The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

ONLY THE OPPOSITE

S&S
<..>
Did you read the part about "EVIDENCE OF ANY PARANORMAL EVENT"?
Read again, I am not lying, it is there.
</quote>

A final question from me, and I'll leave you alone. Have you considered that you may be wrong and that there was no paranormal event in your footage, or are you absolutely convinced? Is there any evidence that would change your mind?

CompJan [/B]

Hi Compjan:

I really appreciate your interpretations, you are not just using the insults as the arm of the fools. Thanks for that.

I don't want you to leave me alone ; I want you all members of the forum to be involved in the correct analisis of the shot which I am claiming. The poor answer of Harter and Randi is only a particular fight between JREF and Carlos Swett.
The main point is that you members can be sure of your presumptions and pre judgements the day yo will focus in the tape

No ; I am not wrong in my conclutions, I made the correct analisis, with proffesional equipments, I am educated enough to know the delicate and embarrasment that is for me to talk about this "paranormal things" , but that is the main reason that I am exposing the case to persons of the same kind of scepticism like I am. It will be more easy and remunerative ($)to me to talk about this observation with the charlatans and "ufo's specialists", but I don't like for principle people that are based in frauds and lies.

You asked me is there any evidence that would change my mind.
Of course, yes. I expected that when I send my application to the JREF, I trusted them that they could do the anlisis with the most advanced tecnollogy in tv equipments. But they did not, I don't know why they just used a tiny unknown incomplete video of the internet to make their poor conclutions.

As I told Charlie of Dayton in his traumatic repetitive question, the only thing you have to do is to demostrate the opposite , Rwald also understood what evidence would change my mind . I guess is posted in the previous page.

But don't forget to use an aproppiate method, perhaps Charlie in dayton will help, he is still looking for a friend that works in a tv station.

Thank you compjan

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
I found the already answer to your question. Consider a particular favor to you.
As I told Dragon and Charlie:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Too fast Dragon

I will help you and El CID :

At my application:

"......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.
....... 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."
------------------------
See, Dragon, was easy:" the paranormal event is not seen against the wall of the first tower (north) while passing by it ....giving THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT IT "PASSES BEHIND THE TOWER"

If you can demonstrate the opposite is the answer to your question. That's all Dragon. But use a correct method , not the one used by Harter.

And I am not talking now about the lies that Harter gave me in his answer to my application, perhaps he did make mistakes with the language (was in spanish)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Nope, no change still yawwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[Pyrrho]

I'm outta here...at least I gave it an honest effort.

 

[Guest]

THE DEFINITION OF TROLL

Nope, no change still yawwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

What's the matter with you Shaun of Scotland?
ALL your replies are just according to the TROLL definition.
No arguments to debate only insults.

If you are trying to post only for the computer counts your number of replies (not the quality)and become a "RATIONAL THINKER", try that stupid method in another thread.

You belong to a small group of irrational members , who thinks this method will scare me. You are wrong.I will continue fighting against the lies Harter and Randi gave me.
Is a kind of moral and principles you will never understand, and is not your fault, is because of the way you are showing here you had been "educated".

Please, respect the rest of the members or guest of this forum.

Thank you for nothing SHAUN OF SCOTLAND

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Pyrrho]

I do not advocate censorship, but I think it's time to lock this thread.

 

[IggyK]

Good idea. Do we get to vote on it? Carlos refuses to accept that he has lost the challenge and instead continues to bitch and moan about the method used. Harter, even with a low resolution computer image, could tell the object was a bird and that it was visible in front of the tower. He seems to think that because he says on his application that it wasn't a bird or insect that seals the deal. Every image I've seen of it appears to be a bird. He also doesn't realize that a decision was made on his application and that JREF isn't going to recind that decision no matter how much he cries about it.

 

[Guest]

ABOUT "THE BIRD" ON THE INTERNET VIDEO : FIRST PART

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.

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles 08/27/2002

"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. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pyrrho 2000 08/27/2002

"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."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Patricio Elicer 08/27/2002

"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."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz 08/27/2002

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rwald 08/30/2002

"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? "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Patricio Elicer 09/01/2002

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rwald 09/02/2002

"Swett, while I would agree that your method is closer to "proper observing conditions" than Harter's, who's to say that either are good enough? "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nova Land 09/02/2002
"It may have been a mistake for Harter to have studied a video on the internet. I don't know. "

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


I am ending this FIRST PART with one of my favorites, besides I like fine irony :

originally posted by Bidlack 09/03/2002

"I think it's a bird, can I have $1M from the Birdwatcher's Club?"



