley01


Holy ****. I responded to this BS back on the Skeptic's forum, so all Swett is doing is proving my point about taking things out of context

But of course, Swett (who seems to have selective amnesia) forgot completely about my retracting that statement.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, I make one mistake and, of course, Swett waves it like a flag. Here is my current, correct opinion: The object was a bird, flying too close for the camera to focus on it. It did not come from behind the building.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, will someone else here who gets the broadcast please tell this moron that Randi and co. responded to his ramblings?

Worried Smiley:

Relax, even Randi and Harter made mitakes in this case, but you made it twice :now it seems that you are with Harte's version using a poor method ( that's why you are failing).

Ask De-Bunk (your defender) , he has a better version of the "bird" (is posted here), perhaps you will retract again.

Besides, if you e-mailed Harter : How is a sigh by e-mail?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. if you all 3 (Smiley, Wyrd , and Iggy)0f Skeptics Forum banned me , why you all 3 are following me here?UMMM.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Shaun of Scotland:

You want me to answer this again? Well, I guess you don´t read all the posts.

First: several million of people on the ground watching the towers? you are wrong, there were several millions of people of all the world watching this tragic EVENT by T.V..
Everybody was looking the plane crashes and when that fatal moment happened people on the ground reacted according the human reflect does: run or protect yourself, no time for nothing else. But the cameramans and the tapes on it are the eyes you are looking for : so focus in the shot that shows the paranormal EVENT.


How do you know there were not several million people watching? The population of New York is over ten million. If 2 planes had crashed in my city I would go for a look. The number of people watching is irrelevant anyway. Furthermore, if its peoples natural reaction to run, why didn't THE PEOPLE HOLDING THE CAMERAS RUN TOO? Your point is BS of the highest order.


Second: you want it from another angle? notice that the shot of what I made my observation is censured (never more) . it is the most clear shot from one close nearest angle of all the impacts. But . yes there is another one (edited by the CNN) and sold by the cameraman in 1 million box( the same day of the tragedy), and broadcasted on air 6 months later in a special edition.I taped that too.And also that tape was not presented (at least not complete) this year anniversary of the tragedy.

Debatable. A french film crew caught both impacts close up and this event is not on either of their tapes.

I hope that now you can sleep well , and canalyze your anger destroying your computer and leaving this forum.Go see the real world, is beautiful. A cup of scoth? Salud!!!!

I have analysed my anger extensively. When analysing I found that the phrase "Stop feeding the loony bin troll" sprang to mind.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S. If you didn't lyke the answer , there is another one : because is paranormal, that's the reason. Which one do you like?

I think I prefer the second one. It makes you look less of a ****wit than you really are and I always try to find peoples good points.

First: several million of people on the ground watching the towers? you are wrong, there were several millions of people of all the world watching this tragic EVENT by T.V..
Everybody was looking the plane crashes and when that fatal moment happened people on the ground reacted according the human reflect does: run or protect yourself, no time for nothing else. But the cameramans and the tapes on it are the eyes you are looking for : so focus in the shot that shows the paranormal EVENT.

Not a good excuse. The "object" appeared after the second plane hit, several minutes after the first one. No one watching was still running at this point. Also, how is it, if everyone was running and covering themselves, that these cameramen were standing their ground, recording all this? To the best of my knowledge, there is no footage in existence showing the first plane hitting the towers. This means that those with cameras didn't start recording until they were as far away as everyone else.

Second: you want it from another angle? notice that the shot of what I made my observation is censured (never more) . it is the most clear shot from one close nearest angle of all the impacts. But . yes there is another one (edited by the CNN) and sold by the cameraman in 1 million box( the same day of the tragedy), and broadcasted on air 6 months later in a special edition.I taped that too.And also that tape was not presented (at least not complete) this year anniversary of the tragedy.

