The "Carlos Swett affair"

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Carlos and S&S are completely different names. You are here trying to tell me that YOU think you are "Carlos"? Then why are you posting under S&S? And Carlos is Brazilian and you aren't even Brazilian. Sounds like fraud to me. Randi should sue you for these lies.

 

[Guest]

No. The reason your claim was rejected is that it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge: Your observation cannot be tested.

Further, even a superficial examination indicated that there was nothing extraordinary about the object you found on the video. However, it is not the duty of JREF to prove or disprove your claim, that is YOUR duty.

After your claim being rejected, the film has been examined in detail by lots of people, including myself. Any new evidence discovered in this process has only served to further weaken your case.

I have asked these questions before, and you have ignored them or double-talked about them. Maybe this time you will be man enough to give straight answers:

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? There exist a dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the vido should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Hans

------------------------------------------------------------
Hans:

We have received your tape and application to the challenge at the JREF.
We are so sorry but your claim was rejected , it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge: Your observation cannot be tested.
Now go get a life.

A.Harter (JREF researcher)
James Randi Educational Foundation

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

But the story is different , Hans. Nothing of this upsets you have now would happened, if I received an answer like that.
You already read the real one. I mean the poor answer I got.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Nothing of this upsets you have now would happened, if I received an answer like that.
*snip*

I don't understand that sentence.

Where are your answers to my questions?

Hans

 

[Guest]

I don't understand that sentence.

Where are your answers to my questions?

Hans

Your question are already answered in this thread.Were easy to answer.
Do you think the others members are not smart as you are?
Do you think you have "original" questions after so many pages.?
Take your time and read s l o w l y.

How about you answering my request.

Harter NEVER wrote something like this:"The reason your claim was rejected is that it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge: Your observation cannot be tested."


Sorry, you are confused. He gave me a poor -silly, full of mistakes and/or lies answer.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

Your question are already answered in this thread.Were easy to answer.
Do you think the others members are not smart as you are?
Do you think you have "original" questions after so many pages.?
Take your time and read s l o w l y.

So you are NOT man enough to answer my questions. Even though you claim they are easy.

How about you answering my request.

Harter NEVER wrote something like this:"The reason your claim was rejected is that it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge: Your observation cannot be tested."

How should I know why somebody gave you some answer? I dont speak for him.

Sorry, you are confused. He gave me a poor -silly, full of mistakes and/or lies answer.

He told you your object was not supernatural. Whats wrong with that?

Hans

 

[Guest]

No. The reason your claim was rejected is that it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge: Your observation cannot be tested.


Hans

Hey Hans:

Are you the same person? Look to your quote and then read this latest quote from you:"How should I know why somebody gave you some answer? I dont speak for him."

What kind of skeptic you are ?A double speech one?

And tell me : where did you read that my claim was rejected because it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge?
Some friends of your cult told you that?
Because Andrew Harter NEVER wrote that to me.
He just did a poor and silly "study".
That's why Randi is still on silence.

Are you able to answer? Hans? Hello?

Thanks,
S&S

 

[KelvinG]

Fair enough S&S. I'm saddened that you are going to deprive the world of this amazing discovery while you waste your time ranting on this board.
Good luck.

 

[Guest]

Fair enough S&S. I'm saddened that you are going to deprive the world of this amazing discovery while you waste your time ranting on this board.
Good luck.

Hi KelvingG:

So you think you are wasting your time here?
Hmmmm.

I am just debating.
And waiting for Randi.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hey Hans:

Are you the same person? Look to your quote and then read this latest quote from you:"How should I know why somebody gave you some answer? I dont speak for him."

What kind of skeptic you are ?A double speech one?

No, I'm the kind of skeptic who tries not to waste time twisting people's words around. So, you found a place where I contradicted myself? Well, congratulations, have a field day!

However, it doesn't matter what I precisely said or did not say. What matters is that your claim is void. It does not matter what reason somebody from JREF choose to give you, your claim is still void. Your claim is void for any and all of these reasons:

- It cannot be tested.
- There is nothing supernatural happening.
- It is not your video

And tell me : where did you read that my claim was rejected because it does not fulfil the requirements of the JREF challenge?
Some friends of your cult told you that?
Because Andrew Harter NEVER wrote that to me.
He just did a poor and silly "study".

And found your claim void.

That's why Randi is still on silence.

There is no message. The case is closed.

Are you able to answer? Hans? Hello?

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? There exist a dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the vido should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Are you able to answer? Carlos? Hello?

Hans

 

[Guest]

-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos:

We have received your tape and application to the challenge.
It is not your video. It can not be tested, then nothing supernatural is taking place.
Now go back to your life.

Andrew Harter(JREF researcher)

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

No Hans, that is NOT the kind of answer I received.

I received another kind of answer from the JREF, is full of mistakes and /or lies.
And is based in a poor method.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos:

We have received your tape and application to the challenge.
It is not your video. It can not be tested, then nothing supernatural is taking place.
Now go back to your life.

Andrew Harter(JREF researcher)

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

No Hans, that is NOT the kind of answer I received.

I received another kind of answer from the JREF, is full of mistakes and /or lies.
And is based in a poor method.

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos, I KNOW that is not the answer you received, but those are the FACTS. Do you admit that those are the facts? Have you been bugging this board for over a year only because of the wording of an answer?

Now, will you answer my questions?

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? A dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment exist; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the video should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Or, Carlos, should I start a clock for you?

Hans

 

[Guest]

Carlos, I KNOW that is not the answer you received, but those are the FACTS. Do you admit that those are the facts? Have you been bugging this board for over a year only because of the wording of an answer?

Now, will you answer my questions?

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? A dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment exist; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the video should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Or, Carlos, should I start a clock for you?

Hans

Hi Hans:
You seems so sure those questions were not asked before in this thread.
And you seems so sure those questions were not responded before in this thread.

You are wrong Hans. A lot of members asked me those questions before. They are answered.
Is your turn to take a trip to the pages of this thread.

You can put me many clocks you want. I will prove you are wrong.
Until then...

Read again my signature.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Hans:
You seems so sure those questions were not asked before in this thread.
And you seems so sure those questions were not responded before in this thread.

You are wrong Hans. A lot of members asked me those questions before. They are answered.

YOU are wrong. I'm sure they have been asked before. Maybe you even answered them. I find your answers unclear and evasive. You have been asking the same questions over and over again, and people have been trying to answer them over and over again. It is your turn to repeat an answer.

Is your turn to take a trip to the pages of this thread.

You can put me many clocks you want. I will prove you are wrong.
Until then...

It is your turn to make a new answer. Prove me wrong now. I am waiting.....

Read again my signature.

Your signature does not answer my questions.

Hans

 

[Guest]

Hans

If you want answers to your repeated questions, at least you should be polite when you post them.

And you should be able to answer my questions too.
Since you don't have an "affair" , I will put you an example:

1) Hans, please give me a definition of paranormal.

2) Hans, Are the birds free to fly in New York ?

3) Hans, where did you read about the claim of the man who shot the video? Or he just shot it? Or he did a claim to Randi?
Is just another video. I just did the observation of the paranormal stuff. You were focused in the criminal impact.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you want answers to your repeated questions, at least you should be polite when you post them.

Translation: I dont want to answer those questions.

Carlos, in the beginning, I was polite to you. Not anymore.

And you should be able to answer my questions too.
Since you don't have an "affair" , I will put you an example:

1) Hans, please give me a definition of paranormal.

Off my head: Something unexplainable by physics.

2) Hans, Are the birds free to fly in New York ?

Ehhh? Well, to my knowledge they haven't taxed them just yet.
Are you joking? Of course they are

3) Hans, where did you read about the claim of the man who shot the video? Or he just shot it? Or he did a claim to Randi?
Is just another video. I just did the observation of the paranormal stuff. You were focused in the criminal impact.

What paranormal stuff? --- Who made the evidence? You?

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? A dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment exist; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the video should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Hans

 

[Guest]

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? A dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment exist; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the video should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Hans

So..WHy Randi is in silence about Swett`s challenge?

If you read the week``s commentary archive you can read a lot of commentaries about people who wrote about "objects". Obviously...very easy to comment.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So..WHy Randi is in silence about Swett`s challenge?

If you read the week``s commentary archive you can read a lot of commentaries about people who wrote about "objects". Obviously...very easy to comment.

Because there is nothing more to be said. The challenge was sent in and rejected over a year ago. Case is closed, period. Finito. No hay mas de comentar. Comprendo?

Hans

 

[Guest]

Nothing to say...

 

[Guest]

1) How do you explain that the object is only visible on that particular video? A dozen other videos and many stills of that fateful moment exist; none of them show your object. Why?

2) What is you comment to the fact that another video clearly shows birds flying in that particular area at exactly the right moment?

3) Even if the video should show something extraordinary (apart from a plane hitting WTC), how can this ever be YOUR claim? Somebody owns that video, how do you explain that YOU are filing the claim? Is that not an attempt to steal another man's claim?

Hans

By Hans
1)Off my head: Something unexplainable by physics.

2)Ehhh? Well, to my knowledge they haven't taxed them just yet.
Are you joking? Of course they are

3)What paranormal stuff? --- Who made the evidence? You?


Thanks,
S&S

 

[Guest]

By S&S

1) Paranormal: something that is out of normal known rules.

2) Birds are free to fly. Not relevant.

3) I just did the observation. I am showing you the evidence..
------------------------------------
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.

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