| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Spores for European Microscopy  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Jellric altered statesman  Registered: 11/08/98 Posts: 2,261 Loc: non-local |
| ||||||
|
I thought some of you might be interested in this.
The program airs 12/28/05 (Wednesday) @ 8pm central on CNN. Hopefully both sides will be well represented;I don't have a guest list, but it could prove to be quite the show. -------------------- I am what Willis was talkin' bout.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker  Registered: 01/19/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
But wait! I was told recently by a fellow Shroomerite that psychics:
A. Won't use their gifts for money. B. Have no need to show off (are beyond ego). C. Are afraid of being kidnapped by the military or some other secret organization. D. Cannot just turn their ESP ON and OFF like a switch. I seriously doubt it will be interesting as it will likely be the same tired, old games of generalizations, selective memory and excuses. -------------------- 
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
 elaspeinreason psychonaut   Registered: 07/31/05 Posts: 1,029 Loc: fairfax virgini Last seen: 13 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
im sure both sides wont be represented Although Larry does seem to take a liking to psychics , and i tend to see Sylvia brown on his show .. so maybe , either way ima check it out
-------------------- Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one Diploid said: What's with proclaiming freedom by abridging freedom? That makes no sense.
| |||||||
Diploid Cuban   Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
Long, but worth the read. This is standard behavior for Sylvia Brown, indeed every psychic I've ever known about. She's kinda hot, eh?
 -- http://randi.org/sylvia/index.html SYLVIA BROWNE IS A LIAR Getting heavy... I don't really know why I'm spending any of my valuable time on the professional liar who uses the name Sylvia Browne. However, since I get so many questions from readers about what she says and writes about me and about the JREF, I have to do a certain amount of repair work from time to time. This examination of her recent mendacious tirades will not be kind. I've no obligation to be tolerant of this person, and I'm known to call 'em as I see 'em. She has freely attacked me in the media, making false and damaging statements about me, without any opposition from those who gave her the platform from which to deliver this trash. I'm answering in kind. The big difference in our approaches is that all of my response that follows is factual and provable. And it's damning to Browne. WHAT FOLLOWS IS STRONG, DIRECT, NO-HOLDS-BARRED, AND TRUE. I'll apologize in advance to my readers, so that I might be spared the expected murmers about how rude I was. Browne has viciously slandered and libeled me, in the public media, repeatedly. This is my response, and I don't give a damn whether she likes it or not. Read on, if you dare. As most of you will know, Sylvia owes her entire success to those two intellectual giants of TV ? Larry King and Montel Williams. These are two well-educated men who certainly are not themselves deceived by these "psychics" on whom they dote; they give them air-time and promote them freely because of the basic bottom line: all that matters to them is the program ratings, thus the opinion of their sponsors, and they know full well that they'll get maximum attention when any "psychic" matter is introduced on their programs. That's all they care about; truth is discarded when money is scented. Let's look back to just one particularly cruel hoax perpetrated by this woman Browne. Years ago on Montel Williams' show, she spoke to the grandmother of a local missing child, a six-year-old named Opal Jo Jennings who disappeared from her home in north Texas in March of 1999. Browne told the distraught woman that the child was still alive but had been sold into white slavery and was currently being held in Japan. She even gave a city name, but there is no such city in Japan. Moving ahead three years and nine months, we find that the body of little Opal was recovered ? just seven weeks ago; she had been killed by a blow to the head. Currently, there is a man in prison in Texas who has confessed to, and been convicted of, Opal Jo's abduction and murder. Think about what's happened here: Sylvia Browne callously raised the hopes of the family of this little child, placing the fictitious location on the other side of the world. She did this well after a comprehensive search had already been performed in Texas, so she was pretty sure that the girl would never be found. She thought she was safe against exposure. She wasn't; the body was found and definitively identified. That was a callous, cruel, manipulative act by Sylvia Browne. But no one calls her to account for it, and her supporters continue on in Lotusland cooing over her wonderful powers. You have to wonder how someone can do such a heartless act. Sylvia can, and does. Larry Thornton just sent me a tape and a transcript of the "Coast to Coast" radio show of Thursday, February 19th, 2004, Browne's most recent attack on me. The host was George Noory. There were three mentions of my name in this show, full of blatant lies and slander. Sylvia was at her best, which is to say, at her worst. First, asked by Noory about her agreement to do the test for the million-dollar JREF prize, she interrupted with: "He [Randi] doesn't have any money!" That statement by Sylvia Browne is a direct, knowing, lie. She has received documentary proof of the existence of the James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account, along with a letter from Goldman, Sachs & Company stating that the account ? in "liquid assets" ? is "in excess of $1,000,000." Sylvia Browne is a liar. Then Noory, obviously not one of those investigative reporters (does the term "muckraker" come to mind?) flourished the tired old "escrow" flag. He commented that I had not "put the [prize] money in escrow." And Sylvia agreed, saying, "Well, he won't do it!" That statement by Sylvia Browne is a direct, knowing, lie. The gravel-voiced predator is well aware ? as we all are ? of the fact that the JREF made a specific exception to meet her dizzy demands, all of which can be seen at www.randi.org/jr/082903.html, at www.randi.org/jr/110703.html, www.randi.org/jr/03-09-2001.html and at www.randi.org/jr/013004andr.html. Sylvia Browne is a liar. She continued with Noory: "And I asked him to, when they called me on Larry King. And I said, have him contact me, with the money in escrow, because my lawyer was in attendance too, and that was the end. I never heard from him again." That statement by Sylvia Browne is a direct, knowing, lie. Sylvia knows how to reach me by e-mail, postal mail, telephone, and fax. I contacted her, and Larry King, on November 3rd of last year ? by certified mail. In that letter, I agreed to put the money in escrow for her special needs, and I asked Larry King to act as the official agent for the million dollars, which would mean that he would have power-of-attorney to turn it over to Browne as soon as she'd shown her powers. Larry King ignored that information; he never responded. And, Sylvia Browne is a liar. Noory asked her: "Alright, so if he'd put it in escrow, you'd conduct the challenge?" She answered: "Absolutely!" That statement by Sylvia Browne is a direct, knowing, lie. She knows that we are prepared to do just that, yet she refuses to be tested. Folks, it's now March 5th, 2004. That means that 1,095 days (exactly three years!) have passed since this taloned vulture accepted, on international television ? seen by millions around the world ? to be tested. Sylvia Browne is a liar. Noory chirped, brightly: "Alright, well, it's not in escrow yet!" Sylvia answered: "No it's not, and it's been months!" Noory chortled, "Maybe years, huh?" Let's get some common sense going here, if it's not too much of an intellectual challenge for Browne and Noory. 123 days (four months!) ago, both Larry King and Sylvia learned by certified mail of my agreement to put the million in escrow, and neither of them have responded to that. King is obviously afraid to offend his meal ticket ? Sylvia ? and Sylvia doesn't dare to respond because she knows that would be the end of her pretensions. Sylvia Browne is a liar. Browne, on a roll, stated, "Well, you know he just started an atheist society. Isn't that nice?" That statement by Sylvia Browne is a direct, knowing, lie. Lacking anything more substantial to say, and luxuriating in the obvious fact that Noory won't challenge any of her statements, Browne merely invented a total fiction, an outright lie. I have never started any "atheist society," and I have never belonged to any such organization. Sylvia Browne is a liar. At this point, Noory went on to the next caller. Then, later on in the show, he announced, "Sylvia, I got a fast-blast e-mail in from somebody in St. Louis, and they said you probably know Paul Harris. Paul of course has a very successful talk show on my old affiliate, KTRS; and he, Paul, is a friend of James Randi, and apparently Paul on his show said, James Randi does not have the money for the challenge." Sylvia answered, "No, he doesn't." That statement by Sylvia Browne is a direct, knowing, lie. Noory, as we might expect, did no checking at all, but accepted and repeated this statement about