It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

James Randi is an idiot!!

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
No, I was making up something to say because you felt so strongly that I was picking on you and ought to respond to others. I read what he had to say. You are not listening to what I have to say. You cannot have statistics without assumptions. I was hoping because you enjoyed his post so much that if he told you the same thing you might investigate that facet of research more.


Goodness, this is getting quite tedious for thhe both of us. I understood your point about assumptions and made a note of such a few pages back. Why are we still discussing it?


Why are we assuming that psychic ability is at will? Why are we assuming that it is a constant trait? Perhaps it is a defense mechanism? Perhaps it does not exist. Perhaps it does and it crawls back up like a number two when people are watching you...

Who knows?

We have not observed enough examples, verified them, etc. to get out of the gate on this one.


We are discussing this sort of phenomenon because we are talking about Randi and the JREF's $1million challenge which has attracted the sort that claim they ability can be manifested at will. You are muddying the water by bringing in other types of paranormal phenomenon. I think I've made it clear enough that I believe this needs to be examined closer by science.


Do you think I'm a Uri Geller fan? Because you keep bringing him up to me.


No, I don't. I am providing examples to help you understand my point.


BTW, is Uri Geller even still alive? Why are we talking about him?


He makes a fine example and is quite funny when his powers don't seem to work. Oh and yes he's still alive and making money off his self-proclaimed abilities.




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Amazing! (that's a pun for the uninitiated) This thread is still hanging on (stop me!) and no one is saying anything of interest.

Regardless of personal feelings about Randi by those who do not know him personally, the bottom line is that he is a flea on a dog's back. The dog being all of those phony "psychics" that are making a good living off the gullible and they are legion.

Randi is a hero to all except those who are blind and are taken in by the people he fights tooth and nail.

No human is a psychic. No human can tell the future. No human can communicate with the dead. Anyone that claims they can is fodder fot the Randi curse: "I'm on you like a loose suit!"



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Another poster states that I should reply to you, but I have no idea why. I suppose because you were stating that Randi should ask for better than 75% accuracy...?

Can you further explain how assumptions affect research and statistics because no one believes me?

I keep trying to explain that Randi has made the assumption that if one were to have "psychic" powers (whatever that means) then it would be like a skill that can be executed on command as opposed to a random event, or even an induced (trauma, smell, seismic activity, vibrational, etc) event. If the experiment were designed to show that it is "induced" it would have a different set of statistics performed, etc.

"Science" is not "one size fits all"


The reason I posted at the top of page 10 was to object to the assertion another poster made that one needed 100% accuracy to prove psychic abilities. Randi's standard requires a person being tested must demonstrate beyond 1 in a million odds of random chance that they have true psychic abilities. I only used the 75% example to show that a psychic need not be 100% accurate to demonstrate the 1 in a million odds. It's also possible to demonstrate it with 65% accuracy or 90% accuracy, but it will take fewer trials at 90% accuracy and more trials at 65% accuracy to demonstrate an ability.

Now if I'm interpreting your post/question correctly, then we need to make a distinction in classifications of psychic abilities:

1. Call it the "Randi" classification. The psychic is so accurate they can demonstrate abilities beyond 1 in a million odds of random chance. This would be an amazing ability, but hey if you're going to give someone a million dollars, I think you have the right to expect to see something amazing for that kind of money.

2. Call it the scientifically provable class of psychics. Scientists often look at far less demanding statistics than Randi to prove their theorems. One such practice is to use a 95% confidence assumption. For extremely demanding or safety critical projects they may look for a higher confidence in their findings like maybe 99% but 95% is fairly common. This should be repeatable in separate multiple trials done by different researchers, surpassing the 95% confidence level each time to be confirmed. This is a far lower standard of proof than Randi requires. (beating one in a million odds as Randi requires is like 99.9999% confidence!!!!)

3. Call it the "not scientifically provable" psychic ability. I think this can exist and as you said it may not be called upon demand, it may come from flashes of inspiration under certain conditions. If it's not a reproducible ability that can be called on demand, it will be difficult if not impossible to design scientific experiments to detect or confirm it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it very well may and many of us have some interesting anecdotes about this I'm sure, I do myself. What about the detective who can't find a missing person and calls in a psychic who points to a map and tells them where they will find the body, and they look for the body and find it there? The woman who did that actually got arrested because they thought she must have been involved to have that kind of detail but she was cleared of any involvement or wrongdoing eventually (though I'm not so sure how eager whe was to try to help the police again after that!
) Could these anecdotes be coincidences? Maybe, but if so there are some truly amazing coincidences, so it's really hard to be sure in cases you can't prove scientifically.

I can understand why Randi wouldn't pay for category 2 or especially not category 3 abilities. Category 3 psychics may have real abilities, that just can't be called up on demand, or not reliably so. Science can't prove everything, it can only prove what it can prove, and as Sagan said (in my sig) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or the fact that we can't prove with evidence that psychic abilities exist, it does not automatically follow that there are no psychic abilities. There may be some that are just not scientifically provable.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Randi is a hero to all except those who are blind...


Riiiiiiight.


'Skeptics' seems to talk more like cult members every day, IMO.



[edit on 16-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Randi is a hero to all except those who are blind...


Riiiiiiight.


'Skeptics' seems to talk more like cult members every day, IMO.



[edit on 16-10-2009 by Malcram]



I can see what you mean especially when one definition of cult says "a religion regarded as unorthodox". We just don't happen to subscribe to the belief the majority does I guess



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 



- There is an entire chapter dedicated to these two in Randi's Flim Flam as well titled "The Laurel and Hardy of Psi" : amzn.com...


Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, most if not all are just based on speculation or person's opinion, without a speck of proof.

However, I did find an immense information on the antics of Randi. This is an article by Michael Prescott, a renowned novelist, who did a marvellous job of investigative journalism on Randi and the SRI episode. He described himself as once a full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist.

As it is a long article, I'll just quote certain segments.

"The first thing I noticed was that Randi never gives any indication that Targ and Puthoff have any scientific credentials or accomplishments. The casual reader could be forgiven for assuming that they are not "real" scientists at all. For the record, Targ is a physicist credited with inventing the FM laser, the high-power gas-tranport laser, and the tunable plasma oscillator. Puthoff, also a physicist, invented the tunable infra-red laser and is widely known for his theoretical work on quantum vacuum states and the zero point field. (See The Field, by Lynne McTaggart, for an overview of Puthoff's work in quantum phyics.) If these two are "Laurel and Hardy," at least they come with good résumés. Randi, by contrast, has no scientific training."

"Randi starts off by telling us how Targ and Puthoff took a professed psychic, Ingo Swann, to Stanford University, where, they said, Swann used his psychic abilities to affect the operation of a magnetometer. According to Randi, "the report was all wet." He knows this because he contacted Dr. Arthur Hebard, "the builder of the device, who was present and has excellent recollections of what took place." Hebard, Randi says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie."

Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me."

"Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, "All the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were useless," we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion."

"A posting www.psicounsel.com/ I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: "Claims of poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand 'Chinese Whispers.'" (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game, Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on "anecdotal evidence," which is precisely what the bulk of Randi's argument consists of. "

"Puthoff is quoted as saying the following: In Flim- Flam, [Randi] gives something like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. (He did not.) ..."

"Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. "

The whole article here:
www.skepticalinvestigations.org...

It seems that the bigger fraud is Randi himself. He is totally and utterly discredited along with his entourage of skeptic groupies.




[edit on 16-10-2009 by A Conscience]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

When you are deliberating whether or not to research a topic and are in the exploratory phase where you are creating your assumptions and developing the protocols, or even in "Phase 1" then the double blind is not always necessary.


I did not state that double-blind is necessary for all experiments, so please don't misrepresent my argument. Rather you are the one who raised issue with bias in the case of JREF-led experiments. I've said this once, others have said it, and I will only say it one more time: Double-blind reduces the effect of bias on the outcome of the experiment. If not double-blind, what are your alternatives to reduce that effect? Please don't propose taking the experiments to university researchers, because that still does not solve the problem. As the cliché goes, opinions are like a--holes, everyone has one.


Vista: If the scientific world at large accepted homeopathy, would you change your skeptism?

James Randi: Not necessarily.

James Randi: Us scientists make mistakes, too.


Interesting find. However, the entire interview and the context surrounding that statement certainly made me question whether or not the "us" was either misquoted or if something were lost in dictation. Here's the link for the sake of providing other readers context.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I still disagree with your assertion that he has fooled people into believing he himself is a scientist. In fact, even in the Horizon homeopathy case linked to the interview above, the BBC makes the following statement: "When Maddox named his team, he took everyone by surprise. Included on the team was a man who was not a professional scientist: magician and paranormal investigator James Randi."

www.bbc.co.uk...

To your credit, I will be on the lookout for language that may imply he is claiming to be a scientist.



Regarding the eagerness to support research universities, it's important to understand how often scientists have been fooled or have engaged in deception themselves.


Far less often then you are seeming to purport. No one is infallible. I recognize this. I am not a "black-white" person. I am just a person who has done research for the past *cough cough* years and he is oversimplifying the process.


Attempting to throw around your credentials does not help your argument. To be frank, I'm "skeptical" of said credentials considering your definition of double-blind. But let me clarify my point further. If you have an experiment performed by researchers who are seeking to prove their hypothesis and with subjects who are seeking to prove their claims, then there must be stringent controls in place to ensure no foul play, no wish fulfillment, etc. Furthermore, scientists are not trained to identify trickery. Sure, no one is infallible. But which group, conjurers or scientists, is more qualified to filter out the parlor tricks?


Slight of hand is one thing, and if I ever believe that my neighbor has the mystical and magical powers capable of sawing his wife in half and putting her back together I would definitely call Randi come experimentation time.


Slight of hand, power of suggestion, misdirection... these are the tricks of the mainstream paranormalists. Try not to oversimplify the work of a modern magician. We're not talking about sawing a women in half when we're talking about the accomplishments of Derren Brown, Penn and Teller, or even the Amazing Randi.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


Did you even look at my other links or did you just home in on the "Flim Flam" one? The other links provide very compelling information. However, let me address your link. I'm not quite sure if you understand who runs the website you linked me to and is responsible for the articles published. Unfortunately at this time their website appears to be down, at least for me. However, the so called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a well known group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies. I can go on an on but I'll provide a link for you to read up more about the amazing team behind www.skepticalinvestigations.org: www.skepdic.com...

I hope you have time to check out the other links I provided. I'll also assume that you did not even read "Flim Flam" but rather read the Association for Skeptical Investigation's Cliffs Notes version of it instead.

Edit - One more tip. Google Rupert Sheldrake for a bit of information on the owner of www.skepticalinvestigations.org

[edit on 16-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Amazing! (that's a pun for the uninitiated) This thread is still hanging on (stop me!) and no one is saying anything of interest.

Regardless of personal feelings about Randi by those who do not know him personally, the bottom line is that he is a flea on a dog's back. The dog being all of those phony "psychics" that are making a good living off the gullible and they are legion.

Randi is a hero to all except those who are blind and are taken in by the people he fights tooth and nail.

No human is a psychic. No human can tell the future. No human can communicate with the dead. Anyone that claims they can is fodder fot the Randi curse: "I'm on you like a loose suit!"


Don't you people love how he says all that as complete fact without backing it up with anything?

I won't be surprised at all if Eddie says he's met him personally. He makes it sound like he's met everyone is the paranormal/ufology world already.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I like him, he is a modern day Houdini.

Houdini made it a buisness disproving people who claim to have paranormal abilities and he was very successful.

He was a commitee member of the Scientific American which even back then offered a cash prize to those who can prove they have paranormal powers. Needless to say, nobody collected.

The only differance in the two is Randi isn't an escape artist.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
He sounds like a fool. And when someone sounds like a fool, they usually ARE one.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I'm sorry if someone already posted this but I got to page 5 and couldn't stand reading the huge quotes any more. Here is a great site that challanges the "1 million dollar challange", It's pretty through "The myth of the James Randi 1 million dollar challange" Also I think the man is just rude and down right disrespectful, Here is a quote from the "dictionary" off his website.

From the UFO's entry (This is only a partial quote)

"The currently favorite UFO claim is that of “abduction,” in which “abductees” report to the media——in considerable detail——how they were whisked away by alien craft as biological specimens. Almost invariably we hear that the UFO occupants carefully examined the genitals of the victims, who delight to dwell on that factor"

Source: www.randi.org...

I'm not saying I believe fully In the abduction phenomena but he's blatantly biased and rude. Not a skeptic or a scientist but a true debunker.

Edit: I also love how he responds to this article calling it an "attack" and insulting the author, posting a reply to the article but the author rips apart his responce [Randi's], and what do you know? He's now removed it because he got owned. Here's a quote.

"Update: James Randi has responded to this post in his JREF newsletter dated 29/02/2008: "The Grubbies Attack". While I don't consider this article an "attack" (nor consider myself "grubby"), I do thank Randi for responding. To be clear: I contacted the JREF three times while writing this article, and extended the deadline by a week, to allow for responses and clarifications from Randi (or JREF officials). I would have preferred that, rather than a rhetorical and selective newsletter 'debunking', but Randi is entitled to do what he likes.

Although I would like to leave the article to stand alone, rather than debating points, Randi makes some unfortunate errors in his newsletter, which I feel bound to point out here. Most importantly, in multiple passages, Randi refers to the words of "Loyd Auerbach" - these are not Auerbach's words, they are mine (apart from one short quote from Auerbach). This is unfortunate, as Randi directly addresses Loyd Auerbach in a rhetorical fashion on multiple occasions, when Auerbach did not say the words Randi attributes to him.

Other than that: I am not "chortling" over the end of the challenge, nor is this a "19,000 word tirade" (it doesn't even measure 4000 words, and it is simply an examination of the challenge). Surely Randi is not so sensitive about people offering skeptical analyses (this is his raison d'être, after all) of his own work, as to label them "tirades" (three times no less), when it most obviously isn't?"




[edit on 16-10-2009 by 29083010384959]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by 29083010384959]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 



Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by karl 12

Good post

You're certainly right about that - Klass was regarded as a bit of a joke even in sceptic circles.

As for dishonest and cynical UFO debunkery - there are some good USAF examples here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Cheers.




It was a nice attempt at a red herring at least


Hi 1llum1n471 ,thanks for the reply -can you elaborate on your point a bit more?
Cheers.



Still not realy getting what you mean by the term 'red herring'.

Do you agree with these specific Air Force conclusions?

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
"Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. "

Couldn't agree more, his last appearance on Channel 4 in Britain proved that for me, beyond doubt.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
James Randi is not an old idiot, he is a Businessman..

I know him very well and to my expenses I have understood this.

Mr. James Randi guides a Corporation that earns millions dollars per year and that go huntings of foolishness and wizards, easy to unmask.

But When instead you shows himself to approach official sources in order to verify what you declares , he escapes!

I have the tests of all this and I'am still waiting for his “million” dollars REWARD.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baklava

When you are deliberating whether or not to research a topic and are in the exploratory phase where you are creating your assumptions and developing the protocols, or even in "Phase 1" then the double blind is not always necessary.


I did not state that double-blind is necessary for all experiments, so please don't misrepresent my argument. Rather you are the one who raised issue with bias in the case of JREF-led experiments.


I think this is a "language" barrier. JREF has a contest. Contests are not research. Double blind is used in research because future research and research funding is at stake, or when the research is highly theoretical or when the research is controversial, etc.

In the case I was referring to was a preliminary investigation by a university that was in its nascent stages and Randi snarked and said it needed double blind, etc. Well, it was preliminary where a protocol was being formulated (and may not have even gone forward in that form as a protocol).

You do not invest limited research dollars in a double blind until you are at the point where one is necessary.


I've said this once, others have said it, and I will only say it one more time: Double-blind reduces the effect of bias on the outcome of the experiment.


Have I said otherwise????

I said in research, not in a contest, in research it is not always necessary. There are stages and you may not have a considerable investment yet, you may not have crafted the phases, you aren't certain of the protocol...all of these would not require a double blind yet, or if at all.



If not double-blind, what are your alternatives to reduce that effect?


For the alchemists and voodoo curse people I am sure that a double blind is just fine. For people studying prescience of children and animals prior to natural disaster a double blind would not be necessary until later in the process.


I still disagree with your assertion that he has fooled people into believing he himself is a scientist.


Okay fair enough. I am only going by how people speak of this entire organization as "science".


Attempting to throw around your credentials does not help your argument. To be frank, I'm "skeptical" of said credentials considering your definition of double-blind.


Go right ahead and be skeptical. This is the place for it.



But let me clarify my point further. If you have an experiment performed by researchers who are seeking to prove their hypothesis and with subjects who are seeking to prove their claims, then there must be stringent controls in place to ensure no foul play, no wish fulfillment, etc.


But you see, you don't have experiments like that. Institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and universities don't have people seeking to "prove" their claims--probably because they don't get a million dollars to be part of an anonymous human subject population. It starts with people brainstorming/theorizing and then seeking a volunteer population.

In Randi's case, I was negligent and did not speak about the vast majority of cases. I am only familiar with how he treated a University, and in that particular study they were still constructing how the actual research would be run. At that stage a double blind was inappropriate, costly, and might have even been a double blind of an experiment that would not have made it into the final protocol.

You are probably right, hear that? That the type of people he gets into his contest require a double blind because there is money involved and both parties are protected, and, well, he's paying for the double blind.


Furthermore, scientists are not trained to identify trickery. Sure, no one is infallible. But which group, conjurers or scientists, is more qualified to filter out the parlor tricks?


Parlor tricks, sure. Real studies he is not qualified. But hey, I am not qualified to perform in Vegas, either.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTerminator
 


I think James Randi hates people who believe in Paranormal things and make it his mission in live to prove them wrong and humiliate them! He can't debunl UFOs however.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
reply to post by A Conscience
 


Did you even look at my other links or did you just home in on the "Flim Flam" one? The other links provide very compelling information. However, let me address your link. I'm not quite sure if you understand who runs the website you linked me to and is responsible for the articles published. Unfortunately at this time their website appears to be down, at least for me. However, the so called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a well known group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies. I can go on an on but I'll provide a link for you to read up more about the amazing team behind www.skepticalinvestigations.org: www.skepdic.com...



That group is another reason why I don't trust skeptic organizations. They debunk "people" many times and in the process do not give the total story when they debunk them. Max Frei-Sulzer was the reason for debunking a pollen dating experiment. They didn't debunk the scientific process used, they said he could not be trusted to collect samples (although he was not alone in the room) because he supported the fraudulent Hitler Diaries.

He had been tenured a forensic investigator for Switzerland with many successful cases under his belt (hence was he was asked to participate). He and three others were given handwriting samples only and asked to confirm the chances of it being the same set of handwriting. He was not given the ability to use chemical analysis on the ink or paper. Just handwriting to which he said it was a "high probability"-- along with three others, I might add.

Given the circumstance and his track record aside from this, how is that "fair" are you all have so recently put it?

They did not state the entire story in their article. They just implied he was a purporter of frauds (by the way he was asked to participate, he didn't volunteer) and that was a reason to throw out the pollen test.

No looking at the test itself. No skepticism as to how it was run. Just him. OH! And they misrepresented where the samples were on the tape itself. That is an outright lie.

You would not see this behavior from MIT. You just wouldn't. You would not see it from Oxford. You would not see it from people confident in their own abilities. Even Carl Sagan, a skeptic, has stated that self-described skeptics go too far.

I am not against skepticism. I am for it. I am for healthy, appropriate, non-snarky skepticism.

I hope you have time to check out the other links I provided. I'll also assume that you did not even read "Flim Flam" but rather read the Association for Skeptical Investigation's Cliffs Notes version of it instead.

Edit - One more tip. Google Rupert Sheldrake for a bit of information on the owner of www.skepticalinvestigations.org

[edit on 16-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 29083010384959
 


I think we've inadvertently covered many of the topics mentioned in that paper right here including the Sheldrake connection.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by 1llum1n471
 



Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by karl 12

Good post

You're certainly right about that - Klass was regarded as a bit of a joke even in sceptic circles.

As for dishonest and cynical UFO debunkery - there are some good USAF examples here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Cheers.




It was a nice attempt at a red herring at least


Hi 1llum1n471 ,thanks for the reply -can you elaborate on your point a bit more?
Cheers.



Still not realy getting what you mean by the term 'red herring'.

Do you agree with these specific Air Force conclusions?

Thanks.


My point was that the attempt to bring up Klass was an attempt to divert the post from the topic at hand: Randi. Perhaps there was even at attempt to make as association between the two in order to make some sort of illogical point.

I read your link and it's very interesting. Unfortunately I am not in the position to really judge the conclusions of the Air Force or their actions. I have stated that I believe paranormal phenomenon of which UFO activity is included, needs to be examined more seriously by the scientific community. Perhaps we cannot make up for those lost cases that were whitewashed, but new cases may present much needed insight.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join