The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Pyrrho]

Better. Now, what about the black parts near the top and bottom of the screen? What happened there?

His camera's shutter speed was too fast to avoid capturing the TV's video scan. I recommend a shutter speed of 1/15 or 1/8 of a second to avoid this problem. Looks as if he mis-framed his shot and captured the edges of his TV set. Judging by the thick scan lines I'd guess the TV is fairly small.

Doesn't matter much, though. It's crap anyway.

 

[Guest]

LET's TALK ABOUT HARTER'S LIES

one more try, since I am wondering what might come next.

Carlos,

May I assume that you notified the JREF before the attack, as is required by the application? You know, the part that says the conditions must be agreed to in advance?

Please do not urge me to read your earlier posts, please answer yes or no. You may then preceed to attack me as you wish. But I'd love to have an answer.

thanks

hal

Hi Mr. Hal Bidlack:

I never attacked you. You did so.

I'd love to have the answers to the questions I put to Blue Monk and you many days before. Specially your's about the lies Andrew Harter with Randi aprooval made in his answer to my application.
Take your time, I am not hurry.

Remember you are part of JREF and you will be a conferencist at the "amazing meeting". Why you all are still in silence? Aren't you specialists in frauds?

Don't worry about the rules, act like an sceptic , but your answer to your question is easy and already answer in the thread, but I will make an special edition to you when you answer my questions about the lies I received.

Remember I always said I am fighting for my honour and my name.

Take your time , like Blue Monk.

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Guest]

PLEASE RESPECT TO RWALD

you're an idiot go away

Please read slowly. These are rwald`s comments, not mine.

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//30/2002

 

[rwald]

As I've said before, Carlos may have had a reason to be confused two months ago, but he has no excuse for still not understanding the situation. If all of us can't convince him that he is wrong, then clearly it's not Randi's or anyone else's fault.

 

[Guest]

To rwald:

You are welcome.

 

[Guest]

RWALD`S COMMENTARY

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//30/2002

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think this topic has enough posts in it yet.

 

[PinkRabbit]

I hate to admit it, but I find this thread perversely fascinating. I check it out and catch up whenever I drop by. I think it's because there's just something rather astounding about Swett's absolute refusal to get the fact that one rather poor video just isn't enough to prove anything, and that the challenge is about testing an ability, not merely looking at a picture and insisting it's paranormal. And then there's the way he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and ... well, you get the point.

I must say, I've admired the determination of the folks arguing with him though. I really don't think I'd have the stamina to beat my head against the wall that way for so long.

Anyway, while I'm here, I've just gotta ask; okay, so you believe it's paranormal. But a paranormal what? Ghosts, aliens, out of body experience? Enquiring minds want to know.

And now I'm back to watching Once Upon A Time in the West. Love Sergio Leone.

Barb

 

[Purple Tentacle]

latinijral, S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!


http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/WorldTrade01.avi

 

[Guest]

latinijral, S&S or CARLOS,

you STILL have not addressed the fact that in THIS video from a similar angle there is NOT a paranormal event, please respond !!!

Don't be silly PT! It's not in the other video because it's PARANORMAL! You know: not subject to the normal laws of nature?
Why would you expect a PARANORMAL object to be seen by every camera that photographs it? Sheesh!


Reb
--minor typo edited

 

[Guest]

HARTER`S BIRD

ANDREW HARTER: IS THIS YOUR BIRD?????

 

[hal bidlack]

I'm also drawn to the thread to see what happens next. I consider it endlessly fascinating that Carlos and latinijral can't understand the simple requirement to set up a challenge in advance. Even if the picture was real, not setting up a challenge in advance would invalidate. An when I point that out (with many others), I am dismissed because I'm a JREFer and a "conferencist" and a "specialist in frauds."

I wonder if we've reached the point at which we should conclude that, rather than a passionate ufologist, we are actually being toyed with by the single best troll on the forum?

This obtuseness would seem to be beyond language differences and passion of belief.

Is Car-ijral's complete disconnect from reality may be more likely a put-on than a nut-job. Thoughts? Are we bating a master troll? If so, I'll admit I've been had but good

 

[Purple Tentacle]

answer my question latinijral


you have no case, look at this VIDEO

 

[CurtC]

Yes, latinjral, it's a bird. It's a bird that was moving while the picture was made, so it's blurred and you can't see any detail. You see, a video camera doesn't have a fast shutter speed, so anything that's moving will be blurred. If it's changing its shape while moving, the blur will have lumps on it. That's what your picture is. Notice how the blur is about half as wide as the distance it travels from frame to frame? That means that whatever object created it, the object is quite a bit smaller than the blur, because video cameras have an exposure time of 1/60 of a second, with 30 frames per second.

The more you post these pictures, you're just reinforcing the argument that it is indeed a bird. Again, take a look at the pictures at the site http://www.roswellrods.com and it should help you understand this.

 

[DeliveringVito]

This thread reminds me of those old Energizer battery commecials. You know, pink rabbit and bass drum...

"It keeps going, and going, and going...nothing outlasts the paranormal hat thread"

DV

 

[Guest]

I AM STILL WAITING

I'm also drawn to the thread to see what happens next. I consider it endlessly fascinating that Carlos and latinijral can't understand the simple requirement to set up a challenge in advance. Even if the picture was real, not setting up a challenge in advance would invalidate. An when I point that out (with many others), I am dismissed because I'm a JREFer and a "conferencist" and a "specialist in frauds."

Bidlack and Blue Monk:

I am waiting patienntly until one of you have the courage of the honesty to respond about the lies Andrew Harter gave me in his answer.
I want specially Mr. Hal Bidlack version about it.
I, Carlos Swett was the one who send the notarized application to JREf, and I , Carlos Swett was the one who received by e-mail that Andrew's answer with the aprooval of James Randi.

If you are more concerned in "your rule" and you "think" that the form of the picture correspond to a "bird" , that will be your problem, not mine.

I am here because I don't like lies from anybody, I don't care if his name is James Randi or Hal Bidlack.

Respond about Harter's lies, don't be afraid , just tell the truth.
Here is another example of that fear:

Originally posted by Blue Monk:10/22/2002

"Fine.

If you have any more questions you haven't asked, now's the time to do it. The sooner the better.

I'll respond soon."
-------------------------------------

Mr. Bidlack , why are you also afraid to answer?

But don't forget to tell the truth, and to answer all.
Again a resume:

"I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here that letter, but if you all estimate that is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

ANSWER TO MY APPLICATION BY ANDREW HARTER (JREF)
"You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower. This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.

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

-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HARTER said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
*Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? *FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower".* SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the FALSE impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. *Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame."

*Somebody knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

*Is there a word IN HIS ANSWER that my application is not valid?
*Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
*His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and the pictures and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further, to your "special skeptical question" about the rules.

Just answer.

Thanks,

S&S

P. S. "Even if the picture was real, not setting up a challenge in advance would invalidate"
This answer by Hal Bidlack, shows the poor kind of sceptic he is. More worried in the "rules" and the "million" than in "investigate things"

 

[hal bidlack]

I am waiting patienntly until one of you have the courage of the honesty to respond about the lies Andrew Harter gave me in his answer.

I'll say it again, but I don't think you'll accept my answer, and therefore will again declare that I haven't answered:

I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. You were not lied to. I now seek to have "the courage of the honesty" to say it one more time--> You were not lied to? Have I been clear. No lies. zippo.

You did not submit a valid application. You have no claim, regardless of whether a UFO, a bird, or a giant pick unicorn flew past the WTC. Once again, you were not lied to.

-----

Now, will you answer mine? Do you agree that the application clearly states that you must agree in advance with the JREF as to what will be tested?

edited to fix typo and to add you were not lied to

 

[Guest]

I still can't get the friggin video to work! Does any site have it in .Mpeg or .rm? Also, does anyone have this thing on video half in or half out of the building?

I can't go look myself at the "local" TV station, all of which are in Los Angeles 120 miles away. It would be swell if a famous artist with a little pull like Carlos Swett, perhaps, could get his local station to show him the broadcast again so he could take a picture of it half in and half out. Wouldn't that prove his point?