Do you have any way for us to see it? Remember, the corraborating video must show the exact same event occuring as the other one. The "object" must be coming from the same place, at the same speed, trajectory, etc. Also, you really need to stop claiming that the US media is trying to censor you (or whoever you claim is censoring you; not like I understand half your arguments anyway). Our media loves the paranormal. Our media not exploiting something that had even the vaguest possibilaty of being paranormal is a bit like being told by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff that you don't have psychic powers; you must really not be psychic.

Finally, you really need to get a better grasp on what "censorship" means. Without using Webster's, I can tell you that it means the systematic suppression of information. The media doesn't show every second of footage they take. If they leave part out, it isn't censorship. If they destroyed or altered all copies of the footage and sent people around to threaten those who talked about it, then that would be consorship. Hell, if they were really censoring you, you probably wouldn't even be posting here. There are ways of silencing dissent online.

On the plus side, it's good to see that you are answering questions for a change. It only took, what? Two months?

Besides, if you e-mailed Harter : How is a sigh by e-mail?


It's called a live Internet broadcast. I think I explained this.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Smiley01

To the best of my knowledge, there is no footage in existence showing the first plane hitting the towers.



There was at least one video camera that captured the first plane hitting the towers. I saw it on the news. Someone was at a worksite, where I believe they were working on the sewer lines, and happen to have a video camera running. They heard the plane fly over, and pivoted the camera up just in time to catch the first plane hit.

Of course, that just strenghthens the idea that there must have been hundreds, maybe thousands of home video cameras, and dozens of professional videographers (sp?) capturing the second plane hitting the building. If this "paranormal" event could be captured by one video camera, there stands no reason it couldn't be captured on another dozen video cameras pointed at the same area.

But we haven't seen one yet.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


There was at least one video camera that captured the first plane hitting the towers. I saw it on the news. Someone was at a worksite, where I believe they were working on the sewer lines, and happen to have a video camera running. They heard the plane fly over, and pivoted the camera up just in time to catch the first plane hit.

Of course, that just strenghthens the idea that there must have been hundreds, maybe thousands of home video cameras, and dozens of professional videographers (sp?) capturing the second plane hitting the building. If this "paranormal" event could be captured by one video camera, there stands no reason it couldn't be captured on another dozen video cameras pointed at the same area.

But we haven't seen one yet.

Amazing thatguywhojuggles:

I see a change in your attitude, congratulations, there is not a single insult, that means you are starting to use your mind.

What you are posting is correct about the first plane crash (Smiley is a little hurried).
Your appreciation about the second impact is correct, too, That doesn´t mean that all the cameras were pointed at the same angle, but they were at least two of them as I said before that clearly shows what I am pointing.

Have you analize at least one of them( the shot of the application)the correct way?

Do you work or represent JREF in the challenge?

Do you think Harter used a poor method to analize the shot?

Do you know the link of internet where Harter studied the shot "frame by frame?

Do you know if Randi analize the shot , too?

Do you know where was Randi when my application was received at JREF?

Do you know why Randi asked me "who are you and what the hell are you raving about" "I want to deal with you"after 2 weeks that my application was received at the JREF?

Do you see the shot in the aniversary of the tragedy?

If you saw it, did you taped and studied the shot?

Is a bird , a missil, or a fastest cloud?

Why it can not be seen "against" the north tower.(not the smoke)?

Why it gives a wrong impression that comes from behind the north tower?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see, artist, I have a lot of questions and I don´t want you to get tired with more.

The application was received, open, poor answered and "close",
the worst thing is the silence from then on of the "amazing duo".
Their clock still ticking.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. Congratulations again also for your improving as an artist. Now you can talk in a proper language.

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

No insults from me...

One question....

Can you explain...whether divine intervention...or just you being the smartest person on this planet......How your English has improved so very, very quickly...

How you can understand slang and words spelt incorrectly...and yet you still have trouble posting in normal basic english...

So... just to test this theory...

If everyone made deliberate speling maistakes in ther posts....you would not be able to understand...Unless you spoke Englkish as a first languge

I find it very dew-bee-ouse that you somehow know all the current slang and terminology..phrasing..etc..and yet you cannot spell certain words that are the very basics of the English written word...

We all believe you are spanish....

