The "Carlos Swett affair"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: JAPANESE?

----
I don´t like lies or insults that have my name involved on it. And that goes specially to ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI.
----


Andrew saw the video earlier than you did. Maybe he gets the million dollars?
 
pictures

Latin, did you take any pictures that show the object as it exits the hole where it it appears to be half in and half out of the hole. If you can post pictures showing that it would help us see what you are talking about. I've searched the net and cannot find such pictures. If you still have your original tape can you try to get those pictures.
 
MILLION WHAT?

Whodini said:
----
I don´t like lies or insults that have my name involved on it. And that goes specially to ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI.
----


Andrew saw the video earlier than you did. Maybe he gets the million dollars?

Hi Whodini:

Perhaps you are a little wrong : Millions of people around the world saw it, remember was transmmited "live" THE EVENT even to my country.

The point is that I made the OBSERVATION of the "paranormal activity", the SAME WEEK of that tragic day, and I was interviewd by a tv channel ,in their own set , with their proffessional equipments and analizing their OWN 3/4 tape, and giving THEM the notice of the phenomenon on their NEWS program. That interview was ALSO on the tape I send to JREF.

How do you know that Harter analize the video before? Do you have any proof? Where are his commentaries about it?

What Andrew Harter said in his answer to me was :
"I studied it "frame by frame" from a video that is available on the INTERNET , a bird could certainly be the culprit, there is nothing supernatural taking place"

As YOU all agree He , ANDREW HARTER (JREF) used a poor, poor method of analisis.

Do you know the date the video of that shot was introduced at the internet?

Have you compare the videos?

Is the internet video with the complete scene ( just before the plane crashed the building)?

Did you compared the resolution of the video on internet with the 3/4 or betacam video the tv networks have?

Have you seen the scene in a wide screen television?

Have you used proffessional equipments to see the shot?

And I am not talking about the lies of HARTER or the insults of Randi.

And you Whodini are worried about the million papers.

Thank you Whodini

Thanks.

S&S
 
Re: MILLION WHAT?

----
Perhaps you are a little wrong : Millions of people around the world saw it, remember was transmmited "live" THE EVENT even to my country.
----


Oh yes, but see, it happened in the US, in NY, so maybe the person with the video camara should get your money?


----
The point is that I made the OBSERVATION of the "paranormal activity", the SAME WEEK of that tragic day,
----


You just assume it is a 'paranormal event', but this hasn't been shown to be true.


----
and I was interviewd by a tv channel ,in their own set , with their proffessional equipments and analizing their WN 3/4 tape, and giving THEM the notice of the phenomenon on their NEWS program. That interview was ALSO on the tape I send to JREF.
----


You can see the video on any tv, any number of times, with whoever you want to. -That won't make it a paranormal event, nor make it eligible for the JREF challenge.


----
How do you know that Harter analize the video before? Do you have any proof? Where are his commentaries about it?
----


I'm not sure Andrew is into looking at videos that way ...


----
What Andrew Harter said in his answer to me was :
"I studied it "frame by frame" from a video that is available on the INTERNET , a bird could certainly be the culprit, there is nothing supernatural taking place"

As YOU all agree He , ANDREW HARTER (JREF) used a poor, poor method of analisis.
----


No, I do not agree. You can look at it on any video and the hypothesis of a bird passing infront of the camera close at a high speed makes sense, and the results can be duplicated.


----
And you Whodini are worried about the million papers.
----


I'm worried about it never being won.
 
It doesn't matter if we say it was a "poor method." As you've pointed out frequently, the only thing that matters is what Randi and Harter think. And apparently, Andrew thought it was a good method. If you disagree, you need to bring it up with him.
 
SHOT TWO BIRDS WITH ONE BULLIT

Whodini said:
----
Perhaps you are a little wrong : Millions of people around the world saw it, remember was transmmited "live" THE EVENT even to my country.
----


Oh yes, but see, it happened in the US, in NY, so maybe the person with the video camara should get your money?


----
The point is that I made the OBSERVATION of the "paranormal activity", the SAME WEEK of that tragic day,
----


You just assume it is a 'paranormal event', but this hasn't been shown to be true.