Thanks,

S&S

 

[rwald]

Carlos, for the aleph-2 time, can you please why, exactly, Randi should pay you money, when all he says (in the official rules, not some random copy introducing them) is: "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations."

Did you state "what will constitute both a positive and a negative result"? I know you did in this forum, but did you state this in the original application?

Also, Randi said: "Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration." Your video constitutes a "previous example." Since the video itself is not paranormal (whether or not it captured a paranormal event, it's still an normal video), it only serves to document a "previous example." Randi specifically said these could not be used as evidence.

Honestly, there's really no point to continue this discussion. There is absolutly no way that we will ever convince you of the truth. I really should just stop trying, but I can't. Oh well.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Re: THE DEFINITION OF TROLL

What's the matter with you Shaun of Scotland?
ALL your replies are just according to the TROLL definition.
No arguments to debate only insults.

If you are trying to post only for the computer counts your number of replies (not the quality)and become a "RATIONAL THINKER", try that stupid method in another thread.

You belong to a small group of irrational members , who thinks this method will scare me. You are wrong.I will continue fighting against the lies Harter and Randi gave me.
Is a kind of moral and principles you will never understand, and is not your fault, is because of the way you are showing here you had been "educated".

Please, respect the rest of the members or guest of this forum.

Thank you for nothing SHAUN OF SCOTLAND

Thanks,
S&S

Your welcome. Prozac is on half price sale at Wal-Mart I hear....

 

[Pyrrho]

Enough's Enough

I know this is the second time I've said this, but I had to come back to give it an honest try at reasonable discussion. We've all given S&S more than enough of our time and patience. Either we start ignoring this thread entirely, or we admit that we're idiots for continuing to allow S&S to goad us. I have too much self-respect to continue playing this stupid game.

See ya bye have a nice day...

 

[Guest]

Fatal attraction

I know this is the second time I've said this, but I had to come back to give it an honest try at reasonable discussion. We've all given S&S more than enough of our time and patience. Either we start ignoring this thread entirely, or we admit that we're idiots for continuing to allow S&S to goad us. I have too much self-respect to continue playing this stupid game.

See ya bye have a nice day...

Hi Pyrrho2000:
I guess is a kind of fatal attraction you got with me . Is not your second return, I guess is 4 or 5 times you said that.
Take it easy. I am straight.
Just ask Randi for help.

Thanks,

S&S

 

[RichardR]

Re: Enough's Enough

I know this is the second time I've said this, but I had to come back to give it an honest try at reasonable discussion. We've all given S&S more than enough of our time and patience. Either we start ignoring this thread entirely, or we admit that we're idiots for continuing to allow S&S to goad us. I have too much self-respect to continue playing this stupid game.

See ya bye have a nice day...

I think I've said it before. I'm amazed anyone's still replying to this idiot. Just stop reading / replying. Let him debate with himself.

 

[wert]

Let's see.

400+ replies

6000+ views.

*sigh*

 

[Guest]

well anyone who bothers to read this thread any more:

carlos has said he would send a tape to anyone who wants a copy.
on irc chat, someone called Huntsman volunteered but did not want to give out his full contact details to a stranger.

I gave my details to carlos instead. However, if/when I get the tape, I don't have any video tools to get it somewhere where more people can see it so that people can argue about the same subject material.

Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere....

 

[compjan]

Hi Compjan:

I really appreciate your interpretations, you are not just using the insults as the arm of the fools. Thanks for that.

I don't want you to leave me alone ; I want you all members of the forum to be involved in the correct analisis of the shot which I am claiming. The poor answer of Harter and Randi is only a particular fight between JREF and Carlos Swett.
The main point is that you members can be sure of your presumptions and pre judgements the day yo will focus in the tape

No ; I am not wrong in my conclutions, I made the correct analisis, with proffesional equipments, I am educated enough to know the delicate and embarrasment that is for me to talk about this "paranormal things" , but that is the main reason that I am exposing the case to persons of the same kind of scepticism like I am. It will be more easy and remunerative ($)to me to talk about this observation with the charlatans and "ufo's specialists", but I don't like for principle people that are based in frauds and lies.

