The "Carlos Swett affair"

[rwald]

For the nth time, merely making an observation is not enough for the JREF prize! It doesn't matter what Newton did. Did Newton apply for the JREF prize? If he did, Randi would have turned him down. No matter what types of observations you make, or what theories you derive from them, you do not qualify for the JREF prize unless you personally can do something paranormal!

Because you still don't understand this, I will continue to post this exact post in reply to each one of yours, until you realize that the mere act of obervation is not enough for the JREF prize!

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Re: confused thatguywhojuggles

About your smart question about if I could produce a second video of the same "paranormal" event from a different angle, I remember you the last time ( I hope I don't confuse you) that I didn't produce the first video of my notarized application to the challenge, I just made the observation of the paranormal event.

I understand that the video that you are presenting as evidence is NOT one that you filmed. I understand that you recieved this video from a television station. The point I was trying to make is this: If you can show us ANOTHER tape taken from ANOTHER angle that shows the SAME paranormal event THEN we might have something to discuss.


Here, I will try to simplify this for you: Look at the image below. X represents the camera angle you are using as YOUR evidence of a paranormal event.

Now you and I both know that there were probably hundreds of other video cameras video taping the same event. We will call three of those video cameras A, B, and C. As you can see by the diagram, each of those cameras would be able to capture the "paranormal event"

Now, what I am asking AGAIN, is can you produce another video like A, B, & C that show the same paranormal event?

 

[rwald]

Now, what I am asking AGAIN, is can you produce another video like A, B, & C that show the same paranormal event?

Thatguywhojuggles, I think I know what the problem may be. In your request (quoted above), you ask for Swett to produce a video. While you and I know that you only want Swett to show us such a video, Swett may think you want him to make such a video. So, Carlos, for your information, all we want is a copy of a video which shows your paranormal event from a different angle. This would provide more evidence that your theory is correct. Without this additional evidence, we will continue to believe that your theory is wrong.

And just for the record, you wouldn't win the JREF prize even if your theory were right. The JREF doesn't award money for theories; it awards money for supernatural abilities.

 

[Guest]

Hi ThirdTwin

Mr. Swett:

Thank you for coming here and sharing your passion for what you believe to be the truth. But, I think you will have to receoncile within yourself with the fact that, as has been pointed out by many posters, you simply do not have a claim that satisfies the challenge. Additionally, you may be at the point where you are deceived by your own beliefs. I'm not sure how we get that point across to you, or if we even can. But, if you continue to bother Mr. Randi about this matter you will be teetering dangerously on the fine line between annoyance and harrassment.

Furthermore, you said twice in your posts that "Gravity always has been on earth, until Newton observed it...........should we give the honors to the apple?" as a valid line of reasoning as to why you should be entitled to this prize. What you fail to perhaps fully realize in making this sophistic comparison is that gravity can be tested, measured, and proved, over and over again, by demonstrating through repeatable experiments, that it exists. Your tape, which is a property you do not own, you did not film yourself, and have no personal rights to in the first place (i.e. it is public domain, if it is not already owned by a particular person or news agency at this point), cannot in anyway be submitted to the same level of scrutiny and reproducibility on its individual merits. Likewise, I'm certain that various other news agencies and multiple tapes of this event fail to show a similar view (or even close approximation) of this "object" that appears on this particular version at the same time that the tapes you offer were recorded. On a personal note, I watched live and non-stop as the towers burned during the period of time the tapes you offer would have been recorded (i.e., from the time after the first plane hit until both towers fell). I never saw such an object. I have a complete confidence that the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of other video cameras that were tuned to buildings and recording those events, during that exact same time frame you purport this mysterious, paranormal object flew through the building, would fail to corroborate your assertions.

Lastly, I looked at the pictures on the MSN website. You appear to be quite a talented artist. However, I think that your caricature of James Randi is in poor taste, makes you appear childish and petulant, and does not help your cause. I hope you will consider removing it.

You have not provided any evidence of anything paranormal, despite what you may believe with all your heart - your video is insufficient in that it is not reproducible and is not corroborated by the multiple, separate other video-recorded footage available of this event. Furthermore, there are simpler and much more plausible explanations for what appears on these two tapes, which are consistent with the law of parsimony and principles of Occam's razor and are therefore, by default, automatically more valid than yours.

I hope you will someday be able to rationally understand this and move on to more important things in your life. Likewise, I'm sorry that this was not more cordially explained to you during your initial, follow-up correspondences with the JREF.

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

Hi ThirdTwin :

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.
It is not my fault again, they made a poor,poor analisis , poor answer , and lies about what I was claiming ( lyke I did two assumptions)

That's why I continue with my "passion". The money is in a second place,remember I want to share a truth.

It is not my video, is a shot that you and millions in the world received in their homes, broadcasted by almost all the tv networks of the world, live and in a clear morning(no clouds). Now that particular shot you won't see it anymore, don't ask me why, but now that almost all tv stations will reproduce that tragic moment for the aniversary, please pay attention prepare your super vhs and tape that particular shot if you can. At least not completed , it will be lyke the one you and Mr. Harter analized on the internet(edited)

The evidence is there in my notharized application:
"....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.
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.


Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

Thank's for your words about my artistic work, I am still working in another series of murals for my city, is a hard swett and sweat work, so every afternoon after that hard job I try to respond your replys. (sigh)I will not stop until.......
About the caricature, I didn't poste it. I agree with you to be removed if that will make you all confortable.
I did not start insulting, read again the mails between JREF and me.
I repeat again here my excuses for calling Mr Harter a liar, I should have said not prepared or confused with the spanish lenguage; and for calling Mr. Randi a Chicken , I should have think that he trusted Harter and have no time for anonimous "lunatics"( I am not a Geller or a Browne).

I hope you some day will be able to rationally understand all this, but if you do not you are free to move to another discussion. By the way, "my stupid Affair" had more than 1000 visits. Conratulations, and thank's to all the visitors.

Thank's to you Third Twin ("original")

S&S

 

[rwald]

Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

Just because you havn't been able to find where it passes by the first tower, doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure that Harter looked for that when he first analyzed the video. Besides, since we all do not agree that this is unquestionable evidence for the event's paranormality, you cannot say that this alone proves your point. We need more evidence before we will believe you.

And again, just in case you've forgotten, even if we did believe you, even if Randi believed you, it woudln't matter, since your claim does not qualify for the JREF challange. You do not claim to have any supernatural powers, and therefore you cannot claim the JREF prize.

 

[Guest]

The evidence is there in my notharized application: "....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.
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.

Say, after reading your application, I thought of something else that seems to be missing. If the object was moving at supersonic speed, as you claim, where was the sonic boom?

 

[Guest]

Out of the JREF chat

Hi Rwald, I am a little tired now, but I do another effort.
I am still out of the chat (unless my computer). Nothing you can do in my defense?

Well, you ( and some guys) still are acting lyke lawyers.
Remember , neither Harter or Randi said that my application is not valid. Please I do not want to be repetitive . Try to focus in others points, do not loose energy.

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event"

Or event, or event, or event
"Show .....any............or event."

Their are not my rules, are JREF rules.

I talked before about the proper observing conditions.(not internet)

Please no more arguments about this , focus in my claim.

Is enough for today.
Thank's Rwald

 

[rwald]

I know that that's what the page says. However, you're not interpreting it correctly. When it says "event," it means "event which you cause." I know it doesn't say that. Don't bother telling me. Trust me, as someone who has read all the rules (and not just one sentence on the page introducing the rules), this is the correct interpretation. Randi has no intention of paying you or anyone else money for merely showing that a paranormal event has occured, unless you had some part in making it happen.

Harter said, "You have no claim." What could he have said that would convince you that he thought your claim was not valid? No, he did not use the exact sentence, "Your claim is not valid." But that's the wonderful thing about language. You can say the same thing using different words. Trust me, as a native English speaker, when Harter says, "You have no claim," he means, "Your claim is not valid."

[edit]
I just remembered, Randi also said, "Your application is closed." That means that he no longer considered you to be a applicant. If this doesn't show you that Randi thought your application was invalid, I don't know what would.

And I'm not sure what's keeping you out of the chat room, because I have no power there. If you're using a line near where latin is, it might be that, because we k-lined latin (I think). But other than that, I don't know what the problem would be.
[/edit]

 

[Nova Land]

There's a choice: spend time arguing, or trying to find out what the object really is

I understand that the video that you are presenting as evidence is NOT one that you filmed. I understand that you recieved this video from a television station. The point I was trying to make is this: If you can show us ANOTHER tape taken from ANOTHER angle that shows the SAME paranormal event THEN we might have something to discuss.

This is an excellent suggestion.

Carlos: I hope you will consider doing what Walter suggests. If you are truly interested in helping find out the truth about the "hat-shaped object" that appears in your video, this would be a good step in doing that.

As Walter points out, there were probably many videos made of the World Trade Center tragedy. If some of these can be located and compared with yours, it may help settle some questions about the nature of the hat-shaped object.

If, for instance, the hat-shaped object appears in other videos that were made of the same scene at the same time, this would help rule out some flaw in the camera or film and would indicate the object is real; if on the other hand, the object does not appear in any other video, it most likely is simply a flaw in the film or camera, or a trick of light.

Having other videos of the same event to study would be helpful in other ways. Often, seeing the same thing from several different angles helps us to better identify what something is.

You may be hesitating about following Walter's suggestion because you think it would be too difficult for you to locate the people who might have other videos and talk to them to see if you can have a copy of their videas.

One way to go about this which might not be too difficult would be to create a web-site describing the video you have and asking anyone with their own video of the same scene at the same time to let you make a copy of theirs. I am sure there are many people who are interested in claims of the paranormal who would be willing to help you spread the word about what you are looking for, so that people with videos could be located and talked to.

One thing seems clear: you can either spend a lot of time and energy arguing with people about what you said to Randi and Andrew, and what Randi and Andrew said to you, or you can spend your time and energy trying to find out what the object in the video is.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

S & S,

It occurs to me that could be some confusion as to how you define "proper observing condition".

To my way of thinking, this means that the JREF is able to establish proper test conditions under which to observe your claim (paranormal event).

Is it possible that you are misunderstanding this statement? How do you define "proper observing conditions"?

Notwithstanding the possibility of confusion over that phrase, I agree with the others. Your observation of this supposed "paranormal" event does not qualify you for the million dollar prize. You did not create, or have any part in this event, so it does not qualify you for the prize.

 

[Guest]

RWALD's INTERPRETATION

I know that that's what the page says. However, you're not interpreting it correctly. When it says "event," it means "event which you cause." I know it doesn't say that. Don't bother telling me. Trust me, as someone who has read all the rules (and not just one sentence on the page introducing the rules), this is the correct interpretation. Randi has no intention of paying you or anyone else money for merely showing that a paranormal event has occured, unless you had some part in making it happen.

Harter said, "You have no claim." What could he have said that would convince you that he thought your claim was not valid? No, he did not use the exact sentence, "Your claim is not valid." But that's the wonderful thing about language. You can say the same thing using different words. Trust me, as a native English speaker, when Harter says, "You have no claim," he means, "Your claim is not valid."

[edit]
I just remembered, Randi also said, "Your application is closed." That means that he no longer considered you to be a applicant. If this doesn't show you that Randi thought your application was invalid, I don't know what would.

And I'm not sure what's keeping you out of the chat room, because I have no power there. If you're using a line near where latin is, it might be that, because we k-lined latin (I think). But other than that, I don't know what the problem would be.
[/edit]

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

Hi again:

Laws and rules can not be interpretated. They are "death words".

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Please, give me a break on that point, and focus on what I am denouncing.
I promise I will make a resume of all the same constant questions already respond by me or others members of this forum who had noticed the JREF fault.

Than's anyway for my wrong expulsion of the chat, I never was flooding or posting anything., I use to defend myself with reasons.

Thank's

S&S

 

[rwald]

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Yes. They said, "You have no claim." They said, "Your application is closed." These words mean that your claim is invalid. It's that simple.

Once again: Since you do not claim to be able to do anything paranormal, your claim was never valid. When Harter said, "You have no claim," he basically said this.

As far as interpretation goes, since the relevent sentence is contradicted elsewhere, we must use our interpretive skills to see which is the intended meaning, and which is the error. From my knowledge of English, as well as my knowledge of the JREF, I am certain that the sentence saying that events are allowed is an error. If this is really what you're getting at, I can go word by word and show you where the contradiction is, and then show you why we should listen to the other version.

And as far as whether or not your paranormal event actually occured, until you find more evidence supporting it, I will not believe that it occured. One video proves nothing. Maybe, if the paranormal event was so obvious that no one, not even Harter, could denounce it, it would suffice. But since Harter was able to denounce it, your one video is clearly not evidence enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and since you do not have extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim, we must use Occum's razor and assume the most likely solution, namely that there was a bird, or a bug, or a speck of dust, or a camera malfunction, or something explainable by science.

You will not convince anyone here of your veracity without further evidence. I suggest you go out and find more evidence to prove your point before trying to convince us.

 

[Guest]

To novaland and similars

This is an excellent suggestion.

Carlos: I hope you will consider doing what Walter suggests. If you are truly interested in helping find out the truth about the "hat-shaped object" that appears in your video, this would be a good step in doing that.

As Walter points out, there were probably many videos made of the World Trade Center tragedy. If some of these can be located and compared with yours, it may help settle some questions about the nature of the hat-shaped object.

