• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The "Carlos Swett affair"

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pyrrho2000


An e-mail isn't an official application. The JREF Challenge requires that you read the rules and fill out a notarized application. Then you have to wait your turn.

Please see:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My question: Is an e-mail an official answer to a real notarized application?

quote: By e-mail?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

That's the reason James randi is afraid ti post this simple , short and stupid reply in his week's commentaries. Bidlack, Randi and the JREF are afraid to do it.

I send to them a self adress envelope, according to the rules.
They received the application , and NEVER wrote a single word that it was not valid. They just studied an unknown link on internet. LOSERS.

Thanks,
S&S
 
Okay, they should have sent you an answer in the self addressed stamped envelope.

It still doesn't make your claim a winner. In your notarized application you venture your opinion that you saw something Paranormal. Harter and Randi disagreed. It doesn't matter whether you like their method or not. It doesn't matter if you want to hold onto your opinion in the face of logic and reason. What matters is that birds flying in front of cameras are not paranormal objects. It doesn't matter a good goshdarn if the viewer is sophisticated enough to understand that.

Nobody is afraid of answering you or any other pompous windbag artist. The only person afraid of the truth is you since you hide from it on a daily basis.

Truth: The object was out of focus.
Truth: The most likely reason for it to be out of focus was because it was much closer to the camera than any other object in view.
Truth: The speed of the object is consistent with that of a bird flying 25 to 50 feet in front of the camera.
Truth: The size of the object is consistent with that of a bird flying 25 to 50 feet in front of the camera.
Truth: The object is not visable in any other video taken at the same time indicating that it was not a large object entering and exiting the holes in the WTC.
Truth: No one present in NYC eyewitnessed any large UFOs near the WTC at the time of the incident despite the fact that many would have been able to see it if your theory were correct.

The only argument you have is that you saw a hatshaped paranormal object. You have a highly inflated ego so you think that's the only argument that means anything but you are wrong.

Why is JREF ignoring you now? Because you were wrong and they feel no further need to continue an endless debate with a pompous man who will never admit he is wrong.
 
S&S said:
I only admit that they are afraid of their own answer, their own method and their own lies. JREF is afraid to publicate in an official way their own answer.

Okay, try my "ego" in japanese:

http://www2.justnet.ne.jp/~kiti/Ufo/wtc/wtc.htm
Click to expand...

Still trying to get your name in Randi's commentary I see.

Your link only proves there are stupid Japanese also.

Their method was sound. They easily determined you claim was nonsense and probably threw your tape in the trash. Face it Carlos, you're just fruitcake #7456.

Boy, you must have sold a lot of art to be this determined to get some free publicity. Why don't you just take out an ad.

<font size="+1">Video Clip of the Day</font>



<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="TOP">
WorldTrade01.jpg


<A HREF="http://home.austin.rr.com/bluemonk/movies/WorldTrade01.avi">
WorldTrade01.avi</A> 2118 KB

</TD>


<TD>
Here we have an angle provided by CNN.



This shot is interesting for two reasons. First, it is from an angle very similar to the shot in question. Second, it captures a number of birds in flight. It is interesting to note how similar they look to the image in question and it is also interesting to note the altitude they are flying at.



Most importantly, of course, it is quite clear that there is no large dark object passing through or even near either tower.

</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>



I'll be posting new videos daily.



Be sure to check out my new web-site Creeps who exploit tragedies.
 
They should have sent you a letter and I'm sorry that they didn't do that but from Harter's reply he at least looked at your referential video. How else would he have known what you were talking about? And it only takes anyone who is a real skeptic a few minutes to determine the culprit is a bird and not a large flying object. How do they do that? Just look at the list I gave you. Logic and reason determine that it is far more likely to have a prosaic explanation than anything paranormal.

A paranormal explanation requires you to ignore too many things. Lack of eyewitnesses, lack of other viewing angles that should be there, lack of physical evidence (something should have been knocked loose in the WTC) and so on. A prosaic explanation such as a bird or insect only has to ignore one thing, Why is the one frame show no evidence of anything in front of it? But given the frame rates, the lack of focus, the fact that video is interleaved explains that little problem fairly well IMHO. You can maintain that it is a poor way to anaylse the question in your opinion but you can't expect Randi and Harter to concur with you. They were satisfied and it's too bad that isn't good enough for you but you won't get any additional consideration from them.

It's time to move on. I know your ego and pride probably won't allow you to but you need to tell yourself that all the complaining isn't going to get you anywhere you want to be.

Your challenge is done whether you want to accept it or not. More complaints are just a waste of your time.
 
S&S said:
JREF"ego" or choose your favorite album:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw
Click to expand...

Well that's very convincing evidence Carlos.

Why don't you cough up a copy of your tape if your so sure of it. You've claimed mine is faked, you could easily show me up if that were true by simply making copies of yours available.

You don't even believe this nonsense.

All you want is to get your name in Randi's commentary and you will lie, cheat and slander and sink to any low, including exploiting a tragedy to do it.

Hey Carlos, you used to demand that I answer your questions. How come you don't do that anymore?

Be sure I check out my new video that shows your claim is nonsense tomorrow.

and the day after....
and the day after....
and the day after....

And don't forget my web-site, Creeps who exploit tragedies
 
Choose your favorite link and your favorite digitized version, there are only 9090.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wtc+ufo&btnG=Google+Search

And Randi is still on silence.
And nobody knows which link Harter "studied" it frame by frame.
Only the cult's members are sure of that. They can even swear in name of their god.

And the cult still try to defend a truth bigger than their bla bla bla.

Harter gave me a poor answer (by e-mail?) based in a poor method with lies and /or mistakes on it.
Randi and Bidlack are afraid to publicate their own answer (Harter's) in the weeks commentaries. JREF losers.
Officially you don't have nothing, you are just a bunch of charlatans.

Thanks,
S&S
 
S&S said:
To all the charlatans that like to have fun with the tragedy, and to the charlatans that are in silent about it:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14332
Click to expand...

Yes that was a tacky thread and it went on a whole two days.


S&S said:

And to the charlatan of the faked digitized version:

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/shoebox.msnw

Thanks,
S&S
Click to expand...

Excellent example of my point, thank you Carlos.

The image is on screen for a total of 22 frames.

Why won't you post them all? More importantly why do you specifically not post the last one near the edge when that is the frame you claim I faked?

As I've said, your selective posting of evidence shows you have a clear understanding of exactly where your claim breaks down.

You aren't dillusional, You're dishonest.

But thanks for reminding me, I'll be sure an repost ALL 22 frames and I challenge you to do the same. Thanks for the link though. I'll make sure our versions are posted side by side so anyone can see exactly what you are leaving out.

And as I've said before, I'll make copies of the tape available for anyone. Will you do the same, Well, will you big-mouth :)

I offer your selective withholding of evidence as proof you are a con-man.
 
S&S said:
Randi and Bidlack are afraid to publicate their own answer (Harter's) in the weeks commentaries.
Click to expand...

Now the heart of the matter.

That is all this nonsense is about isn't it Carlos? Getting your name in the commentary.
 
Blue Monk said:


Now the heart of the matter.

That is all this nonsense is about isn't it Carlos? Getting your name in the commentary.
Click to expand...

They refused to put Harter's ANSWER to my application., because of his poor method, lies and /or mistakes. Of course I made the official notarized application.What kind of "fame" should that be? I will just be another charlatan like you.

My name is on this nonsense works, I already had my "15 seconds" of "fame". And the works are there not to be "famous", just for the people. Are free to everyone. I just did it. And I didn't faked anybody.

Searching for "fame" is just for charlatans like you.
I don't pretend that you like my works, I just do it with my best efforts. Now they belong also to you, they are not mine now.
There are only 2 pages, few examples, is not even my web page( I don't have one and I don't need one ,yet)

http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForumIsJamesRandialiar/carlosswett.msnw?albumlist=2

Do you want to write now about money, the prize or the million dollar? You better write about the truth. If you can, charlatan.