You asked me is there any evidence that would change my mind.
Of course, yes. I expected that when I send my application to the JREF, I trusted them that they could do the anlisis with the most advanced tecnollogy in tv equipments. But they did not, I don't know why they just used a tiny unknown incomplete video of the internet to make their poor conclutions.

As I told Charlie of Dayton in his traumatic repetitive question, the only thing you have to do is to demostrate the opposite , Rwald also understood what evidence would change my mind . I guess is posted in the previous page.

But don't forget to use an aproppiate method, perhaps Charlie in dayton will help, he is still looking for a friend that works in a tv station.

Thank you compjan

Thanks,
S&S

<..>

Well, S&S, it is time for me to finish up my participation in this thread. I was mostly interested in your approach to the JREF challenge, not the truth or falseness of your paranormal claim. I think you have misunderstood the method and purpose of the JREF and its Million Dollar Challenge. Contrary to what you first thought, they will not perform an advanced analysis on your tape. I doubt they have the expertise or equipment, nor do they need it. That’s not what the claim is about. I think you should find someone else capable of performing forensic analysis of your tape, because the JREF can’t.

Regardless of your beliefs about the “paranormal activity” at the World Trade Center, the JREF will not accept your claim in its present form. Unless you are claiming to have a paranormal ability, they will ignore you. That’s what the challenge is about.

Good luck in your next endeavor,

CompJan

 

[Guest]

THANkS ANYWAY

Well, S&S, it is time for me to finish up my participation in this thread. I was mostly interested in your approach to the JREF challenge, not the truth or falseness of your paranormal claim. I think you have misunderstood the method and purpose of the JREF and its Million Dollar Challenge. Contrary to what you first thought, they will not perform an advanced analysis on your tape. I doubt they have the expertise or equipment, nor do they need it. That’s not what the claim is about. I think you should find someone else capable of performing forensic analysis of your tape, because the JREF can’t.

Regardless of your beliefs about the “paranormal activity” at the World Trade Center, the JREF will not accept your claim in its present form. Unless you are claiming to have a paranormal ability, they will ignore you. That’s what the challenge is about.


Good luck in your next endeavor,

CompJan

Hi CompJan:

I appreciate your reply, is mature enough.
Well, you are the one concernd about the rules, I already debated that point.

I only knows I made an application to the challenge and I received only lies based in a poor method by Harter and Randi, with no a single word on it saying that my application was not valid.

They analized MY CONCLUTION in a tape that was available on internet ( YOU ALL still don't know which one) and made THEIR OWN CONCLUTION based in lies That's all.Those are FACTS.

I am here fighting FOR MY HONOR or HONOUR . I 've insulted by Randi ( at an e-mail when I was demanding the answer to my application) and lIed by Harter and Randi. I don't care you ( the members) idolize him , I WAS THE ONE who was lied by persons I depositated my support to realize a clean job in their analisis.
They failed and are posts of members that agreed with this point.

Maybe we can join thoughts in another thread Compjan.

LUCK? thanks anyway but I am sure what I am claiming.

The same to you, though.

Thank you Compjan

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE TAPE??

well anyone who bothers to read this thread any more:

carlos has said he would send a tape to anyone who wants a copy.
on irc chat, someone called Huntsman volunteered but did not want to give out his full contact details to a stranger.

I gave my details to carlos instead. However, if/when I get the tape, I don't have any video tools to get it somewhere where more people can see it so that people can argue about the same subject material.

Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere....

Hi Skirix bron : ) ) :

So you don't have any video tools and you want to digitize the tape as Hunstman told me before.

I alredy answered him and explained about the risks and frauds that can be put on a digitized tape.

It seems that nobody here want to help you, I guess they are more concernned in the JREF rules that in the tape itself.

Maybe it will help you if you investigate which link on internet ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI used to studied it "frame by frame" and gave me their poor conclutions and lies to me. IT MUST BE ON THE INTERNET.

Or just wait until somebody of the members of the forum respond at your reply, maybe will be good ideas about what to do with the video.

Are you prepare enough ?Not yet I "guess" according to your "death words" in your reply.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[IggyK]

One suggestion

I have one suggestion for what to do with the video tape. Carlos, being straight (or so he says) won't like it but considering this whole mess of insults he's piled on us, it is the best place to STICK IT.

 

[Guest]

Re: DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE TAPE??

Hi Skirix bron : ) ) :

So you don't have any video tools and you want to digitize the tape as Hunstman told me before.

I never told you I had the tools. Nor did I intend to analyse the tape with anything but my own eyes. Huntsman offered to do more but you wouldn't send the tape to him.

As I said to you on #randi.org : Nothing has changed, so why are you backing down?

I alredy answered him and explained about the risks and frauds that can be put on a digitized tape.

What about the risks and frauds that can be put on a regular tape? The answer is simple, Carlos. Once the tape is online you can view it yourself and tell us if it has been changed. Problem solved, right?

It seems that nobody here want to help you, I guess they are more concernned in the JREF rules that in the tape itself.

Maybe it will help you if you investigate which link on internet ANDREW HARTER and JAMES RANDI used to studied it "frame by frame" and gave me their poor conclutions and lies to me. IT MUST BE ON THE INTERNET.

This does not seem advisable since you yourself have commented that this "poor quality" representation does not correctly show the phenomenon.

Or just wait until somebody of the members of the forum respond at your reply, maybe will be good ideas about what to do with the video.

My idea was to VIEW the video. If you don't think it is a good idea to view the 'evidence' first before making comment, what do you suggest I do instead? Comment *without* viewing evidence??

Are you prepare enough ?Not yet I "guess" according to your "death words" in your reply.

I'm as prepared as I ever was, Carlos. Nothing has changed. You promised to copy and send me a tape, and I agreed to pay for the postage. Now you are backing out, with no excuse except for these "Death Words" that you keep talking about. Breaking a promise makes you a liar.

I haven't said anything in my post here at the forum that I don't intend to follow through with. Please explain which of my words are "Death Words".

And please explain why you now think I am "not deserving" of a copy of the tape.

 

[Guest]

WORRIED?

What about the risks and frauds that can be put on a regular tape? The answer is simple, Carlos. Once the tape is online you can view it yourself and tell us if it has been changed. Problem solved, right?

This does not seem advisable since you yourself have commented that this "poor quality" representation does not correctly show the phenomenon.


My idea was to VIEW the video. If you don't think it is a good idea to view the 'evidence' first before making comment, what do you suggest I do instead? Comment *without* viewing evidence??


I haven't said anything in my post here at the forum that I don't intend to follow through with. Please explain which of my words are "Death Words".

And please explain why you now think I am "not deserving" of a copy of the tape. [/B]

Hi Skirix:

This are your death words :"Hunstman, if you read this, privmsg me with your address if you want the tape!

Or if anyone else wants it and intends making it available online somewhere...."

Well, nobody wants to help you in your "clean" propposal of sharing a truth. It happened to me not only in this forum but also in the MSN Skeptic Forum administrated by IggyK.
This clown (Iggy K)is the same guy who posted in this forum ,before your last reply, 5 times the same stupid message that shows you the "opinion" of this kind of inmature members.He also expulsed me from "his" forum only because I started writing here, jealous and angry because nobody wrote there after I was out. Is the same idiot that lied in his and in this forum writing that he also taped the same shot in his super VHS., but was afraid to share it with the members and visitors of this thread.

I agree with you : is hard and difficult to comment without "viewing" evidence, and that is the most important key of the problem, I had been replying that thought in this forum. Congratulations for that , it shows me that you don't belong to that small group of brainless members.

All I want from you is to be clear on what I put in my notarized application, it seems to me that you have not did it yet.
My tape in VHS, as I said there, is only a referential guide that help anybody to find the shot that are at the tv stations, so with this "new" tape (3/4 tape or betacam) can be prove that is not falsed and show clearly what I claim, if you use the appropiate equipments.

I never said to you that I am not going to send the tape to you.
My promise is "SWETT'S WORD" but first things must be clear enough for you.Please don't missinterpretate my replies.

I hope this will help JAMES RANDI to get out of his big silence about SWETT , and be honest enough to put my application and the poor answer they gave me with his sign on it,

Thankyou skirix

Thanks.
S&S