If, for instance, the hat-shaped object appears in other videos that were made of the same scene at the same time, this would help rule out some flaw in the camera or film and would indicate the object is real; if on the other hand, the object does not appear in any other video, it most likely is simply a flaw in the film or camera, or a trick of light.

Having other videos of the same event to study would be helpful in other ways. Often, seeing the same thing from several different angles helps us to better identify what something is.

You may be hesitating about following Walter's suggestion because you think it would be too difficult for you to locate the people who might have other videos and talk to them to see if you can have a copy of their videas.

One way to go about this which might not be too difficult would be to create a web-site describing the video you have and asking anyone with their own video of the same scene at the same time to let you make a copy of theirs. I am sure there are many people who are interested in claims of the paranormal who would be willing to help you spread the word about what you are looking for, so that people with videos could be located and talked to.

One thing seems clear: you can either spend a lot of time and energy arguing with people about what you said to Randi and Andrew, and what Randi and Andrew said to you, or you can spend your time and energy trying to find out what the object in the video is.

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

Hi novaland and thatguy....., and all the "lawyers"

Do you lyke american football? There is a rule when is something in discussion of a decission of the referee. I guess the manager and the referee go to a special tv room to see the taped play in discussion from different angles . What happen if in only in one(only in one angle) of this views they demostrate that the referee was wrong? Do they change the decission? YES, and in only one view from different angles. Well , that's football, and you are pretending me with a paranormal activity to look it in every angle. Give me a break.!

I told JREF the image to be analize, the only one, they gave me a poor, antitechnical and full of lies answer of that particular image
I was claiming in my notarized application.

Thank's

S&S

P.S. I do not need to create a web page of this, I am serious, If I was not , do you think I will need that poor advice?

 

[Guest]

NO INTERPRETATION

Yes. They said, "You have no claim." They said, "Your application is closed." These words mean that your claim is invalid. It's that simple.

Once again: Since you do not claim to be able to do anything paranormal, your claim was never valid. When Harter said, "You have no claim," he basically said this.

As far as interpretation goes, since the relevent sentence is contradicted elsewhere, we must use our interpretive skills to see which is the intended meaning, and which is the error. From my knowledge of English, as well as my knowledge of the JREF, I am certain that the sentence saying that events are allowed is an error. If this is really what you're getting at, I can go word by word and show you where the contradiction is, and then show you why we should listen to the other version.

And as far as whether or not your paranormal event actually occured, until you find more evidence supporting it, I will not believe that it occured. One video proves nothing. Maybe, if the paranormal event was so obvious that no one, not even Harter, could denounce it, it would suffice. But since Harter was able to denounce it, your one video is clearly not evidence enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and since you do not have extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim, we must use Occum's razor and assume the most likely solution, namely that there was a bird, or a bug, or a speck of dust, or a camera malfunction, or something explainable by science.

You will not convince anyone here of your veracity without further evidence. I suggest you go out and find more evidence to prove your point before trying to convince us.

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

Hi again:

Laws and rules can not be interpretated. They are "death words".

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Please, give me a break on that point, and focus on what I am denouncing.
I promise I will make a resume of all the same constant questions already respond by me or others members of this forum who had noticed the JREF fault.

Than's anyway for my wrong expulsion of the chat, I never was flooding or posting anything., I use to defend myself with reasons.

Thank's

S&S

 

[The Fool]

S&S. Its time to go away now. People have been polite and patient with you but you refuse to accept the obvious. Your video does not amount to proof of anything. You are wasting your time. now please go away.....

 

[rwald]

Do you lyke american football? There is a rule when is something in discussion of a decission of the referee. I guess the manager and the referee go to a special tv room to see the taped play in discussion from different angles . What happen if in only in one(only in one angle) of this views they demostrate that the referee was wrong? Do they change the decission? YES, and in only one view from different angles. Well , that's football, and you are pretending me with a paranormal activity to look it in every angle. Give me a break.!

You make a good point. However, you fail to account for one thing: burden of proof. In American football, the burden is upon the referee to prove that he was correct. If there is any suggestion that he may wrong, then it is assumed that he is wrong.

Another example of burden of proof is in the court of law. If there were many video angles, and all showed that the defendant was innocent, except for one, what would the jury say? Innocent. The prosecution has the burden of proof; they must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

In the same sense, with scientific matters, the burden of proof is upon the person whose claim contradicts known science. Since the burden of proof lies on you, you must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are right. Clearly, you have not done that, as there are many people who doubt your claim. With only one camera angle, it is very hard for you to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are correct. Until you have more evidence to prove that you are correct, please don't assume that we will take your one video as absolute truth.

Also, why would the rules of American football, a sport, have any bearing on science? It really doesn't matter what happens in sports; science has its own rules, and those are the rules you must abide by.

My application was opened and I received an answer of the oficcial researcher of the JREF (Mr. Andrew Harter) according to the claim I send in my notarized application to the challenge.
Again to all the lawyers (Nova Land included): no a single word that they told me that my application is not valid.

Yes, your application was opened. Yes, you received an official answer from the JREF. And then, your application was closed. I think Randi made this clear when he said, "Your application has been closed." I don't know why you think "all the lawyers" agree with you; if you can cite a single person who agrees that Randi never told you your application was invalid, I will be satisfied (latin doesn't count). Let others speak for themselves.

Also, if you would like to have an intelligent debate, you must read what I say, and respond with new material directly relevant to what I am saying. Repeating word for word your response to my previous post shows that you are unable to answer the questions I have asked. If you have any cogent reply which includes new material, feel free to respond. But do not just post the exact same thing you posted already. As I pointed out before, we all can read the board, and there's no need to repeat material which is already there.

 

[Pyrrho]

A proper analysis of the images on the tape would require the original tape and the original video recorder. Copies of the tape would be invalid, because the process of making a copy always introduces more noise into the copy, and detail is obscured each time the copy is copied.

Only the original should be examined. Nothing else will do.

Without the original tape and tape recorder, there is nothing to claim. Attempting to corroborate copies with other copies would be futile and unscientific.

One cannot avoid the rest of the JREF Challenge rules by trying to take advantage of a line of text taken out-of-context. That tactic has been attempted by other people, who merely sent Randi a large amount of information, and then demanded to be paid the million dollars for "providing a method".

===========

Personally, I am tired of people trying to gain notoriety by taking advantage of the sad events of September 11, 2001. Even if a fleeting "paranormal event" happened that day, it is meaningless.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Re: To novaland and similars

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.

Again, your conclusion - simply because you have made - does not demonstrate anything. That is the key. I hope you will be able to understand that. It is no more valid than any other conclusion.

Do you lyke american football? There is a rule when is something in discussion of a decission of the referee. I guess the manager and the referee go to a special tv room to see the taped play in discussion from different angles . What happen if in only in one(only in one angle) of this views they demostrate that the referee was wrong? Do they change the decission? YES, and in only one view from different angles. Well , that's football, and you are pretending me with a paranormal activity to look it in every angle. Give me a break.!

Again, Mr. Swett this is an interesting, but specious and syllogistic argument. There ARE many angles from many other cameras that clearly and definitively show nothing is there. That leads one only to a more reasonable theory that the most likely explanation was a local one involving the individual cameras that captured those anomalies, which is a far more simple and reasonable explanation (i.e., you still have nothing). You appear, again, to be a fairly clever man who is capable of constructing a decent argument. But, analogies do not win debates in science.

I know that you are not interested in the money, and I hope that you will be able to separate yourself from the emotional part of you that believes you are right and gain the ability to see this rationally. Again, I am sorry that Mr. Randi offended you. I hope that is enough.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

S&S,

You have just enterd into the "Troll" category in my opinion, and I will no longer comment on this subject.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by rwald

Yes, your application was opened. Yes, you received an official answer from the JREF. And then, your application was closed. I think Randi made this clear when he said, "Your application has been closed." I don't know why you think "all the lawyers" agree with you; if you can cite a single person who agrees that Randi never told you your application was invalid, I will be satisfied (latin doesn't count). Let others speak for themselves.

Also, if you would like to have an intelligent debate, you must read what I say, and respond with new material directly relevant to what I am saying. Repeating word for word your response to my previous post shows that you are unable to answer the questions I have asked. If you have any cogent reply which includes new material, feel free to respond. But do not just post the exact same thing you posted already. As I pointed out before, we all can read the board, and there's no need to repeat material which is already there. [/B]

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


Hi Rwald and "the lawyers": so you better do not repeat the same I already answered. Here is an example , they are more:

Originally posted by Buddyh:

"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.


Well,I cited you a single person, satisfy?

You have no claim.There is nothing in Harter's answer, he never told me my application is inavalid.
Your reply is closed.

Do not insist, let the others members focus on the video, is the only way to demostrate I am a lunatic.

Burden of proof:
Remember anything that can be rationalistic explain (bird, missil,cloud,reflects,insects, superman,etc.) must be seen against the wall of the first towerwhile passing by it. That's not the case, I have studied it with proffesionals in images, slow-very slow frame by frame on the own tape of that particular shot the tv stations have. That's the difference.

Thanks ,
S&S