The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

CURIOUS DE_BUNK

S&S...

No insults from me...

One question....

Can you explain...whether divine intervention...or just you being the smartest person on this planet......How your English has improved so very, very quickly...

How you can understand slang and words spelt incorrectly...and yet you still have trouble posting in normal basic english...

So... just to test this theory...

If everyone made deliberate speling maistakes in ther posts....you would not be able to understand...Unless you spoke Englkish as a first languge...........

Another f*ckwit exposed...

As if its not obvious who you really are...

Think about it...

F*ckwit De_Bunk :

Thanks for your improving in insults.

You are mosr worried in my english than to certify using a correct method if what I claimed to JREF is true.

Well, I am going to satisfy your curiosity:

I am 48 years old. I studied elementary and high scool at the "American School Of Guayaquil"( a private school), where I learned my basic English.

On 1969 (15 years old) I was an exchanged student, and I lived 4 months with a USA family in Long Island, New York.

When I was !8 I studied architecture and from then I started to do some art works that gave me the chance to still keep on working in a job I love, free , with no boss and schedule , but hard, sweaty and not well paid in my country.

As you notice, from my 18 years old until this year of my application and posting in the forum are almost 30 years without practicing the english language. That´s the reason I am concious(?) that I make some spelling mistakes , so I appreaciate when somebody lyke you try to give me lessons of english.

Why my improving in the language? The exercise of posting here and trying to open minds lyke yours; I am refused of using dictionaries or virtual translators, I just try to use my mind and ask for help to my memory.

Perhaps, you are also concerned about my last name "Swett", yes is English (from England if you don´t know) , My great-grand father came to Ecuador and helped to start the revolution against Spain. Those are my origins.Is that a fault?

I hope all this quote satisfy your "presuncion" and help you concentrate in the questions I posted before to "thatguywhojuggles" and give you a reason to force Harter and Randi to open their mouth and write about my application and their poor answer.

Thanks,
S&S (Carlos Swett)

P.S.
Conratulations again for YOUR improving.

 

[rwald]

Carlos,

As I have said before, I personally don't care about the video. While I think it is very probable that the object is a natural phenomenon, and I will not believe it is paranormal until you provide evidence, I have not seen the original video, and cannot make a truly accurate judgment. My problem has always been with your application. Even if, against all odds, you produce a second video (not just saying that one exists; you must show someone else a copy), my arguments would not be damaged. All I want to know is exactly how you complied with each and every one of the rules required to apply for the Million Dollar Challenge. How did you comply with this rule:

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

Did you ever agree with the JREF on a testing procedure? Clearly, you think that the JREF used a poor testing procedure, but did you ever agree with them as to what would be a good testing procedure? Did you ever state what would constitute a negative result? Did you state in advance what would be demonstrated (advance of the video being made, not of you giving the video to the JREF)? I think not. Since you violated this rule, you are not eligible for the JREF prize.

And don't tell me the rules have changed. I talked with Randi personally, and he said:

Yes, I changed the rules. I inserted one that says correspondence will be conducted in English. That's ALL.

Unless you can prove that other rules have changed, we must assume the rules at http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html are accurate, and that your application was in direct violation of them.

Now, if your application was never valid, then it doesn't matter what Randi and Harter said. It doesn't matter if Harter lied, or if Randi insulted you. Since you were never an applicant, they could do whatever they wanted, without any consequences. All your accusations mean nothing.

If you will admit that you were not an applicant, than I will finish this line of argument, and we can discuss whether or not the video really captured a paranormal event. But until you admit this, I will still not consider the video.

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

P.S. I like your sig, Carlos. I still stand by my words. I personally am not absolutly certain that it was a bird. But, I am pretty certain that it was not a paranormal object. So long as it was not paranormal, your claim is false, so from my point of view, it doesn't matter if it were a bird, an insect, or some weird weather phenomonen. You are the only one who must prove it to be some specific thing.

(Edited to add post-script)

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Re: NO MORE INSULTS

Amazing thatguywhojuggles:

I see a change in your attitude, congratulations, there is not a single insult, that means you are starting to use your mind.

Don't get too excited there, buddy. My reply about the video footage was addressed to Smiley, not you. That is why I was "nice" and didn't throw out insults. I have no need or want to insult Smiley. You on the other hand, I still think you are a Troll, and will continue to poke you with a stick.

What you are posting is correct about the first plane crash (Smiley is a little hurried).
Your appreciation about the second impact is correct, too, That doesn´t mean that all the cameras were pointed at the same angle, but they were at least two of them as I said before that clearly shows what I am pointing.

