The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Guest]

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.

I think you misunderstand the concept of "Burden of proof". What that means is that you have to prove, beyond a shodow of a doubt, that the object was not normal in nature. Part of that means answering any and all reasonable questions asked of you. So far, you haven't given a legitimate explanation as to why no one on the ground saw it, ("It was paranormal" doesn't cut it, that assumes that the object is paranormal, something you haven't proven yet) why it appeared on no other cameras, etc. Likewise, you must remember that even if you prove that it couldn't be a bird, that still isn't legitimate proof that it was paranormal. You have to prove that, too. A good start would be obtaining additional footage of the object from different angles. And proving the identity of the object will also be necessary, especially if you continue to claim that it wasn't visible because it was paranormal. This claim requires that you be aware of the properties of the object, which requires that you know what it is.

Why couldn't you see the bird in front of the towers? I don't have access to the full footage, just the part after it passes before the towers, so I'm afraid I can't comment on that. However, I submit as a possibilaty (admittedly as a non-expert in the field of photography) that the bird was flying away from the camera, so that in the first few frames it was nearly invisible, not becoming clear until it had reached the range from which the camera could at least properly focus upon it.

Finally, as to your repeated "lawyer" comments:

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

Just because Harter didn't say outright that it was invalid doesn't mean that isn't what he meant. Clearly, he insinuated that the challenge wasn't legit. By saying "You have no claim" as opposed to, say, "Your claim is not valid", he was insinuating that there wasn't enough substance to continue with the challenge. This is also why it didn't make SWIFT, and it's probably why they didn't view a better quality tape; those are the kind of things done for challenge that have passed the preliminary phase, which requires that the JREF find enough substance in the claim to validate testing. Yours didn't pass those criteria. This is obvious to everyone else here. Why don't you get it?

 

[Guest]

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.



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.

__-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third twin : Thank's for your advice, I know you are acting sincerely, but I am alone here and I have the right to defend what any reasonable person will agree with me that I received a poor answer from the JREF. That's they fault. Sorry for that.
Yes Mr. Randi ofended me with no reason, before Harter's poor answer. I was dissapointed, but I still think we need people lyke him, everybody makes a mistake once ln a while.

"Some gay" called me TROLL here. That gay is going to presure the news ( larry King, 20/20, etc.) to try to force Sylvia Browne(1 year's clock)to enter the challenge. I did the challenge, "some gay", why you don't turn that press to my oficial challenge. They have the complete video and the equipments, and tomorrow is five months I send JREF the challenge and the only thing I received was a poor answer.
No comments in Randi's commentaries, Why not? The more than 1000 viewers of this "Carlos Swett affair" deserves an answer from them.
What's going on? What do they are afraid of? a demand from me?
If they are sure of their answer , so comment please.

You know I work in arts, what I know best is forms of birds. Natures and ecological (before the mood) and birds had been my favorites art tematics. This "paranormal thing" has a hat form, that means that Harter's " bird " is flying upside down. Check the plctures( not the incomplete video) Patricio posted here or IJRAL posted on the MSN "Skeptics Forum".

Now , if you all agreed , I must go to the analisis of the complete video when you all stop telling a video is not a proof . Where is that rule.? It was a particular event, Understand that.

Thank's again and you are free to keep on going in the same or.......Check the truth.

Keep on going,
S&S

 

[Dr. Imago]

__-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third twin : Thank's for your advice, I know you are acting sincerely, but I am alone here and I have the right to defend what any reasonable person will agree with me that I received a poor answer from the JREF. That's they fault. Sorry for that.
Yes Mr. Randi ofended me with no reason, before Harter's poor answer. I was dissapointed, but I still think we need people lyke him, everybody makes a mistake once ln a while.

"Some gay" called me TROLL here. That gay is going to presure the news ( larry King, 20/20, etc.) to try to force Sylvia Browne(1 year's clock)to enter the challenge. I did the challenge, "some gay", why you don't turn that press to my oficial challenge. They have the complete video and the equipments, and tomorrow is five months I send JREF the challenge and the only thing I received was a poor answer.
No comments in Randi's commentaries, Why not? The more than 1000 viewers of this "Carlos Swett affair" deserves an answer from them.
What's going on? What do they are afraid of? a demand from me?
If they are sure of their answer , so comment please.

You know I work in arts, what I know best is forms of birds. Natures and ecological (before the mood) and birds had been my favorites art tematics. This "paranormal thing" has a hat form, that means that Harter's " bird " is flying upside down. Check the plctures( not the incomplete video) Patricio posted here or IJRAL posted on the MSN "Skeptics Forum".

Now , if you all agreed , I must go to the analisis of the complete video when you all stop telling a video is not a proof . Where is that rule.? It was a particular event, Understand that.

Thank's again and you are free to keep on going in the same or.......Check the truth.

Keep on going,
S&S

Thank you for reading my posts. Past this post, I have nothing further to add because this has, sadly, turned into a circular argument. So, in summary, I will only add the following sentiments. And, I admonish you to read them carefully and try to understand them in order to save yourself any continuing embarrassment.

With all respect, this is what you are not understanding: the video - for the many reasons already stated that you either can't or won't acknowledge - is irrelevant, you have no claim, and your interpretation of the same is likewise irrelevant. Period. Please move on. You will not get any satisifaction from your continued efforts.

Best of luck to you in other endeavors.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Carlos,

I'm going to make a summary of what I think are your main points on all this discussion, and I will comment them one by one. I'll take the ideas that others have pointed out before, as well as some of my own.

You claim that:

1) A paranormal event took place during the WTC terrorist attacks. Comment: since it's an extraordinary claim, you have to produce evidence both in quality and quantity to back it up. Two or more shots of the scene from different angles are needed to rule out a tape defect or any other simple explanation. Independant eyewitness testimonies would be useful as well

2) Your claim is valid to apply for the million dollars challenge. Comment: This is the main problem. To apply for the million dollars prize, you have to state a personal testable paranormal ability or, in case it is an event, you have to clearly state what kind of event it is, and produce evidence of your own to back it up. You have to understand that in saying it is a "paranormal activity" you aren't claiming anything about the nature of the event. For example, if your case were something like "an alien spacecraft landed in my yard, and I took these pictures and videos to back up my claim", I'm sure that Randi would be eager to accept you application and examine the evidence.

3) Randi didn't say that your claim is not validComment: Andrew said "you have no claim" and this is the same as saying that your claim is not valid. Randi backed Andrew's reply, so Randi said that your claim is indeed not valid

4) Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the eventComment: according to his e-mail response this is true. But in view of what I commented in 3), it was pointless for him to do so, there was no need for him to waste his time on that.

5) Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer. But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies

Well Carlos, I urge you to think hard on this, and also on what other posters have said. There's nothing to be tested, there's no valid claim in your application, there's nothing Randi can do about it, your claim is out of the scope of the million dollars challenge.

Hope this helps.

 

[Guest]

LAS DUDAS DE PATRICIO

Carlos,

I'm going to make a summary of what I think are your main points on all this discussion, and I will comment them one by one. I'll take the ideas that others have pointed out before, as well as some of my own.

You claim that:

Patrcio:

1) A paranormal event took place during the WTC terrorist attacks. Comment: since it's an extraordinary claim, you have to produce evidence both in quality and quantity to back it up. Two or more shots of the scene from different angles are needed to rule out a tape defect or any other simple explanation. Independant eyewitness testimonies would be useful as well

Swett:

If it is an extraordinary claim, why only you the members of this forum (not JREF) are just only talking about legal forms, and don´t focus if my extraordinary claim is true or not.

Patricio:

2) Your claim is valid to apply for the million dollars challenge. Comment: This is the main problem. To apply for the million dollars prize, you have to state a personal testable paranormal ability or, in case it is an event, you have to clearly state what kind of event it is, and produce evidence of your own to back it up. You have to understand that in saying it is a "paranormal activity" you aren't claiming anything about the nature of the event. For example, if your case were something like "an alien spacecraft landed in my yard, and I took these pictures and videos to back up my claim", I'm sure that Randi would be eager to accept you application and examine the evidence.

Swett:

I didn´t make the shot. It was taked in a particular tragic event, broadcasted to all the world and the most viewed on the history of television. It was not shot on my private yard.
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.
You all the members of the forum are the one who are always talking about the one million dolllars. I already wrote to JREF what is my position about it. You can check it again.

Patricio:

3) Randi didn't say that your claim is not validComment: Andrew said "you have no claim" and this is the same as saying that your claim is not valid. Randi backed Andrew's reply, so Randi said that your claim is indeed not valid

Swett:

No, Andrew said "you have no claim, there is nothing supernatural taking place". That´s the difference. Your interpretation of Andrew´s answer is that my claim is not valid.

No again, Randi said "Andrew made the right decission with my aproval. Your aplication is closed". That´s the difference.So, Randi indeed (like Harter) never said my application is not valid.

Patricio:

4) Andrew didn't examine your video, instead he only watched an internet low resolution movie of the eventComment: according to his e-mail response this is true. But in view of what I commented in 3), it was pointless for him to do so, there was no need for him to waste his time on that.

Swett:

If it was pointless to Harter to examine my video, why JREF researcher "studied frame by frame" a poor, low resolution, incomplete video from internet. Why the same poor video from internet, you are doubting that it is a bird, as you posted before when you were doubting if Harter examined the right video.

Patricio:

5) Randi gave you a poor answer to your applicationComment: I think this is true, he could have given you a better and more comprehensive answer. But you have to understand that Randi is a very busy guy, and he simply has no time to elaborate long replies

Swett:

So, you agree with me that JREF gave me a poor answer to my application. It is not my problem if Randi is busy only talking about Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne every week.
Patricio it is a poor excuse that you tell to me that Randi is a busy guy. He is only afraid of comment about me and my real notarized application and the poor answers they gave to me.

****************************************************

Don´t you have the natural human curiosity to find out and investigate if what I claimed in the application is true?
Don´t loose energy defending only the "formal" rules, let that part to Randi´s lawyers.

Thanks,

S&S

 

[Guest]

LUCKY THIRD TWIN

Thank you for reading my posts. Past this post, I have nothing further to add because this has, sadly, turned into a circular argument. So, in summary, I will only add the following sentiments. And, I admonish you to read them carefully and try to understand them in order to save yourself any continuing embarrassment.

With all respect, this is what you are not understanding: the video - for the many reasons already stated that you either can't or won't acknowledge - is irrelevant, you have no claim, and your interpretation of the same is likewise irrelevant. Period. Please move on. You will not get any satisifaction from your continued efforts.

Best of luck to you in other endeavors.

_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

Hi Third Twin:
I apreciate your wish of luck to me in other endeavors. In this particular case(my notarized application to JREF challenge) I don´t need luck, the only thing I need is people with the courage to defeat me with reasons. No with feelings, no with interpretations, no with poor answers. My only satisfaction is that i am telling the truth and that this particular "affair" deserves a JREF answer on their web page.

Thanks again, Third Twin, good luck to you in all aspects of your life (if luck exists for you).

S&S

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

 

[Smalso]

This debate having reached its limit, I conclude that there is still a course open to SS. Get you to a telephone soonest and contact Art Bell. If you can make it to his show, you will get full agreement with and support for your position with absolutely no proof or evidence required or asked.

 

[Guest]

Who is this guy?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Re: LAS DUDAS DE PATRICIO

Carlos,

If it is an extraordinary claim, why only you the members of this forum (not JREF) are just only talking about legal forms, and don´t focus if my extraordinary claim is true or not.

You continually complain that Randi dismissed you application, and we've been long trying to explain to you why it was so, why yours is not a valid claim for the million.

I myself would love to examine a detailed evidence to figure out if your claim is true or not, but the burden of providing such evidence lies on you. As I said, only one video is not enough to rule out any mundane explanation of the alledge "paranormal activity". I think that any skeptic and rational person will find your evidence very weak, and consecuently won't bother to take your claim seriously.

If you gather additional, independant and more convincing evidence for your claim, there will always be people interested in examining it. TV channels are hungry for striking news, and maybe even you can re-apply for the million.

I didn´t make the shot. It was taked in a particular tragic event, broadcasted to all the world and the most viewed on the history of television. It was not shot on my private yard.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons why, in my opinion, your claim is not valid for the challenge.

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.

Even professionals and experts can make mistakes, there are a lot of examples of that. Professionals and experts on image processing claimed that a picture from the Cydonia region on Mars taken by the Viking spacecraft, showed a carved sculpture of a human face. But it turned out to be wrong, as the Mars Global Surveyor later showed.

How can we be sure that you and the professionals that examined the footage didn't misinterpret it? One possible solution is to find independant evidence of the phenomenon.

No, Andrew said "you have no claim, there is nothing supernatural taking place". That´s the difference. Your interpretation of Andrew´s answer is that my claim is not valid.

No again, Randi said "Andrew made the right decission with my aproval. Your aplication is closed". That´s the difference.So, Randi indeed (like Harter) never said my application is not valid.

Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi. But I repeat for the nth time: "you have no claim, there's nothing paranormal taking place" is the same as "your application is not valid", understand that!, there are different ways to express the same idea, that's a wonderful capabilitiy of human languages.

If it was pointless to Harter to examine my video, why JREF researcher "studied frame by frame" a poor, low resolution, incomplete video from internet.

Because it was enough for him to realize that you had no claim and that your application wasn't valid. By the way, in my opinion the internet animation has a good resolution, I don't think a TV image can do any better tahn that.

Why the same poor video from internet, you are doubting that it is a bird, as you posted before when you were doubting if Harter examined the right video.

Yes, as I said before, I fail to see a bird in the animation, but it is well within the range of a possible explanation. In fact, any object passing close to the camera at a high speed would produce such a blurred image. I could be a bird, it could be debries from the impact, it could be a tape defect, etc...

Your main argument is that the object was not seen against the tower, thus implying that it passed through the hole. But a flaw on the tape or a shadow may very well account for that. Again, what is needed is more evidence to rule out those possibilities.

So, you agree with me that JREF gave me a poor answer to my application. It is not my problem if Randi is busy only talking about Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne every week.
Patricio it is a poor excuse that you tell to me that Randi is a busy guy. He is only afraid of comment about me and my real notarized application and the poor answers they gave to me

Yes, I agree with you that he gave you a poor answer, but remember that he said that your application was not valid, so why a busy person like him would bother on a more comprehensive answer?

Don´t you have the natural human curiosity to find out and investigate if what I claimed in the application is true?

Oh yes, I have an enormous curiosity to know and learn, especially when it comes to events that would take me out of my routine life, but I need good evidence.

The regularities of our world are sometimes exasperating, aren't they?, we would love to believe that there is "something else". But if the world is not the way we would wish, so be it!. The world is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition


[edited to fix minor details]

 

[Wyrd1]

Too much fun, Too little time

I think the Forum is already arriving at the sameconclusion that Smiley, Iggy, and I arrived at in Skeptic's Forum some time ago and that is that Carlos isn't going to give and admit he's wrong. EVER. You can mark the number of this post and check back in every one hundred posts or so and he will still be going at it. He will not change his tune. He will not realize that we will never buy his description of this "thing" as paranormal. Round and round we go and where we stop nobody knows. Mr Swett, you are a great artist. I like your work. Do everybody a favor and stop wasting your time here.

 

[Guest]

To my follower of the skeptic forum

QUOTE]Originally posted by Wyrd1
............ that Carlos isn't going to give and admit he's wrong. EVER. You can mark the number of this post and check back in every one hundred posts or so and he will still be going at it. He will not change his tune. He will not realize that we will never buy his description of this "thing" as paranormal. Mr Swett, you are a great artist. I like your work. [/QUOTE]

Hi Wyrd1:
I met you at the Skeptics Forum. You are wright, I will never give up, not only in this easy subject, but in all aspects of my life.
I am not a looser. Remember I am here alone and everybody received an answer from me, but the best thing is that you members of this forum did not receive an answer from the members of the JREF about the "Carlos Swett affair". They are in silence because they know they made a mistake with me giving me poor answers, using poor methods and lying iabout my notharized application ( lyke I made two assumptions, etc. ).

You also lied at the Skeptics Forum . You said you taped the image, too, and analized it "frame by frame" in your "SUPER VHS", the only thing you needed was to confirm what shot it was.Now that you knew which one was, means that you have the complete sequence( not the incmplete image of internet that Harter analized). I challenge you to put your complete tape in this forum, remember I did it ( to the JREF, as Harter said).

Don't waist your time here, if you are not able to prove you have the complete sequence.

Thanks for your words about my art work.

S&S

P.S.
I give my personal feelings of support to all the families involved tragiccally in this unsucces, to the people who fighted to rescue anothers, to the people who died in the war, to all the world involved ibecause of the insanity of very few.
That's why I did not challenged JREF for the money perse (as I told them). I just want to share a truth with the world, I am not buying anything .

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos,

You may have noticed that nobody but yourself has responded to this thread in at least 3 days. That means we are tired of your whinning. Nobody likes a troll. Go away!

 

[Guest]

Who is this troll guy?

England?

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos,

None of us are impressed by your sock puppets and their pathetic photoshop skills. Go away, troll.