Unless some new evidence comes in Randi, Harter et al are finished with this bit of "business." Randi probably has the pull to get his local TV station to show the tape but you know what? He ain't gonna do that. By now that should be obvious.

 

[Blue Monk]

No need to fear, I’m working on it.

You’ve asked a lot of questions and I’m going to give you a fair answer to them including my reasoning behind each.

If there is one thing I can say for sure, you are not going to have any doubt as to how I feel on every point.

You will no doubt not like my answers.

 

[Guest]

JUST ANSWER

I'll say it again, but I don't think you'll accept my answer, and therefore will again declare that I haven't answered:

I don't think you were lied to. That's my answer. You were not lied to. I now seek to have "the courage of the honesty" to say it one more time--> You were not lied to? Have I been clear. No lies. zippo.

You did not submit a valid application. You have no claim, regardless of whether a UFO, a bird, or a giant pick unicorn flew past the WTC. Once again, you were not lied to.

edited to fix typo and to add you were not lied to

Mr. Hal Bidlack :

You are just refusing to answer my questions.

Prove me that they (ANDREW and RANDI) did'nt lied in their answer.

Don't give me just a " No lies" ,

Who do you think you are? Randi's Pope?

Prove it and answer the specific questions, don't be afraid.

If you want take your time, like Blue Monk (was a hard test to him), but you already knew this , before this thread was on this forum.
You are part of JREF, so don't refuse to answer .

Or ask for help , and bring Harter or Randi HERE to debate that point (the lies of Harter in the answer he gave me)

Who is with fear?

Mr. Bidlack , why are you also afraid to answer?

But don't forget to tell the truth, and to answer all.
Again a resume:

"I told them I analized the tape at my local channels.I send also to JREF a tape of the interview TELESISTEMA made me where I am analizing with their own tape and equipments the image in question.

The tape I send was only referential. I told them to check it and compare with the one broadcasted in the USA.

I send with my application an aditional personal letter to James Randi. I have the copy.There were more references that will guide them to make a proper analisis.I just had insults from Randi,he said "what in hell are you raving about", "I don't know who you are, refresh my memory" "I want to deal with you".

I never posted here that letter, but if you all estimate that is necessary I will.

THEN ,I received Harter's answer where he made LIES. Just read it again:

ANSWER TO MY APPLICATION BY ANDREW HARTER (JREF)
"You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

Your first assumption is that the object comes from behind the second tower. This is not the case. I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame. The object is dark and difficult to see at some points against the smoke, but it is there. A bird could certainly be the culprit.

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

-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HARTER said I made two assumptions, both incorrect.
*Where are the 2 assumptions in his answer? *FIRST LIE

About the only one he is refering, he said that I wrote "that the object comes from behind the second tower".* SECOND LIE

I said in my application this :"giving the FALSE impression that it “passes behind the tower”.

TWo lies in a short paragraph from a JREF researcher. Is a fact. *Or maybe you members have a better "interpretation"?

About the method JREF (ANDREW HARTER) used:

"I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. You can clearly see that the object is IN FRONT OF THE TOWERS when you look at it frame by frame."

*Somebody knows the link he used?
*Is THAT the correct way to analize the image?
*Did I told JREF how I did it and how to do it?
*Do any member here saw the object in front of the tower?
*Can somebody prove that?

About the valid or not of my application, Andrew wrote:

"We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.
You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

*Is there a word IN HIS ANSWER that my application is not valid?
*Somebody knows where are the commentaries of Harter to "others"?
*His conclusion based in lies and a poor method can be serious?

Now members, there are things that value more than money.That's the way I was educated and the way I educate my children.
This all stuff is only for my honor. That's all.
I said only trues. Or not?

The rules for Randi's lawyers.
all those lies are with James Randi's aprooval.

So again , just focus in this part, what I claimed (see the video and the pictures and try to find "the bird") and the answer JREF gave me.
That's all for me.
First you must analize this reply and then we can go further, to your "special skeptical question" about the rules.

Just answer.

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

""That's my answer. You were not lied to."" GIVE ME A BREAK.

Just answer.Don't be afraid.