Yeh..

Right...

Of course...

Another f*ckwit exposed...

As if its not obvious who you really are...

Think about it...

Originally posted by De_Bunk
S&S...

No insults from me...

One question....

Can you explain...whether divine intervention...or just you being the smartest person on this planet......How your English has improved so very, very quickly...

How you can understand slang and words spelt incorrectly...and yet you still have trouble posting in normal basic english...

So... just to test this theory...

If everyone made deliberate speling maistakes in ther posts....you would not be able to understand...Unless you spoke Englkish as a first languge...........

Another f*ckwit exposed...

As if its not obvious who you really are...

Think about it...

F*ckwit De_Bunk :

Thanks for your improving in insults.

You are mosr worried in my english than to certify using a correct method if what I claimed to JREF is true.

Well, I am going to satisfy your curiosity:

I am 48 years old. I studied elementary and high scool at the "American School Of Guayaquil"( a private school), where I learned my basic English.

On 1969 (15 years old) I was an exchanged student, and I lived 4 months with a USA family in Long Island, New York.

When I was !8 I studied architecture and from then I started to do some art works that gave me the chance to still keep on working in a job I love, free , with no boss and schedule , but hard, sweaty and not well paid in my country.

As you notice, from my 18 years old until this year of my application and posting in the forum are almost 30 years without practicing the english language. That´s the reason I am concious(?) that I make some spelling mistakes , so I appreaciate when somebody lyke you try to give me lessons of english.

Why my improving in the language? The exercise of posting here and trying to open minds lyke yours; I am refused of using dictionaries or virtual translators, I just try to use my mind and ask for help to my memory.

Perhaps, you are also concerned about my last name "Swett", yes is English (from England if you don´t know) , My great-grand father came to Ecuador and helped to start the revolution against Spain. Those are my origins.Is that a fault?

I hope all this quote satisfy your "presuncion" and help you concentrate in the questions I posted before to "thatguywhojuggles" and give you a reason to force Harter and Randi to open their mouth and write about my application and their poor answer.

Thanks,
S&S (Carlos Swett)

P.S.
Conratulations again for YOUR improving.

[rwald]

Carlos,

As I have said before, I personally don't care about the video. While I think it is very probable that the object is a natural phenomenon, and I will not believe it is paranormal until you provide evidence, I have not seen the original video, and cannot make a truly accurate judgment. My problem has always been with your application. Even if, against all odds, you produce a second video (not just saying that one exists; you must show someone else a copy), my arguments would not be damaged. All I want to know is exactly how you complied with each and every one of the rules required to apply for the Million Dollar Challenge. How did you comply with this rule:

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.

Did you ever agree with the JREF on a testing procedure? Clearly, you think that the JREF used a poor testing procedure, but did you ever agree with them as to what would be a good testing procedure? Did you ever state what would constitute a negative result? Did you state in advance what would be demonstrated (advance of the video being made, not of you giving the video to the JREF)? I think not. Since you violated this rule, you are not eligible for the JREF prize.

And don't tell me the rules have changed. I talked with Randi personally, and he said:

Yes, I changed the rules. I inserted one that says correspondence will be conducted in English. That's ALL.

Unless you can prove that other rules have changed, we must assume the rules at http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html are accurate, and that your application was in direct violation of them.

Now, if your application was never valid, then it doesn't matter what Randi and Harter said. It doesn't matter if Harter lied, or if Randi insulted you. Since you were never an applicant, they could do whatever they wanted, without any consequences. All your accusations mean nothing.

If you will admit that you were not an applicant, than I will finish this line of argument, and we can discuss whether or not the video really captured a paranormal event. But until you admit this, I will still not consider the video.

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

P.S. I like your sig, Carlos. I still stand by my words. I personally am not absolutly certain that it was a bird. But, I am pretty certain that it was not a paranormal object. So long as it was not paranormal, your claim is false, so from my point of view, it doesn't matter if it were a bird, an insect, or some weird weather phenomonen. You are the only one who must prove it to be some specific thing.

(Edited to add post-script)

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Amazing thatguywhojuggles:

I see a change in your attitude, congratulations, there is not a single insult, that means you are starting to use your mind.


Don't get too excited there, buddy. My reply about the video footage was addressed to Smiley, not you. That is why I was "nice" and didn't throw out insults. I have no need or want to insult Smiley. You on the other hand, I still think you are a Troll, and will continue to poke you with a stick.


What you are posting is correct about the first plane crash (Smiley is a little hurried).
Your appreciation about the second impact is correct, too, That doesn´t mean that all the cameras were pointed at the same angle, but they were at least two of them as I said before that clearly shows what I am pointing.


Did you send both of these SEPERATE video clips to JREF? I was under the impression you only sent one.

Have you analize at least one of them( the shot of the application)the correct way?


I couldn't be bothered to analize a single video clip that has all the appearances of a bird or insect, unless I was provided with AT LEAST ONE OTHER video of the same "event" from a seperate angle.


Do you work or represent JREF in the challenge?


I don't work for or represent JREF. But I have a high level of appreciation for them considering how many idiotic trolls like you they have to deal with on a regular basis!


Do you think Harter used a poor method to analize the shot?


Even if Harter DID analyze the shot, he did it simply out of being nice. Your application for the Million Dollars was flawed to begin with. He shouldn't have even had to deal with your application. It was flawed. Go read the application requirements. But it is pointless telling you this. Because unless someone agrees with you, you just sit there spewing insults!


Do you know the link of internet where Harter studied the shot "frame by frame?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you know if Randi analize the shot , too?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you know where was Randi when my application was received at JREF?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you know why Randi asked me "who are you and what the hell are you raving about" "I want to deal with you"after 2 weeks that my application was received at the JREF?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you see the shot in the aniversary of the tragedy?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

If you saw it, did you taped and studied the shot?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Is a bird , a missil, or a fastest cloud?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Why it can not be seen "against" the north tower.(not the smoke)?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Why it gives a wrong impression that comes from behind the north tower?


I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

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

As you see, artist, I have a lot of questions and I don´t want you to get tired with more.

The application was received, open, poor answered and "close",
the worst thing is the silence from then on of the "amazing duo".
Their clock still ticking.


I'm sure Randi and Harter don't give a crap about your woes. To them your application was closed a long time ago. They don't hear this ticking sound. Its only in your head. Its over! Go away, Troll!!

What you are posting is correct about the first plane crash (Smiley is a little hurried).

"Hurried"...is that supposed to be some sort of insult? I've been wondering since the first time I saw it. If it is, I don't get it.

I suppose that back-handed comment, along with your ignoring my last post, means you are back to ignorning me again. Well, whatever. There are plenty of others here to handle your half-witted posts, so I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles


Don't get too excited there, buddy. My reply about the video footage was addressed to Smiley, not you. That is why I was "nice" and didn't throw out insults.



Even if Harter DID analyze the shot, he did it simply out of being nice. He shouldn't have even had to deal with your application.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

[/B]

Hi thatguywhojuggles:

Well, is nice for me that peole specially lyke you take off their masks.

Imagine myself if I really did receive the same answer from Andrew Harter when I made the application, you guy wouldn´t have the nightmares I am shure you does, just because I wouldn´t never write here because "the Carlos Swett affair" wouldn't had no reason to exist.

But reality is different , as you members of the forum knows.
I received a poor answer from Harter(JREF) ,he used a poor method, and the best: he NEVER said that my application was not valid .
That will be your stick you will NEVER take off.

Your incapacity to give answers to questions, reflects your capacity of your brain : the same size of the cocodrile¨s brain, lyke a peanut.

Your only insulting posts, without arguments, will be ignored by me from now on. Don't waste your time, go play with your balls.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. originallity is the mark of the real artists, you are a repetitive brick on the wall.

Originally posted by rwald
Carlos,

As I have said before, I personally don't care about the video.

....it doesn't matter what Randi and Harter said. It doesn't matter if Harter lied, or if Randi insulted you.