Paul Harris. I contacted Paul, who denied that he had ever said anything like that, of course, and he then contacted Noory and demanded an on-air retraction and apology from him. As of this date, Paul's heard nothing. Welcome to the club, Paul. Again, Sylvia Browne is a liar. I?ve heard from the Art Bell/George Noory show several times before, asking if I wanted to be on the show, and I've always declined. Just yesterday I heard from a woman at Noory's office who was quite puzzled at my disinterest. I cannot imagine why I'd want to help the show?s ratings, or give them any help at all. More importantly, since the Coast-to-Coast show and Larry King Live both have their staffs filtering incoming phone calls, I'd be at a huge disadvantage. Never play another man's game, especially if he's making up the rules as he goes along. Probably hoping for further involvement in a scandal, Noory asked: "Does he harass you?" Sylvia saw the opportunity for a slanderous statement, and took it: "No. No. Because I know enough about him from working with? ah... police departments to....ah? well, we won't go into that. But anyway... you know, he's, he's picking on a very, very ominous opponent with me." Oh, Sylvia, "ominous" is not the right word to use in this context ? though it's correct to describe yourself in that fashion. I hardly trembled at all when I took you on, years ago. You failed so dramatically, right from the very beginning, that I knew you were a fumbler. What I didn't take into account was the shameless support and groveling that you would enjoy from the irresponsible media ? such people as Montel Williams, Larry King, and George Noory are excellent examples of that genre. When they look at you they don't see a tired old woman who smokes far too much and has fingernails like a harpy; they see dollar signs. This demonstrates Browne's use of the "ironclad innuendo." She drops in the word "police," then coyly drops her eyes and declines to tell what she "knows." How noble. This harpy has nothing to "reveal" but tired old canards that have been kicking around this scene for decades. Those who I've exposed as fakers ? and their devoted dupes ? cannot deny the truth of what I've said and written, so they're forced to attack my reputation ? the ancient ad hominem tactic. For the grubbies out there, that's sufficient material for them to giggle over, and to dismiss my work. Those who give it any thought, see it for what it is. Sylvia next played the "God" card, something I wouldn't expect such a pious, virtuous, person to pass up, and one of the few cards she has left to play: "He [Randi] doesn't believe! When I was on Larry King's Show I said, 'Do you believe in God?' He said, 'No.'" This is the kind of cheap shot Sylvia's famous for. She knows she can always win points with this gimmick. She continued: "And then I said, 'Do you believe in the afterlife?' He said 'No.' And I thought, there went the rest of him!" I admit that I don't follow that "rest of him" reference, but Sylvia works in mysterious ways. Following this comment, both Noory and his guest did some off-mike chuckling. How amusing that Randi isn't superstitious, and how damning! The reality of this exchange, as you might expect, was somewhat different. Here's the conversation that actually took place: BROWNE: Randi, do you believe in God? RANDI: Which god? There are lots of gods, thousands of them out there. BROWNE: No, I mean a supreme being. RANDI: Well, there are thousands of supreme beings, too. BROWNE: You're hedging me. KING: He doesn't believe in a single god. BROWNE: Okay. RANDI: I don't believe in deities in general. BROWNE: I know that. You don't believe in an afterlife, either. RANDI: I have no evidence for an afterlife, no. BROWNE: That's too bad. That's too bad. I'm sorry for you, Randi. Note, please, that Sylvia's feeling sorry for me! This weary, confused old woman has sympathy for the skeptic who lives in a real world, while she flounders around in a fuzzy, foggy, desolate atmosphere full of goblins, ghosts, cigarette smoke, and failed magic! At the end of the show, Noory got back to what he considered just about his speed and quality. He asked Sylvia, "You mentioned something earlier about Randi and the police department. Do you care to continue that?" Sylvia, showing some rare common sense, declined to answer. She croaked: "Not really." Noory, being as precious and cute as he could manage: "Darn, I wanted to squeeze that outta ya!" Browne tossed in that "police" buzz-word solely for effect, since I wasn't available to press her for an explanation. She hoped that listeners would smirk and take delight in this "in" reference. It had an effect alright; it elicited comments from many persons who took it as just what it was: a contemptible, desperate ploy delivered in an attempt to obfuscate the real questions that Browne dares not address. Now, this is only one episode of Sylvia Browne in one of her public appearances, one of the more recent ones. The only reason that I've gone into this one in detail, is to express to you ? as you might have noticed ?that Sylvia Browne speaks no sooth. I repeat: Sylvia Browne is a liar. But you knew that. In leaving this tiresome subject, Canadian Larry Thornton pointed out to me an exchange between Browne and a caller to a Larry King show that Sylvia was on, that in Larry Thornton's words, shows psychics how to never be wrong. If something you just said turns out to be the exact opposite, then change your frame of reference: CALLER: I lost my father six years ago on the plane traveling to Europe. I'd like to know how he died . . . BROWNE: Was your father ? had beautiful dark hair with some gray in it? CALLER: Very blond. BROWNE: No, no. This man that I see is dark. Dark-haired. Because he comes and says he's a spokesperson. CALLER: Maybe his father. BROWNE: Could be. Because he has gray in his hair. CALLER: Maybe that's my brother-in-law then. A big man? BROWNE: Yes. CALLER: That's my brother-in-law that we lost nine years ago. Adds Larry Thornton: "There you go. Avoiding a direct contradiction is as easy as introducing a new character." Months ago, Browne described her second encounter with me in 1989 where she demonstrated her abilities by reading an audience assembled for the taping of a TV special. She failed miserably, and some day I'll publish here the full text of that abysmal performance. Later, at the beginning of March, 2001, she offered on the Larry King show this excuse for that failure: They [the studio audience] were all Germans! And they couldn't understand a word I said! That was a setup, as you well know.... because they couldn't speak English. I found that out after, they were all Germanic! No, Browne, that was another blatant lie, as you well know. It's what you have been offering your fans as an alibi, but it's just another of your lies. Only one member of that audience of 140 persons was German, though he spoke English, and you spent a full one minute and seven seconds rattling off wrong guesses for him, then found out he was German, only after he told you that ? in English! Didn't you know that already, Sylvia? You conversed with the other four audience members you "read" there, in fluent English, didn't you? And yet you told Larry King that they were "all Germans"! Sylvia Browne, you're a liar. --- On Friday, May 16th, the unsinkable Sylvia Browne appeared with Larry King ? yet again! ? and something odd happened. The careful process of screening of phone calls from listeners apparently broke down, and Dr. Bryan Farha of Oklahoma City actually got through with a question that Sylvia and Larry have been avoiding for the past 89 weeks. We had to wonder what Sylvia would come up with, after first claiming that she didn't know how to contact me (a psychic can't use the phone book or Google?) and then veered off by saying she didn't want to deal with a "godless" person like me. She swerved and skidded into another tailspin when she handled this one: From the transcript of that encounter: Dr. F: Sylvia, 620 days ago on Larry's show, you agreed to take James Randi's one million dollar paranormal challenge, and on a later show you even agreed to the specific terms of the test. Sylvia: Yeah, but let me tell you something: I've also found out that he won't put it into escrow. He won't put the money into escrow. Randi comments: It's actually 808 days since Sylvia agreed to do the JREF test, 627 days since she agreed to the specific parameters/protocol. Directly quoted from the Application ? "JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed. JREF will not cater to such vanities." Sylvia can read this, as well as anyone else, but we must remember that she's desperate to avoid taking the test. Back to the program: Dr. F: You agreed to the terms of the test... Sylvia (cutting him off): No, I won't. Not until he puts the money into escrow. I mean why would I do it when the money can't be validated? Dr. F: Have you contacted James? Sylvia (eyes widening): I don't wanna contact him. I already know about this Russian person who the lawyer contacted and said he won't put it into escrow. Dr. F: Ok, so you agreed 620 days ago to take a test... Sylvia (cutting him off): Yeah, but why ? I'm not gonna do that ? I (stutter) I'm not gonna do that if he ca- doesn't have the money. Dr. F: If I can arrange for James to come up with the money, would you take the test? Sylvia opens her mouth wide. Larry King: You said you would. Sylvia (nodding her head): Yeah, yeah, I