Nova Land: Good point
I made a mistake with my keyboard, I am answering now your good point, sorry for the re, re ,re. Thanks Rwald.
Nova Land said:
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 Nova Land: Are you studying to be a lawyer ? You can be a good one.
I replied (before the Re, Re, Re,by mistake of your reply) this :
A) the translated notarized application to the challenge, that becomes "the first step". Is a clear claim of what I can demostrate.
It was received at the JREF by F. Alvarez on April 4 2002 also with a VHS tape (as a referential guide) and a letter to Mr. James Randi. There is nothing misterious on this "first step " as you agreed.
B) The answer of Andrew Harter to my notarized application to the challenge. At this point I want to remind everybody at this forum that Mr. Harter (JREF researcher) never, NEVER said that my application is NOT valid. Mr. Harter said :..."I´ve gone frame by frame through a copy of this video that¨s available on the Internet.", etc, etc." You have no claim.there is nothing supernatural taking place". April 15, 2002.
C) The answer of Mr. James Randi ( April 16, 2002) "Andrew made the right decision with my approval. What you presented is nothing mysterious. Your application is closed"
Now I respond you for the "SECOND STEP" :
"The applicant and JREF meet and agree on an OBJECTIVE TEST that could be carried out to determine if the applicant can really SHOW what they CLAIM"
THE CLAIM:is in the translated notharized application, the VHS tape (referential guide) contains the complete image of a particular shot :before, when and after the second plane crashed to the second tower of the WTC that tragic day. The tape contains the same shot but broadcast by different tv networks( Spain, Chile, USA, Ecuador, etc. with their logos on it). The tape also contains an interview Telesistema (Ecuador) made me in their own room of files and equipmets , where the tv tecnicians and operators are checking with me the own Telesistema tape also broadcast to the public that fatidic day.
THE OBJECTIVE TEST : The study frame by frame of the complete image (the applicant is claiming) of the particular shot broadcast and transmitted by almost all the tv networks of the world. I
f it was a tv broadcast to millions of persons in the world , the tape is available in almost all tv stations of the world.
THE METHOD USED BY HARTER: The study frame by frame through a copy of the video available on internet.
An incomplete low resolution video, An unknown video, a poor method . Why he didn´t go to the nearest TV station ( I recommended James Randi to go to Telemundo in Florida) and check up with my referential tape their own broadcast tape?
THE METHOD USED BY SWETT: I went to the different local channels and over there,with their own 3/4 or betacam tapes of the complete image , on a big screen television, a really very slow frame by frame with profetional tv equipments , verify what I am claiming. Another thing was the fear and the prohibitions the channels had to transmmit that "curious notice" to air. Remember only Telesistema did it , the same week of the tragic succes.
Now Nova Land and members of the forum, try to focus on those points and give your comments about it, so I can go to another point.
To Patricio: If you are not sure of what video is from the internet, I tell you this :
Is the one that corresponde to the picture IJRAL posted on the "Skeptic Forum" a picture I guess you already put here.
But remember is not the complete sequence, is low resoluted,small, and we don´t know if it had been modify while the digitalization.
S&S
