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. A short movie of the alledged paranormal phenomenon is here

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?

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:

Quote:

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-ECUADOR

Randi replied

Quote:

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

James Randi

Swett replied

Quote:

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
593-04-2391655

Then, Randi wrote

Quote:

I 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 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

Swett wrote

Quote:

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

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

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

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

YOU SAID THAT MY FIRST ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE OBJECT COMES FROM 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,

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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

Your application is closed.

James Randi

Swett

Quote:

Subject: 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 GALILEY

Randi,

Quote:

Re: JAMES RANDI´S CLOCK UPDATE (12 DAYS)

Go away.

Swett

Quote:

Subject: 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,

Quote:

Subject: Re: THANK YOU LIAR

Your address has now been blocked.

Swett,

Quote:

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 ANDREW

I 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


[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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 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.

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

[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...

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 rules

Yes 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 (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]

Quote:

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 (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]

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

...

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

[Nasarius]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

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

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.

Quote:

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/...hoto&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
b) This one (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

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

Quote:

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

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

[edit]
Corrected some mistakes in vB Code.
[/edit]