Thanks,
S&S
 
I don't know why all of you are so against this Swett guy. I think that the big problems come from the translations of his spanish to english. What you may not know is that in some parts of South America the word for "ufo" is quite similar to the word for "Bird." This simple misunderstanding could have lead to some of the issues you all have discused. You may also be interested to know that his "thanks" at the conclusion of each post can be tranlated as "I am an idoit and simply ranting out of alcoholism and and addition to licking the toads i find living in my drain spouts." I hope that by clearing up this misunderstanding i can help the confusion that is being displayed here.
 
Junior Bidlack said:
I don't know why all of you are so against this Swett guy. I think that the big problems come from the translations of his spanish to english. What you may not know is that in some parts of South America the word for "ufo" is quite similar to the word for "Bird." This simple misunderstanding could have lead to some of the issues you all have discused. You may also be interested to know that his "thanks" at the conclusion of each post can be tranlated as "I am an idoit and simply ranting out of alcoholism and and addition to licking the toads i find living in my drain spouts." I hope that by clearing up this misunderstanding i can help the confusion that is being displayed here.
Click to expand...

WoW!! only 5 posts and you are showing your intelligence.
Keep on going, obey your cult "junior Bidlack".

Thanks ,
S&S

Edited to add the signature. Your boss (Bidlack) like it. But "only" in this thread.
 
hal bidlack said:
Carlos, meet my son.

Son, meet Carlos.
Click to expand...

Bidlack: educate your son.
He insulted me before your introduction.

Nice to meet him, I didn't know he was your son.

He is welcome here too, but I hope is prepared enough to debate not to give some free insults.

You know what I mean. you all are basically an honest family. Sometimes your "feelings" made you did some mistakes with me, but I understand your position.

Peace,

Thanks,
S&S
 
Junior Bidlack said:
I don't know why all of you are so against this Swett guy. I think that the big problems come from the translations of his spanish to english. What you may not know is that in some parts of South America the word for "ufo" is quite similar to the word for "Bird." This simple misunderstanding could have lead to some of the issues you all have discused. You may also be interested to know that his "thanks" at the conclusion of each post can be tranlated as "I am an idoit and simply ranting out of alcoholism and and addition to licking the toads i find living in my drain spouts." I hope that by clearing up this misunderstanding i can help the confusion that is being displayed here.
Click to expand...

I like him already!!!!
 
Denise said:


I like him already!!!!
Click to expand...

Why Not?

Is your cult's style. Just bla bla bla. But evidences , those are really hard to you : "moderator" and fanatic.

But I love you just the way you are.

Thanks,

S&S

edited to add the signature, was a promise to Bidlack, he asked me to removed from others threads.
 
S&S said:


Why Not?

Is your cult's style. Just bla bla bla. But evidences , those are really hard to you : "moderator" and fanatic.

But I love you just the way you are.

Thanks,

S&S

edited to add the signature, was a promise to Bidlack, he asked me to removed from others threads.
Click to expand...

The notion of a guy who has yet to show even one tiny, itty bitty, little, infinitessimally small hint of evidence complaining that others don't show any is just too funny for me to pass up.

Oh, he's made claims that he has evidence, claims that others have lied, claims of fakery (also completely unproven), but evidence?

Naaaahhhhh.

Not a bit of it.

He won't send his tape to anyone, won't post screen caps (I'm not counting his little buddy latinijral's badly distorted photographs of a television ... which are a bad joke), won't do anything but make outrageous claims, hurl insults, and accuse everyone who doesn't believe them of being in a cult, being afraid, and being a liar.

God, you're tiresome, Carlos.

Barb
 
Here is my new thought, maybe it was a space ship designed to look like a bird. I think that that is an answer that is both logical and can solve this argument. Based on my own mathematical calculations, i took calc in high school. I have found that the internal didactic calibrations of a the inter-related functions of a bird's sporatic manuevering that a bird shape is infact an applicable shape for a potential space craft. The key is materials, while a bird is made out of flesh and "feathers" the space craft bird would have to be constructed out of a high denisity low weight Altec polimer. This is the kind of polimer used to make the little things at the ends of shoe laces. And if this proves to be right then maybe i should get the million dollars. I mean I am the one who just thought of this, and i could also use a new car. And i think i may be able to control other people's minds although that is in the early stages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom