"JREF Rules for the challenge are extremely strict" ????
Be fair and post what are his 'rules'.
"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
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"
Source:- Randi the quack