 

[Guest]

To that guy:

Carlos,

None of us are impressed by your sock puppets and their pathetic photoshop skills. Go away, troll.

You are the one who put that stupid picture. Those are your arms, you can not put reasons, you can not put smart questions, Go fight for the Silvya Browne case, you are with the same I, Q, of her.

Thank's for still writing stupidities. The "Swett affair" has 5 stars of rating and more than 1700 visits in less than one month.
I am here alone and I respect different smarts points of view from the members of this particular case ; what I do not care are your out of brain questions and answers. Please go away .Respect the rest of the members, trolly.

Thank's
S&S

 

[Guest]

Hola Linda

Interesting.....Sr. Swett just registered for the message boards today. I expect we'll be hearing from him.

I remember I wrote you asking for your advice about if I can write in the forum. After 20 messages you put the message I am quoting here from you . Your expectation by that time has been satisfied.
Now is time fo give you my special thanks to you for that opening,
I guess this case had many visitors and writers, differents points of view that I respect, and that I tried to give them true answers.
I only have one question ; ¿ When one of the members of the JREF will give their oppinion of my case, or you are satisfied with Andrew Harter's poor answer ? If you can , please answer me that simple question. I hope that does not cause you troubles at the JREF.

Anyway I still respect you all and support your works.

Gracias Belleza,
S&S

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: LAS DUDAS DE PATRICIO

Carlos,....
......How can we be sure that you and the professionals that examined the footage didn't misinterpret it? One possible solution is to find independant evidence of the phenomenon. Yes, Andrew didn't say that your application is not valid, nor said Randi.
...... By the way, in my opinion the internet animation has a good resolution, I don't think a TV image can do any better tahn that.Yes, as I said before, I fail to see a bird in the animation

......Yes, I agree with you that he gave you a poor answer, but remember that he said that your application was not valid, so why a busy person like him would bother on a more comprehensive answer?Oh yes, I have an enormous curiosity to know and learn, especially when it comes to events that would take me out of my routine life, but I need good evidence.

[edited to fix minor details]

Hi Patricio:
Thanks for your curiosity , but I see contradictions in your answers:

Yes , the professionals of tv and I that examined the footage have affirmation and conclution of this case, that's why I recommended The JREF to do the same ( an independent opinion of your local tv proff. ). It was Harter's choise to study it "frame by frame " in an incomplete tape from the internet. Who cares about Harter's oppinion , is he a professional of tv images?. Did he told us, members of this forum the link he used to "studied " it ?Is that image with the complete sequence?

If you think the internet image has a good resolution is because you have not see the 3/4 or betacan tape the channels have.Besides on the internet the image is incomplete to analyze what you translated from my notharized application (that's the most important point)

If you aggre with me that Andrew Harter and James Randi gave me a poor answer, and NEVER said in your own translation that my application is not valid, what else can I say? The rest is your own interpretation, and that is not relevant in this case.
Interpretations are not for real sceptics.

Ask Mr. Harter or Mr. Randi the reasons of their silence, I have myself an "interpretation" or suspects of that " ostrich"actitude.
You started this "Carlos Swett Affair" , so is your obligation to go to the last consequences..

Thanks
S&S

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Hola Linda

Reasonably stated, and I shall attempt to reasonably reply. I believe there are two problems with your claim. The first and most basic is a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to language, on what constitutes a claim. You must yourself be able to create a paranormal event, under controlled circumstances. A tape of this does not suffice. For example, let's say you were in fact a true paranormalist, and could bend spoons truly with the power of your mind. If I videotape you doing this, would you argue that I myself can claim the prize? Or would you have the more legitimate claim, as the actual doer of the deed?

Secondly, even if you are correct about the image you taped seeming paranormal, I state that I believe it to be a bird. Why should your statement that it is a UFO (or such) have more value than my statement?

Simply put, a challenge must be a demonstration of a power, by the claimant him/her self, under controlled circumstances all parties agree to a priori.

Hopefully, this is helpful...

Hi bidlack:

Perhaps you just read few posts here, I recommended you to read it all. Your interpretations are already answered by me.I was with the old rules of the challenge, no matter the language and there was nothing in JREF researche's answer to my application that confirms your interpretation, pleas check it again.

Thanks anyway,
S&S

 

[Guest]

Carl Sagan

"We wish to persue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact".

Episode 1, The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean



"Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, ... and we are wanderers still"

Episode 7, The Backbone of Night