----
and I was interviewd by a tv channel ,in their own set , with their proffessional equipments and analizing their WN 3/4 tape, and giving THEM the notice of the phenomenon on their NEWS program. That interview was ALSO on the tape I send to JREF.
----


You can see the video on any tv, any number of times, with whoever you want to. -That won't make it a paranormal event, nor make it eligible for the JREF challenge.


----
How do you know that Harter analize the video before? Do you have any proof? Where are his commentaries about it?
----


I'm not sure Andrew is into looking at videos that way ...


----
What Andrew Harter said in his answer to me was :
"I studied it "frame by frame" from a video that is available on the INTERNET , a bird could certainly be the culprit, there is nothing supernatural taking place"

As YOU all agree He , ANDREW HARTER (JREF) used a poor, poor method of analisis.
----


No, I do not agree. You can look at it on any video and the hypothesis of a bird passing infront of the camera close at a high speed makes sense, and the results can be duplicated.


----
And you Whodini are worried about the million papers.
----


I'm worried about it never being won.

Hi Whodini:

Thank you for bringing and come back to the "the old style" of this thread, no insults and real debating points.

Well. I just came from home watching an interview to one of my favorites USA film makers : JOHN WATERS , at channel FILM AND ARTS.
I know that doesn't have to do with this thread but I am going to answer your reply with another respectable reply of a respectable member of this forum : RWALD; and I will try to "shot two birds with one bullit"(please don't get this litterally)
--------
Rwald : "It doesn't matter if we say it was a "poor method." As you've pointed out frequently, the only thing that matters is what Randi and Harter think. And apparently, Andrew thought it was a good method. If you disagree, you need to bring it up with him."
-------

Well, I Carlos SWETT don't care what Harter and Randi "think".
The "truth" is about something else, no about what "the amazing duo " thinks.
They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that. And I am not talking now about their lies and insults


Thank you Whodini
Thank you Rwald
Thanks,
S&S
 
Originally posted by S&S
They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that.
Who says that their method wasn't "correct and proper"? Did they ever agree with you about what a "correct and proper" method would be? According to the rules:
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. (emphasis added)
Did the JREF ever agree upon what would be demonstrated? Did they ever agree upon what would constitute both a positive and a negative result? If they did, please tell us all. If they didn't, admit once and for all that you never followed the rules to become an applicant, and therefore, you never were an applicant. Once you do that, we may discuss your tape.
 
FEW EXAMPLES

rwald said:

Who says that their method wasn't "correct and proper"? Did they ever agree with you about what a "correct and proper" method would be?

Hi Rwald:

Thank you for quiting that stuff of the ABC.

Well, I am going to answer you with posts of members of this forum , from the real origins of this thread, before I joined the forum:


Originally posted by BUDDDYH 08-27-2002
"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.


Originally posted by THANZ 08-27-2002
"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."


There are more examples Rwald, but I just put 2 of them that were send the same day 08-27-2002
Remember I started writing in this forum at 08-29-2002

I am here fighting for my honor and my name. I've been lied and insulted by Andrew Harter and James Randi.
They lost . Is a fact. I only want their public excuses.
That's all (....?)

Thank you Rwald
Thanks,
S&S
 
It doesn't matter what BUDDDYH thinks. It doesn't matter what THANZ thinks. It doesn't even matter what I think. If Andrew thought that his method was "correct and proper," then that's all that matters.

Actually, a few times, when people asked you for copies of the video, you said that you didn't need to prove yourself to us; you only needed to prove yourself to Randi. Well, if you don't want to prove yourself to us, then clearly our opinions don't matter.

If you want me to find an actual quote, I'd be glad to.
 
WHAT HARTER "THINKS"

rwald said:
It doesn't matter what BUDDDYH thinks. It doesn't matter what THANZ thinks. It doesn't even matter what I think. If Andrew thought that his method was "correct and proper," then that's all that matters.
.

Hi Rwald:

I will tell you what "I think":

I "think" you are doing well in a position as a Randi's beleiver, but this is a forum to debate ideas and give facts.
Well, I Carlos SWETT don't care what Harter and Randi "think".

The "truth" is about something else, no about what "the amazing duo " thinks.

They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that. And I am not talking now about their lies and insults

Thank you again Rwald
Thanks,
S&S
 
Originally posted by S&S
They WERE OBLIGATED to use a correct or propper method. They did not, so they lost , is as simple as that.
Who defines what a "correct or proper" method is? Not the members of this forum. A "correct and proper" method is worked out as an agreement between you and Randi. Since you never made an agreement, there is no definition of a "correct and proper" method.
 
I TOLD THEM

rwald said:

Who defines what a "correct or proper" method is? Not the members of this forum. A "correct and proper" method is worked out as an agreement between you and Randi. Since you never made an agreement, there is no definition of a "correct and proper" method.

Again Hi, Rwald:

I told JREF in my notarized application what is the correct method to analize the tape. I did it.
Harter did not, he USED THAT STUPID AND POOR METHOD OF STUDY THE TAPE ON INTERNET, and made a poor conclution based on that poor method and gave me a poor answer based in lies and with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI.

Only thanks,

S&S
 
I must say, the night's session on IRC was a real rasslin' match. Carlos Swett was there, along with his sidekick LatinIjral (sporting the chat room nick 'yes_james_randi_is_a_liar'...how clever...). I've determined to adopt the position of the calm and dispassionate individual in this particular go-round. I've seen the little Internet video of the incident in question, and I have to say there's not enough data to make any sort of conclusion on...I'm going to have to see a regulation video tape of things.

There was one particular thing that pickled me tink tonight, though. I asked Carlos the following:
i don't expect an immediate answer, as the question will require some reflection. what evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?

Friends and neighbors, you should have seen the ducking, dodging, wiggling, squirming, and evading that followed that question. Over the course of the evening, Carlos tried changing the subject, he put the Internet moves on MaryThierry, accused me of being an abused child, of being mentally ill, of being homosexual, of having already answered the question (which he hadn't), hollered for Sauron and darin to help him as I'd lost control, and a few other things, all to avoid answering the question.

He never answered.

I didn't let him go. Over the course of the evening, I asked him the question again and again, eventually asking/typing out the question TWENTY SEPARATE TIMES, and countless other times telling him to stop evading and answer the question.

He never did.

He demanded I post the question here numerous times. I refused, stating that he and I were there in real time, and that he should answer it right there.

He never did.

Eventually, he just signed off, without answering the question.

Someone taught me how to enable the log files of my IRC program, so I have the entire session saved. I've separated out tonight's session IN ITS ENTIRETY, from when I logged on to when I logged off, and saved it as a simple text file. It is rather long at 94kb, and covers a long conversation with a few of us hangers-on on a couple other subjects, but to preserve the integrity of things I have it from my logon to my logoff, with each end time-stamped. Other than to copy tonite's session in total from the master log, it has not been edited in any way.

Anyone who wishes a copy of this session can simply pm me with their email address, and I'll send you a copy. Or, maybe some kind soul will temporarily put it up as a page on their website for some little while, so we can all read Carlos's antics.

By the way...I intend to show up on IRC again, and ask the question again, with the non-response count starting at 21.
 
Originally posted by S&S
I told JREF in my notarized application what is the correct method to analize the tape. I did it.
Harter did not, he USED THAT STUPID AND POOR METHOD OF STUDY THE TAPE ON INTERNET, and made a poor conclution based on that poor method and gave me a poor answer based in lies and with the aprooval of JAMES RANDI.
Did Randi and Harter ever agree to your method? Just because you told them what you think is the "correct method" doesn't count; they need to agree with you. Did they?

And RichardR: Do you realize how hard that is?
 
WAS EASY CID : JUST POSTING THE QUESTION

Charlie in Dayton said:
I must say, the night's session on IRC was a real rasslin' match. Carlos Swett was there, along with his sidekick LatinIjral (sporting the chat room nick 'yes_james_randi_is_a_liar'...how clever...). I've determined to adopt the position of the calm and dispassionate individual in this particular go-round. I've seen the little Internet video of the incident in question, and I have to say there's not enough data to make any sort of conclusion on...I'm going to have to see a regulation video tape of things.

There was one particular thing that pickled me tink tonight, though. I asked Carlos the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't expect an immediate answer, as the question will require some reflection. what evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friends and neighbors, you should have seen the ducking, dodging, wiggling, squirming, and evading that followed that question. Over the course of the evening, Carlos tried changing the subject, he put the Internet moves on MaryThierry, accused me of being an abused child, of being mentally ill, of being homosexual, of having already answered the question (which he hadn't), hollered for Sauron and darin to help him as I'd lost control, and a few other things, all to avoid answering the question.

He never answered.

I didn't let him go. Over the course of the evening, I asked him the question again and again, eventually asking/typing out the question TWENTY SEPARATE TIMES, and countless other times telling him to stop evading and answer the question.

He never did.

He demanded I post the question here numerous times. I refused, stating that he and I were there in real time, and that he should answer it right there.

He never did.

Eventually, he just signed off, without answering the question.


Anyone who wishes a copy of this session can simply pm me with their email address, and I'll send you a copy. Or, maybe some kind soul will temporarily put it up as a page on their website for some little while, so we can all read Carlos's antics.

By the way...I intend to show up on IRC again, and ask the question again, with the non-response count starting at 21.

Hi Charlie in Dayton (CID at the chat) :

It "seems"to me that all this "headache" you got yesterday could be avoid if you just post your "QUESTION" here as I told you yesterday 21 separate times plus two answers yuo "didn't" found in that confused chat.

Who do you think you are ? A special member? all the members of THIS FORUM deserves to know my answer.That's all.

I told YOU yesterday the answer is at my translated application,
I am going to do a special favor to you because it "seems" to me you got a kind of trauma with this thread, you are acting like a "child" crying for his "teta"

My application clearly says :

"....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.
---------------------------------------------------

As you can see your question is already answered. You must read it slowly and you will find the reasons that are disturbing your mind.

Is not my fault that YOU can not analize that in the stupid internet video, but perhaps consoles you that even ANDREW HARTER (JREF RESEARCHER) did that stupid and poor method and was based in that to give ME an answer full of lies.

I hope you will find your friend who works at a tv station , as you told me in a P.M. you send me before. You are in the correct way to analize the video, just relax.

As people knows I usually use the chat to relax me, to talk preferible of another subjects : religion, egiptians, mind and brain, plants, science, art, culture, sex , etc., I have even debate with LUCIFUGE in best terms, to whom I recognized I had personal insulted replies(with "reasons" on it)

But if you insists to me 21 times of a thing I have already answer, even I that have patient to deal with several "minds" and "brains" at this threat, sometimes like yesterday I asked myself "what 's wrong with EL CID?"

Thank you Charlie,

Thanks,
S&S
 
But if you insists to me 21 times of a thing I have already answer, even I that have patient to deal with several "minds" and "brains" at this threat, sometimes like yesterday I asked myself "what 's wrong with EL CID?"

If you have an answer to Charlie's question, lets have it.

To help (with apologies to Charlie) here it is again -

"What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?"
 
ANOTHER ONE?

Dragon said:
But if you insists to me 21 times of a thing I have already answer, even I that have patient to deal with several "minds" and "brains" at this threat, sometimes like yesterday I asked myself "what 's wrong with EL CID?"
If you have an answer to Charlie's question, lets have it.

To help (with apologies to Charlie) here it is again -

"What evidence would have to be presented to you to convince you that your tape is not an image of a paranormal event?"

hi DRAGON :

I hope you don't vomit fire.

Are you unable to read and understand , too.?

The answer is at MY notarized application.

I am supposed to be debating with people who analize first, take their time before writing, make new kind of replies, but some of them ,really I think are based in the stupid "curriculum" this stupid computer does in this forum like : newbie, student, schoolar, rational thinker, etc. based in the amounts of quotes you made here and not in the quality of the replies.

I remark that I am saying "stupid" to the computer or the software , or to the man who programed it.

Take your time again , dragon , read the application, and find the answer,

Remember Harter used the stupid method. I also saying the method is the stupid one, no Harter. He is just a liar.

Thank you, Dragon

Thanks,
S&S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom