The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

Re: I have the video.

I have been given the video in question in all of this. It's a four-second clip, running at normal speed, and as a video file it is 112kb in size. It runs in Windows Media Player, is capable of being run in stop-action frame by frame, and the image is expandable to fill the screen if you like (those experienced in the use of Windows Media Player know how to do these things easily).
I have been reassured by the individual who gave me the clip that it is: the video in question (apparently from a New York TV station's live feed of the situation at the WTC); 'referential', meaning it's meant to show me what time period to refer to on a video tape of the event; running at normal speed.

I have viewed this clip this evening numerous times, in both real-time and stop-action. It is EXTREMELY interesting.

I have given my word that I WILL NOT give my opinions of what is on the tape until I see a video tape of the event. This clip is meant for reference only, and it seems to be a bone of contention that a formal opinion of it was given by Andrew Harter based only on a very short Internet slow-motion digitized loop. Therefore, I make no statement at this time as to what is or is not on the clip, other than to say that it will be a very interesting view. Because of its format (real time, and a longer period of time than the little Internet loop), there is more information in the clip than possibly has seen before on this thread.

I am looking for someone who will host this clip for viewing and/or download for awhile (30 to 60 days, maybe? I realize that Internet space costs) on a volunteer basis. More than one volunteer? Mirror sites are always nice.

I will include the comments on how I viewed the video (some action on the screen not connected with the object in question is distracting, and can be blocked out by holding a piece of paper up to the screen), and some questions about what the viewer sees. While I am constrained by my own promises not to reveal my opinions (to prevent coloring others' opinions before viewing it), I am very interested in the opinions of others as to what they see here. Again, the video in this format has more information than possibly has been seen before here, and is guaranteed to be very interesting in terms of what has been posted here.

So -- any volunteers for this? My PM box has been cleared of electro-effluvia, and I'm ready. Serious responses only, please.

Hi Charlie of Dayton:

All I can say is this: YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S
You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it." , is the same as "I "think" this clip was the one Harter saw or one similar to it". In both you made presumptions.But don't worry is the same shot.

That is not what I said. It is not the same thing and you know it.

I have said quite plainly that I do not know what clip Harter used.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself and I offer your attempts to deliberately misrepresent what I have said as clear proof of your dishonestly.

Despite the lies of Carlos I have never said I thought that was the clip Harter used.

Read what he says and then read what I actually said and there should be not doubt as to Carlos’s honesty. If you say something he doesn’t like he will simply misrepresent it to suit his own needs.

But make no mistake about this FACT.

I do not know what clip Harter viewed and any attempts by Carlos to suggest that I have said otherwise is an out and out lie!

Originally posted by S&S
You are still refusing to put my application in your "web page", WHY? Be honest ,show both faces of the coin.

Because that web page is only part of my total work. That is the section that deals with your tape. I will post your application in the appropriate section that deals with your application.

If you don’t like the free service I am providing you by finding your material for you, taking the time to make it available and providing free server space then you are more than welcome to let someone else do it for you for free.

Or if you prefer you can PM me with where I should send the bill for my services.

Originally posted by S&S
What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?

I did not try to prove anything with your video. If you are not happy with me posting just say the word and I’ll take it down.

The video I did offer as proof was the one found by Purple Tentacle that proves to everyone that there is no large dark object passing through or anywhere near the buildings.

I don’t care if it is never proven what is on your video. It looks like a bird to me, that’s all. We could look at your video till hell freezes over and that is never going to change the fact that the other tapes clearly prove there is no large dark object passing through or even near the towers.

Originally posted by S&S
You can see now Blue Monk, nothing new in "your" link. I also send that image to the JREF.

No, it is new to us that haven’t seen it before.

Originally posted by S&S
That the "object" is moving "inside the smoke ": I said that first in my application. Can be seen also in your link.

No one has ever said that you didn’t say that.

Originally posted by S&S
That the "object" enters the hole left by the first plane and gets out of the other side of it: I said that first in my appication,.Can be seen also in your link if you study it "frame by frame" like Harter did.

