• 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.
I have been debating Mr. Swett and is_james_randi_a_liar on this subject at the Skeptics Forum for close to two months now. I would just like to wish you all good luck, for Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments, a person who has referred to everyone that doesn't agree with him "unreasonable". There isn't much that I can add to this exchange that hasn't already been said, but I would like to say that when Mr. Swett says "do not come with juvenile expressions" what he is referring to is:

Why did no one on the ground see a gray object hundreds of feet in length? Specifically, the people facing the apparent flight path, and the people on the opposite side of the building, where you claim it origionates?

When I asked these questions of Swett, he told me to answer them myself.
 
Smiley01 said:
I have been debating Mr. Swett and is_james_randi_a_liar on this subject at the Skeptics Forum for close to two months now. I would just like to wish you all good luck, for Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments, a person who has referred to everyone that doesn't agree with him "unreasonable". There isn't much that I can add to this exchange that hasn't already been said, but I would like to say that when Mr. Swett says "do not come with juvenile expressions" what he is referring to is:

Why did no one on the ground see a gray object hundreds of feet in length? Specifically, the people facing the apparent flight path, and the people on the opposite side of the building, where you claim it origionates?

When I asked these questions of Swett, he told me to answer them myself.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------
Hi Smiley:
I never said "juvenile questions", I said "juvenile expressions"
lyke the ones quoted by: Sauron. Abercrombie,Jimmygun,Uther, The Fool,and similars.
You were not at this Forum before , so I never mentioned you. Control your paranoia.
Your questions are so easy to answer in my position: BECAUSE IS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. as I said in my notharized application.
Do you have another question?

But first , the first: Patricio Elicer needs time to translate (no missing a word) my notarized application to the challenge. When he finish , he can also will answer the questions he is asking to me. Let¨s give him time.

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?

Originally posted by Rwald:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

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

No comments,
Thanks,
S&S
 
I never said "juvenile questions", I said "juvenile expressions"
lyke the ones quoted by: Sauron. Abercrombie,Jimmygun,Uther, The Fool,and similars.
You were not at this Forum before , so I never mentioned you. Control your paranoia.
Your questions are so easy to answer in my position: BECAUSE IS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. as I said in my notharized application.
Do you have another question?
Click to expand...

You're begging the question, Swett. Your line of reasoning boils down to "The object couldn't be seen because it's paranormal". You are assuming that it's paranormal. You haven't proven that it is.

Do I have another question? Yes, I do. How do you know what properties the object has when you can't even identify it? Here's another question: How would you know what properties a paranormal object of any type would have when this is apparently the first you've ever seen?
 
Smiley01 said:


You're begging the question, Swett. Your line of reasoning boils down to "The object couldn't be seen because it's paranormal". You are assuming that it's paranormal. You haven't proven that it is.

Do I have another question? Yes, I do. How do you know what properties the object has when you can't even identify it? Here's another question: How would you know what properties a paranormal object of any type would have when this is apparently the first you've ever seen?
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not assuming, I said it is paranormal and the reasons are in my notharized aplication to the challenge that will help you answer all your questions.

But first , the first: Patricio Elicer needs time to translate (no missing a word) my notarized application to the challenge. When he finish , he can also will answer the questions he is asking to me. Let¨s give him time.

Thanks.
S&S
 
S&S,

I want to point out that in your notarized form in Spanish, in the last sentence before you make your "Conclusion," you clearly state that if JREF can demonstrate that this event is a natural event, you would accept this, as you are grateful that such an organization like this exists, where their primary objective is to seek out the truth.

And your response from Andrew:

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
Click to expand...

clearly demonstrates to you that it is not a paranormal event.

What will it take to convince you that this is not a paranormal event?

I can tell you what it would take to convince us that it IS a paranormal event, but I doubt you are willing or able to produce such evidence.

Let it go.
 