will, but if he won't come up with it with the other girl, why would he come up with it with me? Larry King: Well, if you come up with it, sir, she'll do it. Sylvia (overlapping Larry): Yeah. Dr. F: And will you arrange for that, Larry? Larry King: Sure. Dr. F: (pleased): You got it. Larry King: Be happy to do it. So there it is. She'll do it! But let's look at her fabricated excuses here. On our web page, in the official JREF challenge application, appears this notice: One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account," as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail. Had Sylvia Browne or Larry King troubled to read the application, we would have promptly provided just the assurance sought, in the form of a current financial statement on that special account. Sylvia is well aware that we are not about to place such funds in escrow just to satisfy her whims; that would suspend the earnings of the account, but if Sylvia ? or anyone ? would agree to make up the loss to the JREF, we would certainly consider doing this. Also, we have never before been asked by anyone ? Russian or not ? to place the fund in escrow. That is a simple lie ? another one ? by Browne. In summary: Sylvia Browne appeared on the Larry King Live TV show on May 16th, 2003. She offered, as her excuse for having reneged on her acceptance of the JREF million-dollar challenge, that she required us to place the prize money in escrow ? which we are most decidedly not going to do. She also stated that she had no way of telling whether the prize money existed, in spite of the very clear, plain-English text on our web page ? which she chose to ignore ? telling her exactly how to receive assurance of that sum's availability. On May 19th, I sent certified mail # 7003 0500 0002 3034 8133 to Sylvia Browne with the following letter, and a certified copy of the letter to Larry King as well: Ms. Browne: Though proof of the JREF prize money is easily available on request, you have not made any such request. Your May 16th appearance on the Larry King Live TV show, seemed to indicate that you were ignorant of the facts, and since we are an educational foundation, we therefore enclose a notarized copy of the account status showing the balance in a special "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" in excess of one million dollars. Also enclosed is a formal statement from the agency holding these assets, verifying that the funds are in place. I'm sure that you are aware of the grave legal consequences that would result against the JREF, if either of these documents were to be found false or altered. As you are also aware, we have legally committed ourselves to awarding this prize money to anyone who successfully passes both the preliminary and then the formal test, as agreed to between the applicant and the JREF. This is described on our web page, which also clearly states all the conditions for assuring that the prize money will be awarded if the conditions are met. Since you have already heard and accepted the terms and protocol of the test, and your understanding and agreement have been broadcast across the world via CNN, it only remains for you to give us a date upon which we can conduct the test. One caveat: several of the persons who responded more than a year ago to our request for suitable subjects ? one of which would be chosen at random ? have since died. It would be necessary for us to re-issue the request, of course, and that would mean that a suitable date would have to be set sometime in July, but no sooner. Now that this issue of the prize money has been resolved, and there can no longer be any impediment to your involvement, we anticipate hearing from you with a renewed acceptance of our challenge. Of course, if you are afraid of taking the test, or you are aware that you cannot pass a simple double-blind test of your claims, you may wish to further obfuscate the matter by producing more excuses and problems. That's entirely up to you. Since Larry King has agreed to "arrange" that you be assured of the existence and availability of the prize money, a copy of this letter is being sent to him for his information. Let's see what takes place now. I may be able to retire the "cricket.wav" file on our web page! I'll keep you regularly informed... -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
Zero7a1 Leaving YourWast  Registered: 10/23/02 Posts: 3,594 Loc: Passing Cloud |
| ||||||
|
so many false prophets these days, call em out diploid, and you too swami, you like to have fun with them
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit jiggy    Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I found some info on James Randi some of you may be interested in reading.
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm Randi runs away In June 1999, a Mr Rico Kolodzey of Germany wrote to James Randi and challenged for the reputed $1 million prize. Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone, absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them. Now this claim is, to say the least, extraordinary. It is perhaps even more extraordinary that an individual should offer to prove this claim by submitting himself to a controlled test. The claim is one that most people would treat with great skepticism, and might well run a mile from. But James Randi is not most people -- he is the person who has publicly claimed that he has $1 million on offer to all comers who challenge him and are willing to submit to rigorous testing, as Mr Kolodzey has offered to do. It should not be very difficult to arrange a test of Mr Kolodzey's claim. All that is needed is to lock him in a police cell, under CCTV observation, with only water to drink. If he experiences significant measurable weight loss, or asks for food, then his claim is false. If, on the other hand, he does somehow survive on water alone, then Randi is wrong, conventional science is wrong, and Mr Kolodzey has won $1 million. It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two. But that is not what Randi did. Instead he ignored Mr Kolodzey entirely. When Mr Kolodzey wrote again to Randi asking about his challenge, he received the following email from Randi (later confirmed with a hard copy):- Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM Mr. Kolodzey: Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims. Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it? If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter. Signed, James Randi. (A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.) James Randi Educational Foundation 201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.) Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 So, now we know exactly how much confidence can be placed in James Randi's "challenge" and exactly how Randi behaves when confronted by a real challenger, willing to submit to rigorous scientific testing of his claims. Randi runs away. To see Randi's original letter click here. http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm James Randi's "$1 million challenge" Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers. On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing. So doesn?t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be. Randi's $1M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.* A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least. The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant." This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all. The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place." This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide. But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails. Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well. With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things. First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize". Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this. "The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts]. "These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests." It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does. Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind. I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant". Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.' The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention. Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality." Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with. Find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here. -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
kotik fuckingsuperhero  Registered: 06/29/04 Posts: 3,531 Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
so do you think someone has lived on water alone since 1998?
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
In June 1999, a Mr Rico Kolodzey of Germany wrote to James Randi and challenged for the reputed $1 million prize. Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone, absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them.
From the JREF FAQ: 2.4. Why the limitation on things that might injure me? Essentially, the JREF doesn't want to be seen as even slightly condoning self-injury or injury to others. It has partly to do with legal issues, partly to do with the image of the JREF, and partly to do with the JREF's past experiences with applicants. Most of the applications that are self-injurious involve living for extended periods of time without eating, or stopping the use of prescribed medications, and the evidence gathered over millennia is pretty strong that the human body does indeed die after a prolonged period without food. There is also ample evidence to prove that a diabetic who stops taking their insulin will most certainly die or suffer serious internal damage if they stop taking it. It should be no surprise to you that many such claims are submitted. In Randi's own words: 'A test of [someone who says he doesn't need to eat] would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- "You tested him, why won't you test me?"' -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government. Edited by Diploid (12/29/05 12:07 AM)
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I knew that was going to be his official excuse. It's the one I'd use if I wanted to get out of it. What is it, excuse #541 in swamis excuse book?
 Face facts diploid. What you shared says he also turns down faith healing claims. So Randi is allowed to use excusing for not backing himself up and others aren't? What kind of double standard are you randi fans running here anyway? What else does he turn down? If he turns down any applicant then his BOGUS CLAIMS that people who make such claims have never passed his tests, when he won't even give them a chance to take them are totally FALSE. Randi is lying and misrepresenting his foundation to make it appear no claimant has passed a test. How easy to say and make it "appear" that way when he decides which claims he will test or not. That like me saying, "no one who claims to be able to jump two feet high has been able to pass my test so no one can" all the while, I refuse to test anyone making the claims. This guys a joke. Yup, he's a magician and nothing more, nothing amazing about him. He's just another guy trying to make a name for himself off of the same illusionary he faults others for committing. Anyway, I'm with Cooper who after the show said, "That was an exhausting hour" Kotik, It doesn't matter what I beleive. Randi can't go around saying no one who claimed to live on prana has passed his test when he refuses to give them. His saying that no one with a para normal claim has passed his tests is misleading of the truth if they were not even given the chance to take them. If you want to talk airtarian posibilities start a new topic.  
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met
This is very dishonest. The test protocol, agreed upon by BOTH parties in writing in advance, is always designed such that there is no judging, no interpretation, no leeway, and it is a legally binding contract. Here's an example protocol: === Begin Example Protocol === The claimant says he can predict the roll of a die. 1. A six-sided die will be placed inside a cage like those used in casinos for this purpose. 2. The claimant will write down the number he predicts. 3. The cage will be inverted and the number resulting on the die will be recorded. 4. Steps two and three will be repeated 10 times. 5. At the conclusion of the 10 iterations, the claimant will be awarded the prize if he was correct eight, nine, or all 10 tries. If the claimant fails, the test is over and will not be repeated unless the claimant re-applies. === End Example Protocol === That's it. As you can see, neither Randi nor JREF judge anything. Either the claimant does what he says he can do, or he does not. Naturally, after the claimant fails, he immediately insists on doing the test again even though he's already agreed in writing that the protocol is for exactly ONE test and if he wants to try again (looking for a lucky win rather than using his non-powers) he must apply for a new test. When he's reminded of his agreement, he goes off in a tantrum complaining that Randi refused to test him. Hint: trying again is looking for a lucky win. Someone who can do what he claims to do doesn't need luck (or a practice round). -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government. Edited by Diploid (12/29/05 12:45 AM)
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
Face facts diploid. What you shared says he also turns down faith healing claims.
You're making stuff up Jiggz:  Again from the JREF FAQ: 2.3. Does (this) qualify as paranormal? The best way to answer this is to examine this list of things that people commonly apply for. The following things are paranormal by definition: Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology. Randi can't go around saying no one who claimed to live on prana has passed his test when he refuses to give them. He's willing to test anything that won't harm the applicant. Why, of the zillions of things he IS willing to test and actually does test, do you lock onto the one thing he won't test: the bullshit claim that someone can live without food? Is your position so weak that you can't show good faith and address the long list of things he tests and shows to be false over and over again? Is it so weak that you have to jump on the one single thing he, quite reasonably for legal and common sense reasons, refuses to test? What's next? Are you going to accuse him of not having the $1 million dollars too? -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government. Edited by Diploid (12/29/05 12:39 AM)
| |||||||
|
dr0mni My Own Messiah  Registered: 08/21/04 Posts: 2,921 Loc: USF Tampa, Fl Last seen: 19 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
But how can he know that any claim is bullshit without a proper experiment? Otherwise he is just making unfounded assumptions.
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
While I'm at it, last I checked, there are numerous skeptics groups around the world who, since they aren't bound to retarded US liability laws, are more than willing to test any fool who says he can go without food.
Here are three for reference, there are lots more if you bother to search: -- The Premanand Challenge: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/rules.htm The Australian Skeptics Challenge: http://www.skeptics.com.au/index.html The Science and Rationalists' Challenge: http://humanists.net/avijit/prabir/sra.htm -- Anyone honestly looking for the truth would have found these on their own. Care to venture a coherent reason why Mr. Kolodzey hasn't submitted a claim with any of these organizations and instead chooses to harp on Randi's refusal to test him? Could it be because he's full of shit and picking on high-profile Randi is more rewarding than being made a fool of when he gets the munchies and can't resist? -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
But how can he know that any claim is bullshit without a proper experiment? Otherwise he is just making unfounded assumptions.
JESUS CHRIST you guys are denser than granite! Nobody, not Randi, not I, not any skeptic says that mystical phenomena do not exist. Repeat: WE DO NOT SAY IT DOESN'T EXIST. Get it straight. WE DO NOT SAY IT DOES NOT EXIST! We say it has never been demonstrated. The End. Do you get it yet? As for the ONE SINGLE THING Randi refuses to test for perfectly valid legal and common sense reasons, see the list above of organizations that WILL test it. In EVERY SINGLE TEST, the claimant breaks down and eats. Geezus! [Dip looks for the damned bong] -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
dr0mni My Own Messiah Registered: 08/21/04 Posts: 2,921 Loc: USF Tampa, Fl Last seen: 19 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
From reading Randi's writing and posts from folks like you and Swami, I get an impression of anger, frustration, and personal criticism (how many times can he say "Sylvia Brown is a low down dirty liar", for fucks sake). The negativity, sarcasm, and elitism expressed in all these anti-psychic/mystic discussions do not give the impression that the materialist camp is willing to accept the possibility of these phenomena. All I hear is derogitory languaged being used to describe the subject (stupid, ignorant, "Truth hating", delusional) instead of respectfull, neutral terms. Perhaps you do accept the possibility. Well then you should work on making that apparent in your posts. Edited by dr0mni (12/29/05 01:24 AM)
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
The negativity, sarcasm, and elitism expressed in all these anti-psychic/mystic discussions do not give the impression that the materialist camp is willing to accept the possibility of these phenomena.
Yah, Randi puts up a million bucks of his personal money looking for REAL evidence of magic and he gets accused by the likes of you of being unwilling to accept truth. The irony... -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
If a diabetic goes off their insulin and does okay as if they are still on it, I would call that a claim of faith healing. I'm not making stuff up. What nature of claim would you put that under?
The bottom line is that people need to know how Randi works. They need to know that he does turn down claims and that he doesn't require a peer view panel of accredited scientists (which he is not) to determine the results. He is the sole judge. Knowing this, makes it easy to see why no one has won his money yet. He's in complete control from start to finish and he can't loose the way I see it. I thought it was just fair to share some more information on Randi since he is brought up like GOD around here so people can make more informed decisions about what to believe about him for themselves. Whatever they choose to believe about him is fine with me. Back to the topic of the show and a general reply, when the Rabbi said, "I am not interested in the dead beyond, I am interested in the living" how many of you wanted to say to him, "Well who's stopping you from pursuing your interest?" What business is it of his if people are interested in the beyond and want to explore it with others?  Hey, who was that Char lady, the blond? She kept her cool well under the heat. Anyone know anything about her? She got Margaret and the house remodel. That was good.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
dr0mni My Own Messiah Registered: 08/21/04 Posts: 2,921 Loc: USF Tampa, Fl Last seen: 19 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
Diploid Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
They need to know that he does turn down claims and that he doesn't require a peer view panel of accredited scientists (which he is not) to determine the results. He is the sole judge.
Duh Jigz. What part of the following requires a peer review panel? Simple question, please give me a direct answer. === Begin Example Protocol === The claimant says he can predict the roll of a die. 1. A six-sided die will be placed inside a cage like those used in casinos for this purpose. 2. The claimant will write down the number he predicts. 3. The cage will be inverted and the number resulting on the die will be recorded. 4. Steps two and three will be repeated 10 times. 5. At the conclusion of the 10 iterations, the claimant will be awarded the prize if he was correct eight, nine, or all 10 tries. If the claimant fails, the test is over and will not be repeated unless the claimant re-applies. === End Example Protocol === Reminder: All JREF test protocols are designed like the one above where there IS NO JUDGING involved. The claimant either does or does not do what he says he will do. Randi is almost never even present as the pre-tests are conducted by independent scientists, usually at a university geographically near the applicant. -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
Thanks for coughing up more information.
So if people pre-qualify under experiments run by scientists at universities before they get to move on to Randi and all fail under his eye, where he is the sole judge, that supports my point about how his being in full control as the only judge ensures a failure.Think about it, what's the point of a pre qualification? To see who really has skills first before he can figure out a way to dismiss them? This guy is something else. 
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
since he is brought up like GOD around here| Shop: Spores for European Microscopy Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Mystery of Death-on Larry King Live tonight |  gettinjiggywithit |
927 | 12 | 04/02/05 12:10 PM by gettinjiggywithit |
|
 |
UFO Panel on Larry King (  1 2 all ) |
 OrgoneConclusion |
1,993 | 31 | 07/14/07 09:24 PM by Icelander |
|
|
psychic ( 1 2 all ) |
 MuShi_KiNg |
2,621 | 26 | 03/05/02 05:06 PM by MuShi_KiNg |
|
|
Swami's fave medium, Sylvia Browne, live now on Larry King |  Jellric |
592 | 3 | 12/06/03 12:25 AM by Jellric |
|
|
Bad news for profit-seeking psychics ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Silversoul |
4,399 | 57 | 05/28/07 05:22 PM by Diploid |
|
 |
James Van Praagh - communicator with the dead? |  Swami |
1,056 | 16 | 02/04/04 01:05 AM by Sclorch |
|
|
why cant psychic read people that are on anti-depressants | MuShi_KiNg |
1,147 | 11 | 09/14/04 06:11 PM by Todcasil |
|
|
demonstrate your psychic powers and get cashed up ( 1 2 all ) |
 mr crisper |
3,140 | 29 | 04/23/02 10:41 PM by raytrace |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 8,479 topic views. 2 members, 9 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||