I have studied it frame by frame and you will see the results Sunday.

Originally posted by S&S
I already told YOU and JREF that "my tape" is just referential, I already told that your second video is the same shot I send to the JREF.

Yes a referential tape that you claim shows a large object passing through the first tower. An examination of any other video clearly proves you were wrong.

Originally posted by S&S
Just study it like Harter did : "frame by frame" and don't forget to post a picture after "the paranoramal object 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”. Don't forget to look at the right side of the hole in the wall of the north tower.
YES ,ONE MORE TIME; YOUR SECOND VIDEO IS THE SAME SHOT I SEND TO JREF AND THE SAME SHOT HARTER STUDIED IT "FRAME BY FRAME" ON A LINK OF INTERNET. NO excuses, Blue Monk.

You have confirmed that it is the same video that you sent in. Good.

You do not know if it is the same clip Harter viewed. You have said many times and I will cut and paste them here if necessary that you do not know what clip he viewed. You’ve ranted about it for weeks. That is one question you wanted me to answer so I’ll do it here.

Does anyone know what clip Harter viewed?
Answer: No.

So quit lying. We are only going to deal with facts here and when you say that is the same shot Harter studied ‘frame by frame’ you are lying. You have already told us many times that you do not know what clip he used.

Originally posted by S&S
What are you tryng to say by using this kind of terms?:"get off of your lazy Ecudorian butt ". Is that the way you show your frustration, like others few members?
Be smart enough, you can do it Blue Monk.

I’m trying to say that I don’t work for you. You do not pay me for my services and I do not do what you demand. Period.

It’s obvious to all that everything provided here as the way of evidence has been brought here by the skeptics who are ‘afraid’ to answer you.

Why don’t you take your tape and have the relevant parts digitized to a high quality standard. If you do that I will provide the server space FREE OF CHARGE.

Now leave me alone so I can finish answering your dumb questions by Sunday.

Are you afraid of what I’ll post Sunday?

 

[Guest]

WORRIED AND CONFUSED

That is not what I said. It is not the same thing and you know it.

I have said quite plainly that I do not know what clip Harter used.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself and I offer your attempts to deliberately misrepresent what I have said as clear proof of your dishonestly.

Despite the lies of Carlos I have never said I thought that was the clip Harter used.

Read what he says and then read what I actually said and there should be not doubt as to Carlos’s honesty. If you say something he doesn’t like he will simply misrepresent it to suit his own needs.

Hi Blue Monk:

Originally posted by Blue Monk :

I did say, "This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by S&S
You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it." , is the same as "I "think" this clip was the one Harter saw or one similar to it". In both you made presumptions.But don't worry is the same shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blue Monk :

"I have said quite plainly that I do not know what clip Harter used."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I n this "Blue Monk link" http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html

is the following sentence:
"This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it. "

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

Now , who is the deshonest Blue Monk?, you are the one who made assumptions.

Don't worry, I already told you many times , yes, that second video is similar at the "referential tape " I send to JREF.and the same shot Harter studied on the Internet "frame by frame".

Are you trying to make business with this "affair"?

Any costs? any price?

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

Yes, I said it 'could be' the clip Harter used.

That means I accept the possibility that it could have been this clip or one similar (you left that part out, how convinient)

I have said only one answer concerning this question.

I do not know what clip Harter used. That has been the absolute truth from the very begining.

This is a wonderful preview to my section concerning your application. I will show just as clearly as you have just done how you refuse to accept answers you don't like and then you lie about what was said.

I say, "This could be Harter's clip but I don't know."

You don't like that answer so you just make up your own.

You lied repeatedly throughout this thread saying Harter told you it was a bird.

Not true. He said is was 'probably a bird.' but again you don't like that answer so you make up your own.

And how anyone could be so stupid as to argue with the world's leading authority on what I believe, namely me, is beyond comprehension.

So I'll state this clearly.....

I do not know what clip Harter used. It could be the one I have shown but I don't know. I have no reason from any source to believe it is.

So no matter what you say that's the truth.

But be sure to show everyone exactly how you would rather misrepresent others than look at any evidence.

Instead of this petty crap why don't you explain to all of us why an object can't be seen passing through or even near either tower in any of the other videos?

Your sunk around here until you can answer that.

 

[Guest]

LIES OR MISTAKES???????

Yes, I said it 'could be' the clip Harter used.

That means I accept the possibility that it could have been this clip or one similar (you left that part out, how convinient)

I have said only one answer concerning this question.



You lied repeatedly throughout this thread saying Harter told you it was a bird.

Not true. He said is was 'probably a bird.' but again you don't like that answer so you make up your own.

And how anyone could be so stupid as to argue with the world's leading authority on what I believe, namely me, is beyond comprehension.

So I'll state this clearly.....

I do not know what clip Harter used. It could be the one I have shown but I don't know. I have no reason from any source to believe it is.

:

Blue Monk;
Just relax, you are confused:

Originally posted by Blue Monk [/i]
Yes, I said it 'could be' the clip Harter used.That means I accept the possibility that it could have been this clip or one similar (you left that part out, how convinient)

------------------------------
Again Blue Monk, you read too fast, I never" left that part out":

Originally posted by S&S
You posted in your "link":""This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it."
I n this "Blue Monk link" http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/triple_gif_compare.html
is the following sentence:
"This could be the clip Harter saw or one similar to it. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't need to lie, Blue Monk, just try to read carefully.
------------------------------------------------------

YOU BLUE MONK also said about me:"You lied repeatedly throughout this thread saying Harter told you it was a bird.
Not true. He said is was 'probably a bird.' but again you don't like that answer so you make up your own."

Again you are lying , I never said that , check it or read this:
Originally posted by S&S

"What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?"

See Blue Monk?I said :HARTER PINK RABBIT AND YOU are not sure that is a bird.

I will post here AGAIN Harter's answer to my application and my notarized application to JREF just to help members and YOU make a correct analisis of your "second video", the same shot I send to JREF ande the same shot Harter studied it "frame by frame" to give me his answer as a jref researcher..

Blue Monk, you remind me Harter's answer , full of lies OR MISTAKES.
Don't worry , I will asume that are mistakes you made because of your fast reading.

Just relax and make a good analisis of your second video.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&S 09-03-2002 04:25 PM
I am sorry too that this was not cordialy explained to me during my initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF. But that is not my fault, I made a notharized application to the challenge and was answered in others terms, they analized the copy of the video that's available on the internet, frame by frame (?), and gave a reason of what it is : a bird.

Originally posted by S&S 09-15-2002 01:41 PM
No., it was a bird ;said Harter(JREF) in his answer.

Originally posted by S&S 10-18-2002 06:31 PM
He lied when he said I made two assumptions in my application( the first is a lie and the second never mentioned).

He said that was a bird.

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

Originally posted by S&S
"What did you prove with your video? The same things I already said in my application, remember Harter, Pink Rabbit and YOU are not sure that is a "bird".Only your "beleivers" or fans said : "Is a bird , is a bird, with no arguments on it. " What's new in your "second video"?"

My new video was to show your side. I don't care if I ever prove anything with it. I couldn't care less if you go to the grave thinking you have a paranormal event.

What I did prove was that there was no large dark object passing through or anywhere near the towers and that your theory of what was on the tape was wrong.

Originally posted by S&S
See Blue Monk?I said :HARTER PINK RABBIT AND YOU are not sure that is a bird.

Sure, I can't speak for PinkRabbit whom you refused to believe unless it's handy, but I have no way of proving that is a bird. That is, however, what I honestly believe it to be.

It could be debris but that doesn't seem likely and I can't think of any better explanation. If you think I'm going to waste my time trying to prove to you that it is a bird then you're going to have a long wait. I don't give a damn what you believe.

But one thing is crystal clear and proven beyond doubt. It is not a large dark object passing through one of the towers.

You do realize that we are now alone here don't you? You have no claim and no one cares that you got your little feelings hurt.

I'm only going to answer your questions because I told you I would. I sure as hell don't care about them.

I'm not going to post here again until Sunday. Please take this opportunity to rant and rave at will and be sure make it clear how afraid I am to answer your petty little questions.

That will only last until Sunday.

Don't be surprised if you spend your time here alone until then.

 

[Guest]

HARTER'S ANSWER to my notarized application

Just to remember :
Andrew Harters's answer to my application,- April 15 2002

Andrew enters
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

NOTARIZED APPLICATION

Just to remember what I wrote in my notarized application, received on the JREF by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002.

This is the translated version done by Patricio Elicer.

Notarized Application

DENUNCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY OBSERVED BY THE SIGNER IN THE 9/11/2001 CRIMINAL ATTACK AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK CITY, USA.

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.


Signed: Carlos Swett Salas
--------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
S&S

 

[PinkRabbit]

Do you have to believe me?

No.

Do I have any reason to lie?

Also no.

You don't believe me. That's fine. Honestly, Carlos, I could not possibly care less. I've been bored because I've had a sinus infection and wasn't taking any work for a week while getting better. You are, in short, mindless entertainment, that's all. By the way, my guess is that you'd be holding me up as a font of wisdom and honor if I'd just agreed with you. *snort*

*shrug* I wanted a look at the tape because I was curious, not to prove or disprove anything to anyone. I took a look and reported what I saw. This wasn't a news story, so it would be unethical of me to involve a professional station. Had they decided to cover it in some way, that would be a different matter, but they didn't. As for my personal information ... believe it or not, as a single woman, living alone, I'm not in the habit of giving out personal information to strange men who see paranormal flying objects. Just one of my little quirks.

Now let's ask the same questions of you:

Do I have to believe you?

Also no.

Do you have any reason to lie?

Given that you're trying to get someone to hand you a check for one million dollars, I'd say you've got about one million reasons.

And now, Carlos, I bid you adieu. Blue Monk may continue to play, but since the Amoxycillin is doing its job and I'm feeling much better, I've got muuuuuccccchhhhhhh better things to do than try to decipher your truly bizarre world view.

"Say goodnight, Gracie."
"Goodnight Gracie."
Barb

 

[Guest]

Do you have to believe me?

No.

Do I have any reason to lie?

Also no.

You don't believe me. That's fine. Honestly, Carlos, I could not possibly care less. I've been bored because I've had a sinus infection and wasn't taking any work for a week while getting better.
And now, Carlos, I bid you adieu. Blue Monk may continue to play, but since the Amoxycillin is doing its job and I'm feeling much better, I've got muuuuuccccchhhhhhh better things to do than try to decipher your truly bizarre world view.

"Say goodnight, Gracie."
"Goodnight Gracie."
Barb

Pink Rabbit:

I hope and wish you will get better and better of your infection.
Remember I have 4 teenagers children, and is hard those illness.
Sincerely PR I hope medicine or whatever make you feel better soon.

I never said I don't beleive you, I said "should I beleive you?" , only because I don¡t know nothing of the details I asked you, about location, tv station, etc.

Is nice that people have now interest in see the controversial image.

Get better.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Wyrd1]

While I can offer no explanation of why the image cannot be seen against the tower, I can point out the object flaps it's wings at the end of the sequence. Hat shaped paranormal objects rarely flap their wings.

I did decode the .gif file into it's constituent images using Paintshop pro Animation Studio but the images were distorted and didn't resolve much.

I think higher resolution images would reveal that the bird it'self is blending with the smoke in the background as they are the same apparent color.

 

[Guest]

??????????????????????????????

While I can offer no explanation of why the image cannot be seen against the tower, I can point out the object flaps it's wings at the end of the sequence. Hat shaped paranormal objects rarely flap their wings.

I did decode the .gif file into it's constituent images using Paintshop pro Animation Studio but the images were distorted and didn't resolve much.

I think higher resolution images would reveal that the bird it'self is blending with the smoke in the background as they are the same apparent color.

Originally posted by Wyrd1
While I can offer no explanation of why the image cannot be seen against the tower, I can point out the object flaps it's wings at the end of the sequence. Hat shaped paranormal objects rarely flap their wings. (???????????????)
---------------------------------
--------------------------------

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Guest]

AMAZING SKEPTIC

Go away.


Even if your analysis of visual aspects of the tape were 100% correct, it would prove nothing, except, at most, that something entered and exited the building on a specific trajectory.

Even that is not necessarily paranormal.


Whether Harter's technique was good or bad doesn't change that.


Barb

EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION??????????

 

[Guest]

HARTER`S LINK IS MISSING

Blue Monk:
Does anyone know what clip Harter viewed?
Answer: No.


*************************************************
Don`t worry about Harter`s clip.
When i was member of skeptics forum, i send a lot of invitations using the email of the community to share with us the link of the internet video that he used. He never answered.
I wrote them every thursday to radio@randi.org.

But, you can ask him or his boss Randi about it.

 

[compjan]

Still Futile Carlos?

Carlos, since you didn't reply to my earlier points I'm giving you a second chance to face hard reality. Don't worry, it gets easier with practice.

From my previous posting:

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not convince anyone here.

2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".

Sorry, but that's reality as I see it. And I'm certain that all but a handful of this thread's readers will agree with me. These are harsh blows to your worldview and your aspirations, but you need to face them in order to improve. Kepler did it with his belief in divine circular planetary orbits, you can too.

If you wish to continue posting on this thread, be my guest. Just understand that you are going nowhere.

Take care, and best wishes in your next adventure.

CompJan

 

[Guest]

LOOSING THE MEMORY???

The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

CompJan
[/i]

I like your joke.......jajajjajjajajjajjajajja

 

[Guest]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Carlos, since you didn't reply to my earlier points I'm giving you a second chance to face hard reality. Don't worry, it gets easier with practice.

From my previous posting:

1 - No skeptic on this forum will ever accept that it is a paranormal event. You will not convince anyone here.

2 - The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

3 - Your continued efforts to promote your beliefs in this issue will never win you respect or admiration. Few people in the world will ever believe in your "paranormal hat".

Sorry, but that's reality as I see it. And I'm certain that all but a handful of this thread's readers will agree with me. These are harsh blows to your worldview and your aspirations, but you need to face them in order to improve. Kepler did it with his belief in divine circular planetary orbits, you can too.

If you wish to continue posting on this thread, be my guest. Just understand that you are going nowhere.

Take care, and best wishes in your next adventure.

CompJan

Hi Compjan:

You can post that to Charlie in Dayton thread .

Don't worry about the money, be worry to make a good analisis, not like Harter did it.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[compjan]

Re: LOOSING THE MEMORY???

Me:

The JREF will never accept your claim. Neither do they even care. They have forgotten all about it.

I like your joke.......jajajjajjajajjajjajajja

It wasn't a joke. Do you really think the JREF is paying attention to your claim? Once Harter rejected the claim I'm sure that whas the last time they considered it.

What do you think the JREF is doing about your claim lately? Are they worrying daily about Carlos's efforts to get the truth out? Are they conspiring to cover up the video? What do you think they are doing?

CompJan

 

[compjan]

Re: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Hi Compjan:

You can post that to Charlie in Dayton thread .

Don't worry about the money, be worry to make a good analisis, not like Harter did it.

Thanks,
S&S

I'd rather hear your response. I never mentioned the money or the analysis, just your inability to deal with the hard reality of your situation. Why do you dodge the questions? You accuse others on this forum of being afraid to answer questions. Are your afraid?

CompJan

 

[Guest]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'd rather hear your response. I never mentioned the money or the analysis, just your inability to deal with the hard reality of your situation. Why do you dodge the questions? You accuse others on this forum of being afraid to answer questions. Are your afraid?

CompJan

Are you afraid to analize the tape?

You remind me Randi.

Thanks,
S&S