Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

James Randi is an idiot!!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
DaTerminator, don't waste your time with debunkers. It's futile to argue with them or try to convice them. As to the people who just dismiss the phenomenon out of hand...they haven't looked at the evidence and have no interest in doing so.

If you do choose to argue with debunkers and pelicanists for some reason, this might help you understand them:

www.planetarymysteries.com...

www.tricksterbook.com...




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Its best to stick with objective scientific sources, instead of skeptic or believer ones who both go in opposite directions. Randi is not a scientist and therefor what he believes and says isnt really relevant to the status of any paranormal phenomenom. Hes like prophet yawheh, except the opposite


If prophet yawheh offered a million dollar for someone to prove general relativity, i dont think all the worlds scientists would gang up to make an appointment with him to demonstrate general relativity. Similarly with Randi, i dont expect any scientist researching paranormal phenomena to want to have anything to do with Randi.

And a refusal by PY/Randi to pay the 1 million dollars has no scientific value whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by plop
If prophet yawheh offered a million dollar for someone to prove general relativity, i dont think all the worlds scientists would gang up to make an appointment with him to demonstrate general relativity. Similarly with Randi, i dont expect any scientist researching paranormal phenomena to want to have anything to do with Randi.


Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Randi's prize for demonstrating authentic psychic powers?
In this vein, it would be easy to demonstrate the conditions predicted by General Relativity. However, it is impossible to prove that General Relativity is the only explanation for the observed events it predicted.

With psychic ability, there is no surrounding theory that Randi can demand proof of, only phenomena to be demonstrated.

I don't see, then, how the above post is relevant.

Harte



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Randi's prize for demonstrating authentic psychic powers?
In this vein, it would be easy to demonstrate the conditions predicted by General Relativity. However, it is impossible to prove that General Relativity is the only explanation for the observed events it predicted.

With psychic ability, there is no surrounding theory that Randi can demand proof of, only phenomena to be demonstrated.

I don't see, then, how the above post is relevant.

Harte


In order to 'demonstrate' a paranormal phenomenom, one must 'prove' that it is paranormal.

Furthermore, the point of my relativity argument was not about the possibility of proving or demonstrating relativity, it was about the fact that Randi is not a scientist - and neither is prophet yahweh. Both are equally relevent to the scientific proces.

I say this because there are actually people out there who believe that is 1 million dollar challenge disproves paranormal phenomena or makes the existence of paranormal phenomena less likely. The truth is, his claim has no scientific value at all.

(and btw. there are indeed testable scientific theories surrounding psychic abilities)

[edit on 6-9-2005 by plop]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Browne has been given chance after chance to prove her psychic powers. Why does she refuse and coop with Noory in saying Randi is a fraud. And Randi doesn't want to be on C2C? Hmmm, let me use some critical thinking...I still can't believe Randi won't show up on C2C to play along with Noory and Browne's game, I think he is just a wimp. [/sarcasm]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
I still can't believe Randi won't show up on C2C to play along with Noory and Browne's game, I think he is just a wimp. [/sarcasm]


What game ? its not like Noory has much to loose unlike the Not-So-Great Randi.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Just take a look at Randi............
He does not exactly have the eyes of wisdom......
he is glum
o ye of little faith ...........

Plus I think he is a little obsessed with geller too...................



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Ok, so send in your evidence! I say this to religious people when they make claims to be able to heal people eith the powers of prayer, etc. If you have proof, then publish it in peer review. I see hundreds of sites, each almost indistinguishable from the next, each with its own "guides" to psi abilities, yet when I search up "observed instances of telekinesis/Psychokinesis"... *tumbleweed*I think I have seen roughly 4 papers detailing scientific studies on the phenomenon, after a couple of hours of searching, each of negligible worth, and the aforementioned sites which are legion. If you truly have these abilities which you flaunt so readily on here and elsewhere, then please, better humanity's collective understanding it by sharing it, rather than sitting on your backside whining "Oh no its too hard to do it in a lab" or "It doesn't work when I'm nervous!". Otherwise you are wasting everybody's time by claiming to possess a potentially world changing ability when you do not, which is criminal in my opinion. I hope to see you as the next nobel prize winning scientist if your study survives peer review.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Randi's attitude is indeed annoying but he is a necessary evil.

While I do agree that those with genuine paranormal abilities might not want the attention that claiming his proze would create - his skepticisim is, in general, healthy and useful to those of us who study the less glamorous fields of things like UFOlogy, Cryptozoology, and Paranormal Studies.

I would actually like to hear his taken on the mountain of evidence that has been compiled on the events on 9/11.

I fear, however, taht his celebrity status would prevent him from taking socially difficult opinions on such a subject.

(thus he is likely neither fair nor unbiased)

As far as the X-Ray girl from Russia - I believe she was tested fairly vigorously and found to be simply a good cold reader.

I, myself, try to read the leading Skeptic publications when I have the chance just to keep myself honest - although I have seen them use some extremly poor arguments in favor of both the Govt's version of 9/11 and against The Theory of Intelligent Design.

A little healthy skepticism, though, is really good for us all - and good for the ATS community.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I like James Randi and I wish everyone had his same standard of proof. I think maybe his language was inflammatory towards believers, but then, how many nasty things have been said about him, by believers, in this thread?

I think Randi is carrying on the tradition of great magicians like Houdini and exposing fraud. I think magicians are well placed to do this because they know how to fool people.

I think Derren Brown is pretty ace at that too.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The thing about James Randi, is that he argues against everything paranormal. Like if he had hardcore evidence infront of him, he would still say it was not paranormal, he would use another word.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Until people who believe in Spaceship Guys and/or extrasensory perception can come up with good, solid evidence (bring in the Spaceship Guy for an interview, or submit your ESP powers to a panel of scientists and let them design the experiment), then Randi -- and the rest of the scientific establishment -- will continue to laugh at proponents of such things.


Here is an interesting quote made by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch:


"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism.If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Bernard Haisch, Astrophysicist.


Hasn't he got a point?

If cynics pour scorn and derision onto the UFO subject then shouldn't they also have the common decency (and intellectual honesty) to attempt to explain the nature of the objects involved in specific cases as well ?

To my mind - there are several UFO incidents that remain completely inexplicable and debunkers almost fall over themselves in attempting
not to address them.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
You believers cannot hold a candle to Randi. Regardless of his modus operandi, the truth is that when it comes to agri-glyphs (look that up believers of crop-circles being made by aliens or plasma this or plasma that) there is not a shred of evidence that they were made by none other than us humans, playful ones, ones with a sense of humor, intelligent ones. Not those dumb "aliens."

Whe you can match Randi wit to wit, you won't be a believer any longer!



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


To my mind - there are several UFO incidents that remain completely inexplicable and debunkers almost fall over themselves in attempting not to address them.

Shag harbour being one, apparently whoever made the documentary's about it couldn't find a skeptic to go on camera about it.

One of the cases that really does bug me about the skeptics who like to frequent the talk shows is the "Lighthouse theory" and the Rendlesham incident.

I still see it being spoken about as if it's a a, slam dunk, no further explanation required by many such skeptics. Well someone did some work on that particular theory, the results of which can be seen here.

www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

So fair enough, if that persona analysis is faulty, show people where he has gone wrong and demonstrate it. Only the fact is, I have never once seen any skeptic address the guy's work. So, on the one hand, they demand all the evidence, in a given case, be reviewed, but often fail to do any sort of in depth background themselves. In other words they do rather have a "Do as i say, not as i do" attitude, to any paranormal event.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by karl 12
 


To my mind - there are several UFO incidents that remain completely inexplicable and debunkers almost fall over themselves in attempting not to address them.

Shag harbour being one, apparently whoever made the documentary's about it couldn't find a skeptic to go on camera about it.

One of the cases that really does bug me about the skeptics who like to frequent the talk shows is the "Lighthouse theory" and the Rendlesham incident.

I still see it being spoken about as if it's a a, slam dunk, no further explanation required by many such skeptics. Well someone did some work on that particular theory, the results of which can be seen here.

www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

So fair enough, if that persona analysis is faulty, show people where he has gone wrong and demonstrate it. Only the fact is, I have never once seen any skeptic address the guy's work. So, on the one hand, they demand all the evidence, in a given case, be reviewed, but often fail to do any sort of in depth background themselves. In other words they do rather have a "Do as i say, not as i do" attitude, to any paranormal event.


Give me/us a break! You speak as if you know everything there is to know about what you wrote. Have you spoken to even one debunker about the cases? Have you spoken to [u[all debunkers about the cases? I doubt your answer will be "Yes" for either question.

Shag Harbor is definitely an interesting case but like Roswell, it died a quiet death after happening and was revived 26 years later. Time changes "facts." An object traveling 25 miles underwater! Who measured the distance and who knows where it started and where it ended? It's things like that that changes opinions as to what really happened in 1967. And what about that Russian submarine?

Rendlesham? Which version is your favorite?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
If I had a million dollars to offer, I'd add it to Randi's amount. There are plenty of so-called psychics, and other 'new age' types that could 'win' the prize, but they don't. It's really very simple. Claim to read minds, then read minds. Claim to move objects, then move objects. Etc...

If it is a real phenomena and skill then the result would be demonstrable one hundred percent of the time. Not 90, not 80, not 50.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Of course i have spoken to debunkers about the case. I still hear them pedalling the same old rubbish, often picked up third hand without recourse to a single piece of serious investigation by themselves.

Shag Harbour didn't die it simply didn't get any media attention because it didn't involve any Americans.

Same reason every one has heard of Betty and Barney Hill, but just ask..who? When you mention Antonio Billas Boas


Sam reason everyone has heard of Zamora but most have never heard of Maurice Masse

Or for that matter, less than a month after Rendlesham, this case in France..

www.ufoevidence.org...

It pretty much proves my point, Many skeptics are only to happy to prate endlessly on about weather balloons and Roswell, but because they think the whole subject is risible anyway, they simply can;t be arsed to do any real research into the subject, period.

That suggests, they are more concerned about seeing their faces in the media rather than, actually doing any real work. They do just enough to have an opinion on a few select cases and any conclusions they draw from those are applied to every case. Which is exactly the same slapdash methods, they are so keen to criticise in others.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

If you want to debunk him, show him some evidence.
That's all this comes down to. I long for the day someone provides some good hard evidence. Maybe David Wilcock will reveal he is actually a reptilian by the end of the year on international tv.... bahahaha.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Long time ATS lurker but this is the first post that actually made me sign up. If it were not for people like James Randi, we would be overrun with irrationality. Randi has done more to prove frauds and hucksters like Uri Geller who have used trickery to take advantage of people financially and emotionally. For those that want to put the blame on Randi and skeptics, shouldn't you instead blame those that manipulate others beliefs in the paranormal for their own benefit?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar

"the ufo community is pointless. Enthusiasts ought to to something better with their time like get a hobby, collect stamps, spend time with the family. Do anything but study crops and wierd lights in the sky. GET A LIFE."


LMAO after reading just a small percentage of ufo/aliens/ crap here I whole heartedly agree with him!


From the unbridled enthusiam and wishful thinking, and pure fantasy of these folk, you'd think there was nothing else in their lives more worthy of
thinking about.
Here here James !


And what if you spend time with the family investigating crop circles and/or UFOs?

Randi is just trying to provoke people and stir up more interest in his own profile. Nothing to see here, folks...






top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join