Did you send both of these SEPERATE video clips to JREF? I was under the impression you only sent one.

Have you analize at least one of them( the shot of the application)the correct way?

I couldn't be bothered to analize a single video clip that has all the appearances of a bird or insect, unless I was provided with AT LEAST ONE OTHER video of the same "event" from a seperate angle.

Do you work or represent JREF in the challenge?

I don't work for or represent JREF. But I have a high level of appreciation for them considering how many idiotic trolls like you they have to deal with on a regular basis!

Do you think Harter used a poor method to analize the shot?

Even if Harter DID analyze the shot, he did it simply out of being nice. Your application for the Million Dollars was flawed to begin with. He shouldn't have even had to deal with your application. It was flawed. Go read the application requirements. But it is pointless telling you this. Because unless someone agrees with you, you just sit there spewing insults!

Do you know the link of internet where Harter studied the shot "frame by frame?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you know if Randi analize the shot , too?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you know where was Randi when my application was received at JREF?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you know why Randi asked me "who are you and what the hell are you raving about" "I want to deal with you"after 2 weeks that my application was received at the JREF?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Do you see the shot in the aniversary of the tragedy?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

If you saw it, did you taped and studied the shot?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Is a bird , a missil, or a fastest cloud?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Why it can not be seen "against" the north tower.(not the smoke)?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

Why it gives a wrong impression that comes from behind the north tower?

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.

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

As you see, artist, I have a lot of questions and I don´t want you to get tired with more.

The application was received, open, poor answered and "close",
the worst thing is the silence from then on of the "amazing duo".
Their clock still ticking.

I'm sure Randi and Harter don't give a crap about your woes. To them your application was closed a long time ago. They don't hear this ticking sound. Its only in your head. Its over! Go away, Troll!!

 

[Guest]

What you are posting is correct about the first plane crash (Smiley is a little hurried).

"Hurried"...is that supposed to be some sort of insult? I've been wondering since the first time I saw it. If it is, I don't get it.

I suppose that back-handed comment, along with your ignoring my last post, means you are back to ignorning me again. Well, whatever. There are plenty of others here to handle your half-witted posts, so I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy.

 

[Guest]

NO MORE INSULTS ?????????

Don't get too excited there, buddy. My reply about the video footage was addressed to Smiley, not you. That is why I was "nice" and didn't throw out insults.



Even if Harter DID analyze the shot, he did it simply out of being nice. He shouldn't have even had to deal with your application.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

I don't care. Your application for the Million Dollars is invalid.
[/b]

[/B]

Hi thatguywhojuggles:

Well, is nice for me that peole specially lyke you take off their masks.

Imagine myself if I really did receive the same answer from Andrew Harter when I made the application, you guy wouldn´t have the nightmares I am shure you does, just because I wouldn´t never write here because "the Carlos Swett affair" wouldn't had no reason to exist.

But reality is different , as you members of the forum knows.
I received a poor answer from Harter(JREF) ,he used a poor method, and the best: he NEVER said that my application was not valid .
That will be your stick you will NEVER take off.

Your incapacity to give answers to questions, reflects your capacity of your brain : the same size of the cocodrile¨s brain, lyke a peanut.

Your only insulting posts, without arguments, will be ignored by me from now on. Don't waste your time, go play with your balls.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S. originallity is the mark of the real artists, you are a repetitive brick on the wall.

 

[Guest]

Secretary Rwald

Carlos,

As I have said before, I personally don't care about the video.

....it doesn't matter what Randi and Harter said. It doesn't matter if Harter lied, or if Randi insulted you.

(Edited to add post-script)

Hi Rwald : A little confused again?7

From Randi's archive:

1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with VIDEO.

"So it can't be tested, so go away " (James Randi's words)
------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see Randi can use a recording video as a proof.
And the video I presented was recorded live and transmmited to all the world by different networks in a tragic EVENT and the most viewed EVENT on the history of television.

Sorry again, Rwald, so if you personally don't care about the video, you are also wasting your time here.

I am still waiting the "amazing duo".

Thanks.
S&S

 

[DeliveringVito]

OK. I'm gonna dust the cobwebs off the keyboard for this one.

Mr. Swett,

First, try this:

You have no claim. = Your claim is invalid

or

You + have + no + claim = Your claim is invalid.

Mathematics is the universal language, right?

Second, you constantly repeat your claim that Harter's testing was insufficient. WHAT, exactly, do you think would be a sufficient test?

You want to blow up that portion of the frame and enhance it to see the detail? You've been watching too many movies.

You're not going to get anymore detail than what's there in the first place. I'm willing to bet that it was shot in NTSC standard, which is crap. You blow it up to examine it and you're your smear is just gonna turn into a big pixelated smear.

Even if you knew the precise location from which it was shot, you'd still need a second angle to make any decent calculations on the size, distance, and speed of the object.

My point is, you will probably never know for sure what it was, but logic (and my experience in video and graphic work) heavily suggests a natural occurance, whether bird, insect, or video glitch.

DV

P.S. I haven't earned an avatar yet, so I thought at least I could join the clowns.

 

[Guest]

...he NEVER said that my application was not valid .

Just because he didn't say it in those exact words doesn't mean he didn't say it. "You have no claim" means the same as "Your claim is not valid" as opposed to, say, "Your claim is incorrect".

I can't really break it down anymore than the rest of the forum has. No claim=invalid. Remember, we have things like hyperbole, slang, shorthand, sarcasm, exaggeration and the like, so one doesn't have to say everything like a computer would.

 

[rwald]

Hi Rwald : A little confused again?7

From Randi's archive:

1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with VIDEO.

"So it can't be tested, so go away " (James Randi's words)
------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see Randi can use a recording video as a proof.

I can quote, too:

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

[snip]

Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant.

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

For that matter, it doesn't matter what Randi said in his archives. What he meant with that post, for what it's worth, was that if you were able to DO something, which he could videotape with his OWN camera under his OWN testing procedures, then he would count the video, along with other evidence, as proof. But Randi can't use his own video camera or his own procedures here. He is forced to use YOUR video. He never promised that he would take any old video, and use it.

And, to reply again to your charge that Harter used a "poor method," did you ever agree with Harter about what a "poor method" would be? You and I might think it was poor, but Harter apparently thought it was good. Since you never agreed with Harter as to what a "good method" would be, it doesn't matter what method he used.

As for me wasting my time here, I must say you're probably right. I came here with the hopes that I could help you understand where you made your mistake, and that you would see why you were wrong. Clearly, this will never happen. Oh well. I'm too involved in this to leave now.

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

 

[rachaella]

S&S:

If I wanted to run for the president of the united states today, even though I blatantly disregard the rules, and then I argue and argue over whether or not I deserve to run, does and of it really matter, seeing that I am not 35 (just the first criteria that pops into my head)? No, I did not meet the first criteria for becoming president. Even if my reasons for running were very noble and altrustic and I felt that I could do many wonderful things for the country and handle the job, I don't meet the criteria. Period.

Your claim did not meet the criteria.

Whatever else happened, your claim did not meet the criteria. Whether or not any government official needs to bluntly tell this to my face or not, it is still the truth.

I do not represent Randi or JREF but they are a large organization with much on their plate and not enough time to personally deal with every crackpot who comes along and makes a bogus claim, thus they post their guidelines in an very accessible location as are the criteria for being a presidential candidate.

Perhaps it's a stretch for us to expect that every loon who contacts Randi actually has taken the time to read through and is sure to thoroughly comprehend the guidelines.

 

[De_Bunk]

S&S...

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

Then your doing OK...

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yet another Troll feeding thread." -Testudo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You are a troll." -Doubt


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Happy Trolling, Carlos.

 

[Guest]

Re: SMALL SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THIS THREAD

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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




Thanks,
S&S

 

[rwald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.
-- latinijral quoting Carl Sagen 09-10

Do you think the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Amstrong was the first man walked on the moon? Have you checked the original tape and video tape recorder to be sure?
-- latinijral 09-12

[completely reposting a post by S&S, without making any sort of addition or comment]
-- latinijral 09-14

[same exact thing again]
-- latinijral 09-14

you really are: nothing, a no no, anonimous clown.
[snip]
Feel free to use your insults instead of reason. Insults are all you really have.
-- IggyK 09-19

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

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

 

[Guest]

SURPRISE!!!!

S&S...

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

Then your doing OK...

Hi De Bunk:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Carlos Swett (S&S)

 

[rwald]

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

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

 

[rwald]

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

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

 

[Guest]

THE CIRCUS IS OPEN

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

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

Juvenile Rwald :

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

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

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

Bad brain : Bad clown

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

Thanks.

S&S

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

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Nothing worse than a sore loser.

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

 

[IggyK]

Naughty naughty

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