(Edited to add post-script)

Hi Rwald : A little confused again?7

From Randi's archive:

1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with VIDEO.

"So it can't be tested, so go away " (James Randi's words)
------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see Randi can use a recording video as a proof.
And the video I presented was recorded live and transmmited to all the world by different networks in a tragic EVENT and the most viewed EVENT on the history of television.

Sorry again, Rwald, so if you personally don't care about the video, you are also wasting your time here.

I am still waiting the "amazing duo".

Thanks.
S&S

[DeliveringVito]

OK. I'm gonna dust the cobwebs off the keyboard for this one.

Mr. Swett,

First, try this:

You have no claim. = Your claim is invalid

or

You + have + no + claim = Your claim is invalid.

Mathematics is the universal language, right?

Second, you constantly repeat your claim that Harter's testing was insufficient. WHAT, exactly, do you think would be a sufficient test?

You want to blow up that portion of the frame and enhance it to see the detail? You've been watching too many movies.

You're not going to get anymore detail than what's there in the first place. I'm willing to bet that it was shot in NTSC standard, which is crap. You blow it up to examine it and you're your smear is just gonna turn into a big pixelated smear.

Even if you knew the precise location from which it was shot, you'd still need a second angle to make any decent calculations on the size, distance, and speed of the object.

My point is, you will probably never know for sure what it was, but logic (and my experience in video and graphic work) heavily suggests a natural occurance, whether bird, insect, or video glitch.

DV

P.S. I haven't earned an avatar yet, so I thought at least I could join the clowns. :D

...he NEVER said that my application was not valid .

Just because he didn't say it in those exact words doesn't mean he didn't say it. "You have no claim" means the same as "Your claim is not valid" as opposed to, say, "Your claim is incorrect".

I can't really break it down anymore than the rest of the forum has. No claim=invalid. Remember, we have things like hyperbole, slang, shorthand, sarcasm, exaggeration and the like, so one doesn't have to say everything like a computer would.

[rwald]

Hi Rwald : A little confused again?7

From Randi's archive:

1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with VIDEO.

"So it can't be tested, so go away " (James Randi's words)
------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see Randi can use a recording video as a proof.

I can quote, too:

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.

[snip]

Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant.

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

For that matter, it doesn't matter what Randi said in his archives. What he meant with that post, for what it's worth, was that if you were able to DO something, which he could videotape with his OWN camera under his OWN testing procedures, then he would count the video, along with other evidence, as proof. But Randi can't use his own video camera or his own procedures here. He is forced to use YOUR video. He never promised that he would take any old video, and use it.

And, to reply again to your charge that Harter used a "poor method," did you ever agree with Harter about what a "poor method" would be? You and I might think it was poor, but Harter apparently thought it was good. Since you never agreed with Harter as to what a "good method" would be, it doesn't matter what method he used.

As for me wasting my time here, I must say you're probably right. I came here with the hopes that I could help you understand where you made your mistake, and that you would see why you were wrong. Clearly, this will never happen. Oh well. I'm too involved in this to leave now.

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

[rachaella]

S&S:

If I wanted to run for the president of the united states today, even though I blatantly disregard the rules, and then I argue and argue over whether or not I deserve to run, does and of it really matter, seeing that I am not 35 (just the first criteria that pops into my head)? No, I did not meet the first criteria for becoming president. Even if my reasons for running were very noble and altrustic and I felt that I could do many wonderful things for the country and handle the job, I don't meet the criteria. Period.

Your claim did not meet the criteria.

Whatever else happened, your claim did not meet the criteria. Whether or not any government official needs to bluntly tell this to my face or not, it is still the truth.

I do not represent Randi or JREF but they are a large organization with much on their plate and not enough time to personally deal with every crackpot who comes along and makes a bogus claim, thus they post their guidelines in an very accessible location as are the criteria for being a presidential candidate.

Perhaps it's a stretch for us to expect that every loon who contacts Randi actually has taken the time to read through and is sure to thoroughly comprehend the guidelines.