S&S,

I want to point out that in your notarized form in Spanish, in the last sentence before you make your "Conclusion," you clearly state that if JREF can demonstrate that this event is a natural event, you would accept this, as you are grateful that such an organization like this exists, where their primary objective is to seek out the truth.

And your response from Andrew:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



clearly demonstrates to you that it is not a paranormal event.

What will it take to convince you that this is not a paranormal event?

I can tell you what it would take to convince us that it IS a paranormal event, but I doubt you are willing or able to produce such evidence.

Let it go.


__________________
\/\/ALTER

Juggler-Artist-Atheist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Walter:

So you also Knows spanish?
Why you didn´t translate the all notharized application, just only the segment before my "Conclusión"?
Please, try to translate it ALL, this will be appreciate by the members of the forum.

Harter clearly demonstrates that is not a paranormal event?
Clearly?
Looking an internet video?
To whom and where Harter pointed out what was taking place?Did he go to the tv stations?
Did I make two assumptions?
A bird could (?) certainly be the culprit?
Why not an insect?
Why not superman?
Are you a true beleiver of Harter?

Please translate all the notharized application.
Thanks,
S&S
 
I am not assuming, I said it is paranormal and the reasons are in my notharized aplication to the challenge that will help you answer all your questions.
Click to expand...

Yes you are. You have yet to prove that anything occured that isn't explainable by natural causes. The object is more consistent with a bird flying within the camera's focal length than a paranormal object hundreds of feet in length. And again, how do you know what properties the object has when you can't (or won't) identify it?
 
S&S said:


--------------------------------------------
BECAUSE IS A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.
S&S
Click to expand...

watch out for the Caps Lock-addicts!

Another Paul Bethke/Bigfig/Aforce1 has arrived...

The JREF Loonies List(tm) is getting long
 
Smiley01 said:
Swett has proven himself an individual who neither answers questions nor listens to opposing arguments, a person who has referred to everyone that doesn't agree with him "unreasonable".
Click to expand...
Hello Smiley, and welcome to the JREF boards!

I'm beginning to suspect that Swett came here with that same "strategy". Myself and other posters have asked him several clear questions about his claim, but haven't heard any answer from him so far. Well, perhaps he needs some more time.

BTW, I've read part of your long exchange with Swett and IJRAL on Skeptic Forums, and I find your viewpoints pretty reasonable. Good work!
 
FIRST THE FIRST

Patricio Elicer said:
Hello Smiley, and welcome to the JREF boards!

I'm beginning to suspect that Swett came here with that same "strategy". Myself and other posters have asked him several clear questions about his claim, but haven't heard any answer from him so far. Well, perhaps he needs some more time.

BTW, I've read part of your long exchange with Swett and IJRAL on Skeptic Forums, and I find your viewpoints pretty reasonable. Good work!
Click to expand...

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

Hi Patricio:

I said : first the first: translate my notharized application( is only one page and is not too long) How many days you need?

Is the only thing I am asking in this forum but you all want me to answer a lot of questions.You are loosing time reading long exchange, concentrate in traslating the notharized application(without missing a word),I remember that you are the one who opened this discussion and appears lyke the oficial translator of this forum.

Do you think that´s an "strategy" or a rational way to beging a discussion of an oficial challenge with a real notharized application.?

I can do the traslation , but I am giving you or others the chance to do it, so there can be no chance of doubts that is true what I am telling there.

First the first ............or you better try to insult me first.

Thanks,
S&S
 
Swett's notarized application

Well, I have translated the notarized application for the million dollars sent by Carlos Swett to the JREF.

I hope that this will help to clear things up, and also will help Carlos answer the questions he's been asked.

Note: I've tried to preserve as faithfully as possible the original application form. Capitals are Swett's

Notarized Application

DENUNCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY OBSERVED BY THE SIGNER IN THE 9/11/2001 CRIMINAL ATTACK AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK CITY, USA.

In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.

We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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.

If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth..

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.


Signed: Carlos Swett Salas
Phones 2391025 – 099353611
Guayaquil, Ecuador


[edited to fix minor details]
 
FIRST THE FIRST

Swett's notarized application
Well, I have translated the notarized application for the million dollars sent by Carlos Swett to the JREF.

I hope that this will help to clear things up, and also will help Carlos answer the questions he's been asked.

Note: I've tried to preserve as faithfully as possible the original application form. Capitals are Swett's

Notarized Application

DENUNCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PARANORMAL ACTIVITY OBSERVED BY THE SIGNER IN THE 9/11/2001 CRIMINAL ATTACK AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK CITY, USA.

In one of the several TV shots of the second tower impact, taped and broadcast by most of TV channels of the world, THE PRESENCE OF A HAT-SHAPED PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is observed. In its trajectory through the smoke, it enters the hole left by the first plane (north tower) and gets out the other side of it, giving the false impression that it “passes behind the tower”. It is possible, though with difficulty, to “see the image of the paranormal activity” moving inside the smoke cloud in the opposite direction of the shifting smoke. We recommend that the shot is watched in a frame by frame slow motion mode.

We made the first denunciations of the event (along with my brother Guillermo Swett Salas) via e-mail to the main TV chains and world organizations, and personally to the local TV channels, within the first week after the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The only news media that “dared” to broadcast the note, under its own prism, was “TELESISTEMA” of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on its news space “LA NOTICIA” on September 18, 2001 10:00 PM local time. I am sending to you additional information and the images in question on a VHS cassette tape, so that you can compare them with those broadcast in the USA by the different TV chains. 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.

If you are able to prove (and you have the technology to do it) that it is a normal and natural occurrence, we will be fond and grateful of organizations like yours whose primary goal is to pursue the truth..

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.


Signed: Carlos Swett Salas
Phones 2391025 – 099353611
Guayaquil, Ecuador



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Patricio for your effort; is more or less OK
I hope you put also The aditional information (letter to Mr. James Randi)that I send him in my poor english.

Now you can compare with Mr. Harter¨s answer to it if he is lying
or not.
If Harter used a correct a method to analyze the image.
If I made two assumptions.
If I did tell them why it can not be a bird or an insect
If tha internet tape shows you all the sequence of what I am demostrating
If the paranormal activity is in trough the smoke
If The P.A. gets into the hole of the first or north tower
If I did not go to the tv stations
If I do not support Randi´s work
If I am Talking about UFOS
Etc.,Etc.

I give you all the time to answer this facts.

Thanks again,
S&S
 
Hello all. Long time reader/infrequent poster here. I just had to chime in on this ‘cause I had nothing better to do and it is so Agur-like that I could not resist.

So, Swett, this thing is paranormal because you say it is paranormal? And for doing nothing more than noticing this "PARANORMAL ACTIVITY” you deserve the million bucks?

As others have pointed out this does not qualify for the Challenge. However, even if it did the onus would be on you to prove this event was paranormal, something you clearly have not done. Besides, as also pointed out, Andrew Halter did provide an explanation “that it is a normal and natural occurrence.” That you don't like his explanation is your problem, but it certainly seems that neither Randi nor Halter lied to you.
 
Re: FIRST THE FIRST

S&S said:
Thanks Patricio for your effort; is more or less OK
I hope you put also The aditional information (letter to Mr. James Randi)that I send him in my poor english.

Now you can compare with Mr. Harter¨s answer to it if he is lying
or not.
If Harter used a correct a method to analyze the image.
If I made two assumptions.
If I did tell them why it can not be a bird or an insect
If tha internet tape shows you all the sequence of what I am demostrating
If the paranormal activity is in trough the smoke
If The P.A. gets into the hole of the first or north tower
If I did not go to the tv stations
If I do not support Randi´s work
If I am Talking about UFOS
Etc.,Etc.

I give you all the time to answer this facts.

Thanks again,
S&S
Click to expand...
As I understand how the $1,000,000 challenge works (and I believe this is clearly spelled out in JREF materials), there are several steps to the process.

First the applicant must make a clear claim about what they think it is they can do or demonstrate. In this case, the claim appears to be that a paranormal object appeared in NYC on September 11.

The second step is that the applicant and JREF meet and agree on an objective test that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really do or show what they claim. The test must be mutually agreeable before things proceed.

If a test can be agreed to for determining that the claim is valid, then the test is carried out. If the test shows that the claim is valid, the person is entitled to the $1,000,000.

If that is indeed the process, then it seems clear that Carlos Swett is not entitled to $1,000,000 yet. Assuming that the application claim is clear enough, then the first step would be complete and it would be time to move to step 2.

The key question now, it would seem to me, is: what test do you (Carlos) suggest that would demonstrate to a reasonable person that the object you have seen is paranormal?

Please keep in mind that it is your burden to find a way prove that the object is paranormal, not Randi's to prove that the object is not paranormal. This is known as the burden of proof.

Just as, in a court of law in this country, the state has the burden of proof to show that a person has committed a claimed action (rather than the person having to prove they did not the action), so here you must show that a paranormal event took place, not demand that someone else prove it did not take place.

So it is not enough to say, Harter and Randi can't prove it was a natural object rather than a paranormal one so give me the money. What you need to do is come up with a way of demonstrating that the object in the video cannot be a natural object or a photographic flaw and can only be a paranormal object. Can you suggest a way to demonstrate this?
 

Hi Walter:

So you also Knows spanish?
Why you didn´t translate the all notharized application, just only the segment before my "Conclusión"?
Please, try to translate it ALL, this will be appreciate by the members of the forum.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to translate because it would be pointless. YOU HAVE NO CLAIM! But you got lucky. It seems someone out of the kindness of their heart translated it for you.



Harter clearly demonstrates that is not a paranormal event?
Clearly?
Looking an internet video?
To whom and where Harter pointed out what was taking place?Did he go to the tv stations?
Did I make two assumptions?
A bird could (?) certainly be the culprit?
Why not an insect?
Why not superman?
Are you a true beleiver of Harter?
S&S
Click to expand...

You asked for assistance in examining this video from an organization you apparently had a lot of respect for. You clearly state that you trust their judgement. Do you deny this?

Harter DID examine the video and offer you an explanation. This is what you asked him to do. You said you would trust his conclusions. You did not.

There must have been dozens of cameras on that same scene from multiple angles. Can you provide another shot from another angle that shows the same "paranormal" event?

BTW, this is cute:
http://groups.msn.com/SkepticsForum/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=7

You are clearly obsessed. Obsession does not always help with rational thinking. Calm down. And go looking for those other video angles that show the same "paranormal" event.
 
Reb said:
I still think this "object" resembles the rods that the loonies at Roswell Rods keep obsessing about. Compare the image in the original movie that was posted:
"Evidence"

with this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/tempe.jpg
or this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/rrods.jpg
or this:
http://www.roswellrods.com/newpic/Rod.MPG

Haven't these been debunked time and time again? Anyone have any links?

Reb
Click to expand...
The object in the first link, if not an ordinary cloud, strongly resembles the "paranormal activity" claimed by Swett.

This is the first time I read about the "rod phenomenon". From roswellrods.com, I got this definition: "Rods are cylindrical shaped objects that appear over cities and oceans at such high velocities that they can barely be seen with the naked eye

If they have already been studied and debunked, I 'd like to know about it. It can be the explanation Swett is looking for.
 
Look It's a Bird It's a Plane It's a Bird!

Patricio, video number two is so obviously a bird I don't see how anyone could mistake it for anything else. Sure it seems like it's moving very fast but as others have pointed out if it's in the foreground closer to the camera it's going to seem much faster than stuff in the background. The still pictures make it seem like something else but in the video you can see it flapping it's wings. The first image appears to me to be the same thing although the bird is so far out of focus it's probably very close to the camera. Thanks for posting these links.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom