The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

ABOUT HARTER'S LIES

Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? And besides, even if Andrew didn't mention your second assumption, that doesn't mean you didn't make two assumptions; it just means that Andrew didn't talk about both of them.

And one more thing: What does Andrew's reply have to do with your application being invalid? It was invalid before Andrew ever saw it. It was invalid the moment it left your hands. Andrew's reply has no relationship to your application being invalid.

Here's an example: If I sent in a notarized application saying, "My talent is that I am God. Here's a video proving it:" would the application be "valid until proven otherwise"? No. Since I broke at least two of the rules, my application would be invalid WITHOUT anyone having to specifically say so. Just as it was with your application.

And what part of "You have no claim." = "Your claim is invalid." don't you understand?

RWALD:

Thanks for your reply, is what I need it.
I always said Andrew Harter lied.
The reasons why he did it can be debated anyway.
Now we can start.

You are not the only one that said that, they are some few members that said the same about Harter's answer and about his preety doogy method.

Andrew Harter said in his answer: "You have no claim. There is nothing supernatural taking place."

He explained the reason why I have no claim : because nothing supernatural is taking place, according to the stupid method he used to analize the image :his words :". I've gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that's available on the Internet. "

No a single word that my application was not valid.
Again you also interpretated his words.THIRD LIE.

Yes, probably they lies where product of "accidental mistakes", but are lies anyway, and that's why I am still here replying.

Thanks again Rwald.


Thanks,

S&S

 

[rwald]

If Andrew said something incorrectly by accident, that wasn't a lie. A lie must be intentional; it's part of the definition of the word lie.

It doesn't matter whether or not Andrew said that your application was invalid. It was invalid to begin with; it didn't need to be called invalid by Andrew to be invalid. It is not Andrew's job to take every single invalid claim and tell the person why their claim was invalid; you must prove to him that your claim was valid. And you failed to do that.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

I said I would never write another comment in this thread again. And yes, S&S you may call me a liar, I don't give a rat's ass!



I just have one thing to say. I am completely, and utterly AMAZED that this thread is still alive.


One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????

PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. He will go away if you just ignore him.

 

[Blue Monk]

<center><img src=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/carlos_13.gif></center>
I see no evidence that Harter lied or was even mistaken when he spoke.

This is how Carlos describes his conclusion

Originally posted by Carlos Swett
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.
[/b]

Carlos calls the tower in the background the first tower. It is BEHIND the second tower.

Originally posted by Andrew Harter
We have received your application and video tape. I've seen this tape before and pointed out what was taking place to others.

You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect.

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

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

Andrew Harter
Researcher
James Randi Educational Foundation

I hope everyone will note that he quite clearly says in front of the TOWERS, plural. By towers he means BOTH towers.

An object passing in front of both towers obviously can't be passing behind the second and through the first.

Carlos has agreed to answer one of my questions if I answer his. I've been preparing my answers but thought I'd toss out this little preview first.

I know Carlos will not agree with this but does anyone else see a flaw in my logic?

 

[Tesserat]

originally posed by thatguywhojuggles

One thing I cannot figure out. Who is more STUPID, Carlos for believing the utter crap that flows from his mouth, or the other people on this thread who haven't realized after EIGHTEEN PAGES of the same stupid replies from Carlos that NOTHING has changed, and it is POINTLESS to keep arguing with this MORON????

you might add to your list, people who think that posting "don't feed the trolls" actually does anything. Yours must be the 8th or 9th DFTTs.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

you might add to your list, people who think that posting "don't feed the trolls" actually does anything. Yours must be the 8th or 9th DFTTs.

Your point is well taken. However I am willing to bet there is a little more hope in convincing people that they should stop feeding this troll, than there is in hoping to convince Carlos that he has no claim.

 

[Tesserat]

originally posted by thatguywhojuggles

Your point is well taken. However I am willing to bet there is a little more hope in convincing people that they should stop feeding this troll, than there is in hoping to convince Carlos that he has no claim.

Has is ever happened at this board that absolutely everybody stopped feeding a troll? And the troll left because of it? I do agree that the chance of carlos letting go of his ego is 0% (+ epsilon)

I am enjoying your circus school diaries, by the way.

 

[Purple Tentacle]

thats it. i cant get a straight answer out of this guy, i agree, he is a troll. this will be not only my last post but the last time i even look at this thred.

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

that video proves that carlos has no brain.

DFTT ! DFTT PEOPLE !! for ◊◊◊◊'sake DFTT

bye bye carlos we will never speak again.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Has is ever happened at this board that absolutely everybody stopped feeding a troll? And the troll left because of it? I do agree that the chance of carlos letting go of his ego is 0% (+ epsilon)

I am enjoying your circus school diaries, by the way.

I'm guessing it never has happened. There will always be someone wanting to feed the troll.

Thanks for reading my diary. Its cool knowing people are checking it out. Much of it is tedious descriptions of what we learn in each class. I am getting credit at Humboldt State University, as part of my graduate program, so I am using this medium as a way to keep my advisors/teachers at HSU informed about my progress.

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

AN EXCUSE????

<center><img src=http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/carlos_13.gif></center>
I see no evidence that Harter lied or was even mistaken when he spoke.

This is how Carlos describes his conclusion



Carlos calls the tower in the background the first tower. It is BEHIND the second tower.



I hope everyone will note that he quite clearly says in front of the TOWERS, plural. By towers he means BOTH towers.

An object passing in front of both towers obviously can't be passing behind the second and through the first.

Carlos has agreed to answer one of my questions if I answer his. I've been preparing my answers but thought I'd toss out this little preview first.

I know Carlos will not agree with this but does anyone else see a flaw in my logic?

:

Blue Monk:

Just take your time and read again "your preview".

I never said the "assumption " as Harter said that the object comes from behind the tower:

Originally posted by rwald
"Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? "

So again Blue Monk, take your time with the other answers, this is just a preview.

Is the language an excuse for an Educational Foundation?

You don't have to answer this question, just take your time for the others..

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Guest]

GO JOIN THATGUYWHOCRIES

thats it. i cant get a straight answer out of this guy, i agree, he is a troll. this will be not only my last post but the last time i even look at this thred.

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

that video proves that carlos has no brain.

DFTT ! DFTT PEOPLE !! for ◊◊◊◊'sake DFTT

bye bye carlos we will never speak again.

HI Nick Purple Tentacle:

Are you angry? Go join and meet "thatguywhocries".
Again I will answer your "smart reply":

So again, see this point:

I always said here that Andrew Harter used a poor and stupid method to analize the tape (an unknown video on internet). Right? Many times I said that and also otheres members said the same , just read my signature.

So is not my fault that you did not understand that point.
You are asking me the same, to study a video from the internet, an unknown video, a digitized image.

Don't be ridiculous, send that link to the JREF , they used that stupid method to analize tapes.

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Guest]

ANOTHER LIER

I said I would never write another comment in this thread again. And yes, S&S you may call me a liar, I don't give a rat's ass!

I just have one thing to say. I am completely, and utterly AMAZED that this thread is still alive.

Thatguywhocries :

Yes , you said that many , many times, but you are here again.

You are a lier too.
Maybe you are having nightmares with me , but let me tell you something: I don't care from people like you that doesn't have arguments to debate.

So go on, you are free to tell members you will never write here, but they don't beleive you anymore.

Go ask for help at the JREf, maybe they will understand your trauma.
Don't forget to put this reply in your "diary"

Thanks,

S&S

P.S.

Want to know why this thread is still alive? Ask Sylvia Browne or Uri Geller.

 

[rwald]

Hmm, good point, Blue Monk. Seen from that point of view, Andrew was never actually wrong (or at least, he correctly stated Carlos's first assumption). I don't know whether or not your idea is correct, but as I've said before, it doesn't really matter; either way, Andrew did not try to lie, and therefore he is not a liar.

 

[Thanz]

I haven't read all 18 pages and have no intention of doing so. I am only writing as S&S is quoting me in his signature and I wanted to make a few things clear.

First of all, S&S, I don't think that you have a valid claim to the prize. I don't think you would have a valid claim even if the tape showed little green men having a fiesta. In order to win the prize you have to do something, like talk to the dead, or show some event that can be properly observed, like proving that a house is haunted.

You have a tape, shot by someone else, that you claim has something unexplained on it. You need something more. Despite all of the attention and cameras on the event, no one else seemed to find anything paranormal. That leads me to think that there was not a flying saucer or whatever, but rather some strange camera error with that particular tape.

I understand that you are frustrated that the matter was not treated in the manner you wished, and that the JREF has not launched the investigation you think you deserve. However, the obligation is on you to prove the paranormal, which you haven't done. Has the JREF proved what is on the tape? No. But they don't need to. You are just assuming that there is a paranormal effect - you don't even know what it is. While it is quite interesting, it doesn't qualify for the challenge.

If you can say 123 Elm Street is haunted, and bring the JREF to show them, then you get the million. But you can't just say - "Hey! Look at this tape! something wierd is going on and I don't know what, why don't you investigate and if you can't tell me what it is, give me a million dollars!" It doesn't work that way.

I agree that this probably should have been spelled out to you explicitly by Mr. Harter or whomever. But please, accept the facts and move on.

Thanz

 

[Guest]

GOOD POINT ????; BUT.....

Hmm, good point, Blue Monk. Seen from that point of view, Andrew was never actually wrong (or at least, he correctly stated Carlos's first assumption). I don't know whether or not your idea is correct, but as I've said before, it doesn't really matter; either way, Andrew did not try to lie, and therefore he is not a liar.

:

Hi Rwald:

No Rwald , I never said that "the object"comes from behind the tower, and you know that.

Here is again "that part" of my notarized application:

. 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”.

Andrew Harter is the one who made his "assumption" based on the method he used to analize the tape:

. "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. "

That Harter's assumption is based in a preety dodgy investigation.

Originally posted by Thanz 08-27-02
"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"

So Rwald, I also "thought" the same as you said:

"Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes? Remember, Andrew didn't have Patricio's translation to work with. He might have misinterpreted the part pertaining to the object passing behind the tower vs. passing through the tower. So, one of your "lies" could have been an accident. And as for the other lie: Is it possible that Andrew got so worked up when discussing your first assumption that he forgot to mention your second one? It it possible that he meant to discuss your second assumption, but just didn't get around to it? "

But remember Rwald that I send a next e.mail to Andrew telling his wrong answers and appreciations but the only answer I received was Randi's:" Andrew made the right decision, with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious."
Your application is closed.

So Mr. James Randi was aprooving the lies and the method Harter used. According to his "assumption" my application WAS CLOSED because what I presented was nothing mysterious.

Remember also they are in Florida where spanish is the second language and besides they belong to an "educational Foundation".

They are just liers and dishonest, because are still on silence.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

Good point rwald!!!!!!!!

Hmm, good point.
Carlos, is it possible that Andrew did not purposefully lie to you, but rather made some accidental mistakes?
Andrew did not try to lie, and therefore he is not a liar.

Is Andrew Harter a natural or an accidental liar??????

 

[Guest]

A BIRD?????

If Harter is not a liar researcher, obvoiusly is a non prepare researcher.



HARTER: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT YOUR BIRD??????

SURE??

 

[Guest]

DID YOU ASKED HARTER???

Hello Carlos, and welcome to the boards.

To begin with, would you please post a link to the exact video or animation you are talking about in your application to the million dollars? Andrew Harter said it's on the internet, but what is it?

All this time and you never asked Harter about it????

 

[Blue Monk]

<table>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom">

<td>
<td valign="bottom">

<td>
<td valign="bottom">

<td>

</tr>
</table>



Here's a link to a side by side animated GIF comparison.



It make take a moment for the page to load.



There are also links to the actual clips for those who would like to view them.



I do not know exactly what clip Harter viewed but I offer this information only to demonstrate just how easy it is to discount Carlos' claim using only information found on the internet.



I do not believe Carlos was lied to.



Just another small preview of the answers I am preparing for Carlos concerning all of his questions we are 'afraid' to answer.



I will also post all of the individual frames for anyone to inspect.

 

[Guest]

THANKS BLUE MONK

<table>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom">

<td>
<td valign="bottom">

<td>
<td valign="bottom">

<td>

</tr>
</table>



Here's a link to a side by side animated GIF comparison.



It make take a moment for the page to load.



There are also links to the actual clips for those who would like to view them.



I do not know exactly what clip Harter viewed but I offer this information only to demonstrate just how easy it is to discount Carlos' claim using only information found on the internet.



I do not believe Carlos was lied to.



Just another small preview of the answers I am preparing for Carlos concerning all of his questions we are 'afraid' to answer.



I will also post all of the individual frames for anyone to inspect.

:

Hi blue Monk:

I really appreciate your replies, unleast in this thread you did not need to insulte me , and is significant your possision to debate with arguments.

You had posted this pictures from a video of a link on internet.
Maybe Mr. Hal Bidlack doesn't agree these pictures and he has also his respectable position about that.

I also want to know which was the link where Andrew Harter studied it "frame by frame", is a misterious until now. Nobody knows. I also asked him, but no a word.

Is "the bird" in front of the building? or it "seems" to come from behind the tower?

This questions you don't need to answer me. You have enough about "Harter's lies or mistakes" ; no matter what you "beleive " or not

What I am sure is that Internet is not the correct method to analize the image, no matter if the members say to his own: "well, that "bird" is a little wierd".

Keep on going Blue Monk and thank you.

Thanks,

S&S