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