• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "Carlos Swett affair"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting.....Sr. Swett just registered for the message boards today. I expect we'll be hearing from him.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
By the way, at this point I'm a bit confused as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same video in their separate accounts.

On one side Swett speaks about a dark hat shaped object coming out of one tower at the precise moment the plane hit the other (I think he's referring to the animation and pictures I linked above).

But on the other side Andrew says it's probably a bird, which I really fail to see in those same pictures. So I think that what Andrew examined was another video, that is probably this one (you have to click on "video" to see it). If this is the case, then I totally agree that it was a bird, it's also possible to see its waving wings.

Anyway, the mystery still remains as if Swett and Andrew are talking about the same piece of evidence.
Click to expand...

I agree that it appears they may be looking at different videos. The video in this post seem to me to be a bird, much closer to the camera than the towers, just flying by. I am not supprised that the people shooting the film don't remember a bird - why would you, given what was happening? It is not like a bird flying by is a memorable event.

If there is a better video of what this site calls "ufo 1" I would like to see it.

Thanz
 
After looking at the video it looks like a bug or bird flying by the camera. The shape of the blob even kinda looks like something flapping wings (fat in one frame and narrow the next).

-Joxter-
 
LeFevre said:
thanks Patricio :) I'm sure I will see latin or Swett in the chat again, but at least now I kinda have a clue as to why they have been freaking out in chat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the same person that came by one night when I was in the chatroom, as well. He was logged in as "latin" back then.

I was engaged in some translation efforts for one of the other people in the room at that time. I was translating what he/she was saying. From what I recall, latin resorted to ad-hominem attacks after some discussion. He/she got agitated after only a little while of having to prove the assertions.

G6
 
I remember when latin was in the chat room. One of the things he claimed was that the object was moving at “30 times super speed”. I assume he was talking about supersonic speed. I did some math and found this to be pretty close to the velocity needed to reach orbit.

Most likely the object on the video did not exist. No sonic boom or other effects. Latin would not accept that there could even be an alternative explanation. He also did not understand why replication would be needed.
 
The collision of the aircraft into the southern tower was one of the most photographed events in history.

If this object were a sizable craft, certainly we would expect the object to appear in other photos as well. ¿Verdad?
 
Am I missing something here? Is this guy actually saying what the dark blob is? Or is he just saying it is unexplained?

If the criteria for winning the million is to offer something unexplained then I want the money. Why? Because nobody can explain why my wife has anything to do with me!
 
The Prime Evil Himself... supposedly.

I don't know about anyone else's opinion on this, but I'm very tired of the Carlos Swett malarky. This time, on IRC, the very man himself claimed to be talking to us about his horrible mistreatment. The unfairness of the JREF is just too much, it seems, and he wants his money for seeing "something".

Abercrombie said it best in a single line:

Abercrombie: You have no claim. "You owe me money for seeing something in a video I cannot reproduce, cannot explain, and cannot prove."
Click to expand...

He says he is concerned about his art, not the video. He says he is famous, so he doesn't want the money. He just made an "OFFICIAL CHALLENGE" for giggles, I guess. All hail humanity at its pinnacle. :mad:

...

Strangely enough, this guy's IP addy is almost identical to latin's.
 
The apparent speed of the object (again, I just saw the crappy thing linked to) seems to go against the 'bird' hypothesis.

Has anyone seen the whole video? How fast is it compared to the second plane? Is it debris from the second explosion?
Click to expand...

Yes, apparent. It is impossible to tell how far from the camera lens the object is without a good point of reference. Second, I have heard people elsewhere claim that it could not be debris because it is moving faster than the plane was. Assuming we could determine the speed and it is higher, the argument doesn't make sense. Conservation of momentum allows that a large object striking a much smaller object (elastic collision, of course) can induce a significantly higher velocity in the small object.
 
Nasarius said:
Yes, apparent. It is impossible to tell how far from the camera lens the object is without a good point of reference. Second, I have heard people elsewhere claim that it could not be debris because it is moving faster than the plane was.
Click to expand...

As an example of the problem here, think of the following: suppose you were to videotape the moon in the sky. Suddenly, you see a plane cross past your field of vision. No one would be silly enough to think that the plance is actually moving faster than the moon, would they?

Yet, that could be exactly what's going on here.
 
Hi.everybody I am Swett

Is my first time here at the forum. i respect all your opinions, besides, they are only opinions.

I want to clarify one thing ; I have been expulsed from the chat with no reason,Idid not paste anything or flooded,etc. Maybe the people that were connected at that time are enough honest to certify what I am telling. I received insults in the chat but I just responded all of them with reasons, yes. my reasons.

now that you are discussing MY AFFAIR I will answer all rational or sceptic questions in the future. Try to be directly ,do not come with juvenile expressions, please.

Sorry, for my English .
Have sweet and swett dreams.
S&S
 
Hello Carlos, and welcome to the boards.

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

My question goes to why you think you are eligible for the prize. Did you shoot the video in question? If you just saw the video on TV after the fact, what makes you eligible rather than anyone else who happened to see the same broadcast?

There are many natural explanations for what it could be. Some have been listed on this thread. Why do you believe it was something paranormal? What exactly do you think it was?
 
Answer to Patricio Elicer

Patricio Elicer said:
Hello Carlos, and welcome to the boards.

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

------------------------------------------------
Thank´s Patricio for your welcome and the same to all the forum.
It was a surprise for me that you open a discussion in this forum with my name on it.
I need to clarify a lot of things I had been reading from almost all the members; it will be time for it, I hope so.

But first , in honor to the truth, I am asking you a favor: please translate my notharized application to the challenge ( in spanish), please do not forget a word, so this forum bembers can tell why I called Mr. Harter a liar when he answered my application(is posted here).
Answering your request for the link: I never said it was a link; I send Jref a VHS tape with the same image transmmited live by different tv networks of the world ( telemundo-Florida, TVE.Spain; TVN-Chile; Chanel 2-NewYork ; some channels of Ecuador;etc.

Yes, I taped all of them, I have a satelite signal tv., I did not filmed the experience but I am the one who made the observation of the paranormal experience. Andrew Harter is the one who answered me that his analisis of my challenge was based on an video he saw on internet. He can tell us the exact link, and why he used that poor method. I went to my local TV stations and verify with their own 3/4 or betacan tape (non mine)
the image in a really slow frame by frame, besides the scene was completed ( before the plane crashed) so you can have references of speed or size and all we saw it in a big screen tv.
That´s the difference. In the tape I send To the JREF is also an interview Telesistema(local channel) made me ,the same week of that awful tragedy, about my paranormal observation. The interview was on the tv News and no in a ufo or yellow program. I don´t agreed with that kind of programs or charlatans.

I am giving here my public excuses if my words on my e-mails to Harter or Randi sounds rude or insulting.
That was my reaction of an action:
Mr. James Randi wrote me : "Who are you , and what the hell are you raving about?".........(.Is that an insult?)

Mr. Andrew Harter answered the application: " You have made two assumptions, one following the other. Both are incorrect......"
I answered him : you are a liar........( Is that an insult?)

Now that Patricio , or someone else, will do the favor to translate my notarized application , all of you members can have the opportunity to call me all the insults you did to me before knowing my position.

I do not want to block the sun with one finger, I recognice Randi´s work, he is a kind of heroe because of his work demonstrating how different kind of charlatans try to fool people.
I didn´t challenge him for the money perse, I just wanted to share a truth and give him the chance to analize it, but.....

Thanks again, and sorry for my English.

S&S

P.S. You must go to the movies. Do you think the directors or film makers notice the mistakes on it or they are different persons that make the "observations" of the errors after the film is open to the public. The observation is the clue.
How many times "famous paints" have been hang upside down in famous museums until someone (not the painter) notice the mistake,. The observation is the clue.
 
Hi again, Swett. Let me go through your points one by one.

First, about your notarized application: I'm not sure what could be there which would show why Andrew Harter is a liar. Could you try to mention that point specifically in English? If this is not possible, I understand; just know that without proof, we cannot assume that the application proves Harter to be a liar.

Next, about the quality and nature of the video: I agree that it is not your fault; I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you. Did you have the important part of the tape near the front, or was it more toward the middle? I imagine that if Harter watched it for 5 minutes, and didn't see anything relevant, he would just have turned it off and gone to the internet, figuring that the important part would never show up.

As far as your complaints about insults: I, personally, would take Randi's comment ("Who are you , and what the hell are you raving about?") as not being an insult, while your comment ("you are a liar") is. First of all, ravng just implies that you feel strongly about something; while it has the connotation of somewhat-incoherent language, it is by no means an insult. However, accusing someone of intentional misrepresentation of the truth is an insult. Also, while Randi's comment had some basis in truth (your initial email could be called "raving" by some extreme definitions), yours has no basis in fact (regardless of what the truth is, Harter was reporting the truth as he saw it, and this is not lying). So, in conclusion, you were the first one to cast insults.

And lastly, your comment about movies. While I would agree that observing things can be important, it is by no means a valid challange for the JREF prize. In order to win the JREF prize, one must be able to do something supernatural or pseudoscientific, or at least be able to produce some functioning supernatural or pseudoscientific product. Merely making an observation is neither of these things.

I hope these explanations help you understand your mistake. I have found you to be a relatively reasonable person, and am willing to believe that you have merely made a few gross misinterpretations. Perhaps, with our help, we will be able to correct this misinterpretations.
 
Clarification

I want to clarify something else:

Patricio Elicer never translated the e-mails , they were and are originally in my poor english.
That´s why I am asking him to translate the only thing I wrote in spanish ( my notharized application to the challenge) before Mr. Randi changed the rules about the language.

Patricio is talking about a translation in the chat with another guy(latin, IJRAL,etc.)
In the chat I was S or Sw and I always identified me as swett. But now I am xpulsed of the chat and nobody have the honesty of telling I just answered your request or insults.
Did I do flooding?give me an answer.Perhaps I was expulsed by error.

Thanks,
S&S
 
Carlos, upon looking at what I have logged, I think you are right. You were expulsed in error. From what I've seen, you have done nothing wrong. While I think that you are confused about a few things, this is by no means reason for you to be kicked off. What happened was that with people like latin/is_james_randi_a_liar and espi defending you, we all thought that you would be even worse than they. We thought that, like them, you would constantly post the address to the MSN forum, and would make no attempt to debate reasonably. We never really gave you a chance to prove yourself for who you really are. I apologize for this. It is my belief that you should be allowed to again talk on the chat room. Also, I would recomend that, if you are familiar with latin/is_james_randi_a_liar, you kindly ask him to stop arguing in your favor. You are better off with no one arguing your side than with latin/is_james_randi_a_liar arguing your side.
 
Thanks Rwald

rwald said:
Hi again, Swett. Let me go through your points one by one.

First, about your notarized application: I'm not sure what could be there which would show why Andrew Harter is a liar. Could you try to mention that point specifically in English? If this is not possible, I understand; just know that without proof, we cannot assume that the application proves Harter to be a liar.

Next, about the quality and nature of the video: I agree that it is not your fault; I'm honestly not sure why Harter used an internet copy of the video, if he already had a VHS tape from you. Did you have the important part of the tape near the front, or was it more toward the middle? I imagine that if Harter watched it for 5 minutes, and didn't see anything relevant, he would just have turned it off and gone to the internet, figuring that the important part would never show up.

As far as your complaints about insults: I, personally, would take Randi's comment ("Who are you , and what the hell are you raving about?") as not being an insult, while your comment ("you are a liar") is. First of all, ravng just implies that you feel strongly about something; while it has the connotation of somewhat-incoherent language, it is by no means an insult. However, accusing someone of intentional misrepresentation of the truth is an insult. Also, while Randi's comment had some basis in truth (your initial email could be called "raving" by some extreme definitions), yours has no basis in fact (regardless of what the truth is, Harter was reporting the truth as he saw it, and this is not lying). So, in conclusion, you were the first one to cast insults.

And lastly, your comment about movies. While I would agree that observing things can be important, it is by no means a valid challange for the JREF prize. In order to win the JREF prize, one must be able to do something supernatural or pseudoscientific, or at least be able to produce some functioning supernatural or pseudoscientific product. Merely making an observation is neither of these things.

I hope these explanations help you understand your mistake. I have found you to be a relatively reasonable person, and am willing to believe that you have merely made a few gross misinterpretations. Perhaps, with our help, we will be able to correct this misinterpretations.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rwald:

Thanks for your defense of my expultion of the chat.

You will tell why I called Harter a liar after Patricio Eliecer or anybody in the forum translate my notharized aplication to the challenge ( is better). http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=2

About the video, is not my fault that Harter used an internet video.I told them (JREF) to go to the nearest tv station , but they prefered that poor method of looking it at internet.
Remember I went to a tv station and with their own tape (3/4 and betacam) and equipments they all also saw the paranormal event.

About the insults , read again and check this: who insulted first?:
Randi:" what in hell are you raving about..." or
Swett:" Harter you are a liar"

Patricio , please post the dates when all the emails were send.


I agree with you ,Rwald, observing things can be important .
Gravity always has been on earth, until Newton observed it...........should we give the honors to the apple?

I found you a complete reasonable person ( not relatively) and I hope this explanation help you understand my position.
Thanks for the help.

S&S
 
Carlos,

I don't have time right now to translate your notarized application. I will read it tomorrow, and if I find something new or revealing on it I will translate it.

Now, to clear things up, I'd like to ask you a few questions, and please respond them one by one in the most precise way.

1) Which one of the following images correspond to the ones you sent to Randi on your video:
a) This one
b) This one (click on "video" to see it)
c) None of the above

2) What paranormal activity do you think took place in the WTC tower during the attacks?

3) Why do you think that a videotape showing something apparently inexplicable is proof of a paranormal activity?

4) Why do you think that your claim qualifies for the "million dollars"?

5) If something paranormal actually happened there, then how to explain that nobody of the thousands of people looking at the towers during the attacks reported anything abnormal?

Thanks
 
I think I've found the root of the confusion. Here is a quote from the page introducing the JREF challange, http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

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.
Click to expand...

Carlos believes that he can show evidence that a paranormal event took place on 9/11. I tried telling him that one video does not constitute "proper observing conditions," but because Randi and Andrew did not specifically say this, he does not think this was the reason he was rejected. So, anyway, his misinterpretation of the rules at least has some basis.

[edit]
Corrected some mistakes in vB Code.
[/edit]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom