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.

 

The Amazing Randy - Your Opinion?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I have a few questions for you.


Originally posted by XVX
There are things Physicists can tell you even though they've never participated in the activity. Randi is simply trying to conduct an experiment that meets scientific standards.


Does Randi have a scientific education, and is he in anyway qualified to conduct any experiment that meets scientific standards?



Science doesnt deny discoveries, it welcomes them. Thats how we further expand our knowledge.


Does James Randi represent the scientific community?




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
QUOTE : " Does Randi have a scientific education, and is he in anyway qualified to conduct any experiment that meets scientific standards? "

irrelevant - there is no onus to hold a degree or other accreditation for your experiments to be scientific

if the experiment meets scientific criteria - then that experiment is scientific - perdiod - your qualifications are tottaly irrelevant

several hi profile cases of fraud etc have show this where people of impecable credentials attempted to subvert science for fame , profit or other motives

but they were unmasaked - because other scientists working ethically were unable to reproduce thier results - a KEY requirement


QUOTE : " Does James Randi represent the scientific community? "

does he clauim to ?? - i am unsure where you are going here

maybe the " scientific comunity " are mostly disinterested in the areas randi delves into - and are mostly happy for him to be a ` firewall ` - keeping pseudo science at bay

in any case - i am unaware of any general denouncement of randi from a scientiftic body , unless you know different ?

PS - of course i do not claim for one sec that a lack of censure = acceptance



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
irrelevant - there is no onus to hold a degree or other accreditation for your experiments to be scientific

if the experiment meets scientific criteria - then that experiment is scientific - perdiod - your qualifications are tottaly irrelevant


So that means anyone can publish a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. Has Randi ever done that btw? I'm curious to know...


several hi profile cases of fraud etc have show this where people of impecable credentials attempted to subvert science for fame , profit or other motives


Yes I know of those cases some were in the news recently.


does he clauim to ?? - i am unsure where you are going here


XVX started talking about the scientific community, which IMO is different from the hardcore skeptic community, even though there are scientists which are skeptics.

On this link I already posted before in this thread you'll see the difference. About a skeptics conference which was little about science and more about preaching skepticism.

www.skepticalinvestigations.org...


maybe the " scientific comunity " are mostly disinterested in the areas randi delves into - and are mostly happy for him to be a ` firewall ` - keeping pseudo science at bay


Now would that be good for science? They have to prove whether it's pseudo science or not now, do they?


in any case - i am unaware of any general denouncement of randi from a scientiftic body , unless you know different ?


At the moment I know of several individual scientists who have denounced Randi: Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Gary Schwartz among others. Mostly because of Randi attempting to debunk their scientific research in the paranormal



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
QUITE : "So that means anyone can publish a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. "

technically yes - most peer reviews are anonymos - to prevent bias - or fawning

but to restate my point - the credentials of the experimenter do not have much bearing on wheather a experiment will be scientific and scientifically valid or not

admittedly - if they are ethical a credentialed experimenter - will know to avoid common pitfalls and falaccies - but a layman can too

QUOTE : "Has Randi ever done that btw? I'm curious to know... "

i have no idea - i dont think he has ever submitted one , but more to the point , does it matter if he has or hasnt ?

QUOTE : "Yes I know of those cases some were in the news recently.


QUOTE : "On this link I already posted before in this thread you'll see the difference. About a skeptics conference which was little about science and more about preaching skepticism. "

such grandstanding , for want of a better term can afflict any feild - in my experience creation " scientists " are notorious for it -

i guess my point is why does one hall full of skeptical yahoos beating thier chests undermine skepticism in general ???

QUOTE : " Now would that be good for science?

yes , and no - there is a fine balance to be had - on the one hand yiu dont want to stifle honest debate or innovation ,

BUT

on the other do you want the scientific community bogged down with crap like the " time cube " or any other crazy notion floated ?


QUOTE :" They have to prove whether it's pseudo science or not now, do they? "

HMMM, that sounds like an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility , IMHO - paranormal claimants tend in my experience - to be thier own worst enemies when seeking acceptance of thier view - as thier findinfs and methodology are rarely presented in a way that allows 3rd party verification - and thier clsaims often vague and poorly explained


QUOTE : " At the moment I know of several individual scientists who have denounced Randi: Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Gary Schwartz among others. Mostly because of Randi attempting to debunk their scientific research in the paranormal "

I knew sheldrake has ` locked horns ` with randi previously - but without picking on sheldrake - he has some volcal critis in more conventional accedemia too



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
I think he would give up the money.

He is not closed minded, like a lot of us he wants scientific proof of paranormal events. Its not an unreasonable request really. Why if these things are all true, according to some people, can you not repeat them in controlled conditions...

I think he will give up the money because he is waiting for definitive proof and when it comes, he will believe it. Though it needs to be conclusive proof i suppose.
Thats what bothers me most about the paranormal and particularly some people who post on this board. It dismays me that they are so reactionary and ready to believe. Whatever happened to rationality? When you ask someone to back up their views or there claims of powers they, dont. I wonder wether this is actually cant.
I am open minded about the paranormal but I need proof. I firmly believe that supernatrual events are all just parts of science we dont yet understand. Until we can understand them they remain fantastical.
People misunderstand goings on and attribute them to paranormal happenings when nine times out of ten this is just something normal they dont understand. I think I know why this is... Religion has moved out of our lives as a dominante force, and people need something to define and justify their existance.
I am by no means trying to insult peoples beliefs, I would just like to see a world of faith turned into a world of understanding.

Forgive me this has turned into something of a rant but I needed to share!
Thanks
Dan



LOL Dang. You are gullible aren't you. Lesson for you: Just cause someone says something doesn't make it so. Example: Used car salesman tells you that he would never lie and that he is not high pressure, but his actions contradict it. Etc.

A person is judged by their ACTIONS, not words. Of course Randi is going to deny that he's closed minded.

But watch every interview he's been on. He ALWAYS tells people that their paranormal experiences are FALSE, that they are misinterpreted, and that they MUST ONLY have conventional explanations.

He will NEVER EVER admit that any possibility that points to anything paranormal or conspiratorial.

He has ZERO skepticism toward the establishment. Ask him about the 1976 Swine Flu fraud which has been perpetuated again today. Ask him to condemn the CDC for their proven lies. He WON'T, cause the establishment is infallible and blameless to him. Maybe he is a shill to keep humanity in a limited left brained materialistic state. I don't know. But his actions are clear.

See my video here about him and his kind:

www.youtube.com...

Also, see here for a list of characteristics about pseudoskeptics. Randi certainly fits them.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
History has shown that when Randi can't explain something, he lies about it. For example, Hal Puthoff of Stanford Research Institute, which published a Nature article claiming that Uri Geller has unexplained telepathic abilities, said of Randi's lies about them in an email to me:


Puthoff:
“Not true at all. They just quote Randi and his pronouncements, e.g., in his book Flim Flam. In Flim Flam, he 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.)

In case one thinks that it was just a case of our opinions vs. his opinions, we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: He said that in our Nature paper we verified Geller's metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He said that a film of the Geller experiment made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us and we just put his name on it. We showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make the film. Etc., etc.”

“Geller did the same kind of remote viewing in our lab, that more than fifty others from the government and army have done as part of the 25 year remote viewing program. If the whole world has remote viewing abilities, why shouldn't Geller have some?”

“Again, these claims of inadequate controls are generally just repeats of what Randi says. The truth of the matter is that none of Randi's claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi's guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi's suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician's tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam.”



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Has anyone listened to the Randi sex tapes by the way? What is the background story and explanation behind them? How did they end up in public hands?

You can download and listen to them here:

www.happierabroad.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 




IMO the man is a fraud and will never give up the 1 mil. Even if 25 ghosts pinched him in the butt at the same time.


Why is he a fraud for exposing frauds? If paranormal phenomenon could be scientifically proved he would have to give up the money but they NEVER have. Saying he should prove it to himself by trying out the SUBJECTIVE experience side (and astral projecting himself or other nonsense) doesn't prove it scientifically.

The guy is giving the paranormal its best chance to be proven, under actual test conditions. Most things that are true are EASIER to prove under test conditions because experiments eliminate variables that interfere with the test.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well I would've flagged this thread.
If it wern't for the absolute disappointment I felt after I clicked.

Still no ticker tape.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Has anyone listened to the Randi sex tapes by the way? What is the background story and explanation behind them? How did they end up in public hands?

You can download and listen to them here:

www.happierabroad.com...



Actual audio recordings of Randi soliciting young men in the late 60's which he admits being authentic, interesting, especially in light of his membership of the FMSF and the fact that he came out as being "gay" in March 2010.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by kolchakshat]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Well I would've flagged this thread.
If it wern't for the absolute disappointment I felt after I clicked.

Still no ticker tape.


Say what? What do you mean? What disappointment? Did the download link work? Were you able to unzip the audio files? What do you mean?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kolchakshat

Originally posted by WWu777
Has anyone listened to the Randi sex tapes by the way? What is the background story and explanation behind them? How did they end up in public hands?

You can download and listen to them here:

www.happierabroad.com...



Actual audio recordings of Randi soliciting young men in the late 60's which he admits being authentic, interesting, especially in light of his membership of the FMSF and the fact that he came out as being "gay" in March 2010.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by kolchakshat]


Did you listen to them? What do you think? What is the story behind them? They are a big mystery and Randi refuses to talk about it.

I heard that they were played in court in a defamation suit between Eldon Byrd vs. James Randi. The jury was disgusted by it, but nothing came of it. Why? Perhaps, if Randi is an Illuminati shill, then he has special protection?

After all, the Illuminati itself I hear, is involved in ritual child sex abuse, according to FBI Chief Ted Gunderson, and many other whistleblowers.




[edit on 17-7-2010 by WWu777]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Randi wants quantitative proof of the paranormal. 99% of what we see that is considered paranormal footage is faked. There are very few things that could actually be proven without the possibility of faking it.

A controlled experiment. Which means you have to trust and have faith that the test proctor is unbiased and not allowing anything sketchy to transpire. How can a psychic prove his ability to Randi? ANything short of telekinisis can be attributed to luck. Telekinisis can be duplicated with many devices.

Astral projection, remote viewing, etc... He can write them all off as coincidence.

Ghosts. If you don't know what a ghost actually is how can you prove it in a quantifiable manner to Randi unless it's willing to sit there and talk to him for an hour and walk him to it's grave? Demons? I'm not sure a lot of occult practitioners are familliar with the million dollar challenge nor do I think they want their practice in the public eye. I think the folks who are actually capable of summoning something such as a demon have little interest in Randi's challenge.

An excorcism. Legitimate excorcisms are done by few people. These deliverance ministries are garbage. The only legitimate practices I've seen were by Catholic Priests. The Jewish excorcism rite doesn't have as stringent requirements as the catholics and islaam's excorcism practice is a mess. At the few excorcisms I've consulted on and particpated in I've seen conclusive proof of the paranormal. Now with proper prep some of these things can be faked, but a proper inspection was done by myself so I know it wasn;t the case. But you'd have to trust me to believe its legit. And no legit excorcism will allow the rite to be recorded on video or audio. They won't allow a lay person in the room. SO it really isn't provable to Randi lest he decides to become a man of the cloth, become a doctor or psychologist, become an EMT or a monk.

So given the ability to essentially debunk everthing paranormal, his mill is safe. Some people you'll never be able to prove it to, unless it happens to them directly. Some people believe everything is paranormal and completely abandon logic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join