David Icke on James Randi sex tapes, False Memory Syndrome, Pedophilia, etc.

reply to post by WWu777


Don't have it handy. Google is your friend.

I can confirm it's from Randy, it's a rather well known quote actually.

If a conspiracy-theory-believer wants a skeptic to scrutinize the official story from authority, why does the conspiracy-theory-believer not have to scrutinize the unofficial story from alternative media sources?

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Because most unofficial stories fall apart after anything longer than a fleeting glance.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Icke believes wearing the color turquoise for clothing will somehow prevent others from reading his thoughts and provide you with positive energy.

It would take you only minutes to check out his interviews and find out that he wears any number of colors just like anyone else. If you are curious about the truth in your statement above, you can do that.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Really, so he never believed that turquoise was the energy-amplifying color that prevented negative energy and possible interference from other paranormal entities? You know, his Turquoise period. That's what he, himself called it.

There's nothing to research, it's by his own admission. Try harder.

Originally posted by WWu777
Skeptics,
Let's do some psychoanalysis/deprogramming here.

I have some serious questions for you, that you keep dodging. Please address them and we'll take it from there.

1. Why do you believe that everything official and every official front is the truth with unquestioning faith? Why do you believe whatever the media/government/establishment tell you without question, and that there are no big secrets or conspiracies? Why are you unable to assess evidence and testimonials to the contrary?

2. If you dispute that you believe #1, then please name some conspiracies/secrets that are true that the government/establishment does not tell us. And list some things that the establishment is wrong about, and why.

If you can't answer the two questions above, then you've either got something to hide or you are under mind control and not aware of it.

There's no way around it.

Your move.

Maybe you have noticed how most of the highly starred posters on ATS are die-hard "skeptics", making something like 250 posts in 20 days, often in the same forums, and never ever agreeing that something is strange or show any kind of curiosity of the unknown.

What does that tell you? What do you think they are here for? Who spends entire workdays at a conspiracy forum, not believing there is any conspiracies.

I still enjoy ATS though because these guys cant affect which topics gets posted, therefore, new information usually show up here first.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


So here's the thing. This is a site about conspiracy theory discussion. Key word: Discussion. This isn't a Pro-CT site any more then it is an anti-CT site. Anybody that wishes to discuss them, whether they believe they can debunk them, whether they feel they have evidence to prove them, or just because they like to learn interesting new things, has a right to be here.

As a cynical pessimistic skeptic, I can tell you first hand that not ever skeptic on this site disbelieves wholesale in everything that is even remotely related to Conspiracy Theories. I am a person that believes generally you have two stories, the official story and the theorists. The truth is rarely in either, but usually somewhere in between.

When you remove skeptics from the system you endanger yourself to open gullibility and false information. Skeptics keep you in check, and as long as you do your homework, you should be presenting things that stop most skeptics and make them go "Woah, what's that? Hmm, let me see."

The problem though.. is that most die hard skeptics act like Scully in The X-Files.. they wouldn't admit to anything paranormal if it hit them in the head.

Some skeptics, like Scully, could meet vampires, ghosts, mutants, aliens and dinosaurs and they would still deny it to keep their materialistic worldview from crumbling.
The conditioning is strong.

It would have been hilarious if it wasn't also keeping humanity down.

I agree that skeptics play an important part though. Some believers make me cringe.

Why James Randy? He isn't or wasn't much of a magician. He wasn't a household name. He wasn't particularly verbal, or interesting. He came across as a good, firm high school teacher who was perfect to do the job he did, as he just repeated the same "no, no that's not true, no no no" bit no matter what anyone said to him. He pledged a million for "his proof" but wouldn't work with anyone who could win.

But again, why him? The suggestion here is his proclivity would keep him a kept man, going on show after show demanding that his personal kind of proof be shown to demonstrate things that are simply beyond his ability to comprehend because folks had something over on him. In that sense he is also perfect, as stated above, a fire-breathing-vampire with wings could grab him by the throat and he'd never see it as he can't comprehend it.

A point to see here is why are the same people trotted out endlessly on TV, Radio and the rest to make a certain un-evolving point. There are no others available? Why do they all fit a very predictable profile - Bill Nye the Science Guy is just your happy go lucky, bow tie wearing awe shucks high school science teacher - sesame street type folks never lie. This kind of thing shows up with the vaunted ones: Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Marx, and so on. There is one guy for each topic and he is the lord of that topic and all others bow down. The pattern seems far from random.

I always got that bit with Sylvia Brown was staged, it was just too predictable. She's a hack energy vamp who loves attention and is perfect for the villain in this good cop bad cop show. BTW, if you don't think what you see on TV isn't staged, you are not awake yet, as it is very, very staged.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


Most skeptics I know, both on this site and off, are not like that. You only perceive them to be. Most skeptics, myself included, are open to the possibility. We just ask for proof. Scientifically viable evidence of anything paranormal. You have to understand that for some 60-70 years now there has been heavy research done by universities, the heads of which are often those same skeptics. We want to know the unknown, we want to see if there is something that has merit. It is consistently shown to have none.

Most believers that I know are like Mulder, to go with your analogy. He's willing to believe anything, just based on gut instinct. The difference is, despite Mulder and Scully being an awesome tag team, they didn't live in the real world. The real world is filled with: psychotics who believe they can do something that they cannot and charlatans who trick gullible people who really want to believe in something grander.

Skeptics often seem cold and cynical because we've been jaded. We see people willingly believe in superstition with no proof, no evidence of themselves, and get conned by tricksters to believe they hold powers in the supernatural.

Take a step back for a second and think about it. What if it's not the skeptics who are closed minded. What if its you? What if you are willingly suspending your disbelief because of your desire to believe in something, and not seeing the facts as they fall to the table?

There's always two sides.


[edit on 8-3-2010 by WolfofWar]

Well, I've had experiences that has proved the reality of some of these phenomena. Not evidence or proof to you or anyone else, but personal evidence that proves it to myself.
I'm not a believer, I didn't just wake up one morning and think: "today I'll start believing in unsubstantiated claims to make my life more interesting."
I was a skeptic for years, but I had the luck of experiencing paranormal phenomena over the course of a few years which reversed many of my opinions.
I don't consider myself a believer, I consider myself a 'knower' when it comes to certain topics.

I think it's pretty messed up that we rely on the opinion of so called experts that most often haven't even had experience in the subject matter.

When millions of people have had the same experiences maybe it's time we start listening to the people that actually have experience in these subjects instead of self-appointed experts with 0 experience that have been conditioned their whole careers by academia to believe that anything that isn't reductionistic is impossible.

It comes back to the same old question, just like in Ufology.. who can you trust then? We can't believe in generals, intelligence agents, experiencers, admirals or astronauts no matter how high ranking or credible they are.. but we can trust the official institutions and governments that constantly lie to us and does everything in its power to slowly but surely subjugate us!? I mean come on.. they have a vested interest in keeping this information out of the hands of the public.

Randi's organisation is probably just a front to find paranormal talent for black ops projects.

I don't like getting bogged down in conversations since I have so many going on on so many different sites and arguing drains my energy so I'll probably just stay out of this one from now on, keeping up with all the topics is really time consuming and I've said what I wanted to say.

I like the WikiSynergy site by the way WWu777!

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
Well, I've had experiences that has proved the reality of some of these phenomena. Not evidence or proof to you or anyone else, but personal evidence that proves it to myself.
I'm not a believer, I didn't just wake up one morning and think: "today I'll start believing in unsubstantiated claims to make my life more interesting."

So, there is the problem. People's experiences are very subjective. They are the lowest form of evidence in science. I have had a lot of experiences as well, but because I had a heavy understanding of general sciences I was able to understand them differently then if somebody without that grounded knowledge had experienced them.

All most of us skeptics ask for is some evidence. 70 years of hard research and nothing has popped up. That mean's something.

Randi's organisation is probably just a front to find paranormal talent for black ops projects.

That is a completely baseless accusation, don't you think. You say probably, as well, which means you believe, without ANY evidence at all, that it is more then likely such an operation. That type of irrational jump of logic is exactly the issue most "skeptics" have with, as you call them "knowers." It's always either "Oh I experienced it and you didn't," or "I just know!" You make an irrational leap of logic, based on nothing, I'd say that makes anything you believe suspect.
\\

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


You do know that Scully doesn't see, or remember (in the case of her abduction) a single paranormal thing until the 4th season, right?

I just finished watching all 201 hours of the X-Files. So, to add a little more to your false example, Scully actually reveres roles after Mulder's abduction at the end of the 7th season, becoming the die-hard believer to agent John Dogget's skepticism.

So, there's only a small gap of a few seasons where Scully denies evidence she personally observes. Additionally, if you'd ever watched an X-Files episode, you'd know that in the closing monologues if Scully narrates she DOES admit to unexplainable circumstances experienced during the case, only she refuses to let a few unexplainable things blurry the true causes of the rest of the events.

X-Files nerd, I know.

reply to post by WolfofWar


Oh, I know. I was just hoping for some avid believer to walk into the double-standard. Surprisingly, no one did.

A while ago I heard David Biedny mention on the Paracast that Randi liked to pop little lobsters in his mouth whole, then pour boiling water in his mouth to cook them live as he swallowed them. I can't recall which episode he said this in, but he sounded totally serious. A quick Google search lead nowhere, and I'm wondering if anyone here has ever heard anything similar?

Not slacking the guy's reputation btw, I really do respect Randi for the work he's done exposing shysters in the past.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Torgo]

Yeah.. sure they are subjective. And there's mass hallucinations and all sorts of explanations for vague phenomena. All of that still doesn't explain away poltergeist activity or entities manipulating the physical world which is really quite common.
Hallucinations does not affect physical reality.
Some experiences are so blatant that the people that have experienced them know they're true without a shadow of a doubt.
They may even have applied the scientific method to their own experiences to prove to themselves that they're not crazy, of course that would only be possible if it's a recurring phenomena, a haunted house for example.

NO!.. I say probably because I have no proof and I DON'T believe it but I wouldn't be surprised in the least because that's exactly what I would have done if I had the power and lacked the morals.

I haven't seen all the episodes.. just tryin' to make a point. Scully does explain away blatant evidence numerous times even if she becomes a believer in later seasons.

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
Yeah.. sure they are subjective. And there's mass hallucinations and all sorts of explanations for vague phenomena. All of that still doesn't explain away poltergeist activity or entities manipulating the physical world which is really quite common.

Well see, they aren't quite common. What is very common are the events that occur on shows like "the Ghost Hunters." A bunch of people go into a location that is alleged to be haunted by something. they turn off all the lights, scare each other inadvertently and hear a bunch of unexplained sounds that have millions of rational explanations. You will find that there are very few credible instances where a poltergeist activity or a manipulation of something physical occurs, and usually there seems to always be evidence lacking. It's always witness accounts.

Mass hallucinations are only a part of it though. There are many more things your mind can do that accounts for about 98% of paranormal activity surrounding ghosts. Our brains are wired to see patterns and identify threats quickly, not accurately.

Some experiences are so blatant that the people that have experienced them know they're true without a shadow of a doubt.

And for them that's all they need. I need proof. Even if something occurs to me, and I have had experiences that were behind most peoples realm of explanation, I need to dig, research, and evaluate. Most instances they do have rational explanations, it's just those people who "know they are true" stop digging far enough to look at it objectively.

The lady who saw the face of Mary on a piece of toast knew it was true. She experienced it and nothing you will say will change what she knows: That Mary, mother of Jesus, preformed a miracle on her grilled cheese sandwich.

NO!.. I say probably because I have no proof and I DON'T believe it but I wouldn't be surprised in the least because that's exactly what I would have done if I had the power and lacked the morals.

Ok, so here is the problem with that. "Probably" is an adverb that means "Most Likely, presumably." That means if we were to quantify a number of how likely it is that James Randi's foundation is a government paranormal front, on a scale of 1 through 10. 10 is certain, as in 100% yes, it is. 1 is definitely not. 5 is "It's possible" Probably would be higher than an 8.

So say what you mean, please, because you are doing yourself a disservice otherwise. You are making it sound as though you are almost certain it is in fact a government paranormal training center without any evidence to validate your claim.

Bad science, bad logic and a common issue with "the knowers."

reply to post by WolfofWar


How do you know how common they are? I mean it's all relative but on a global or even national scale these things must happen pretty much daily.

What's your skeptical stance towards entities affecting the physical world?
How would you explain it in a non metaphysical way if you saw it with your own eyes.. a bed moving, a chair flying across the room damaging other furniture. What's the rational explanation for that?

Yeah, our minds are tricky.. but the interesting cases are the ones where it doesn't matter if the persons mind were playing tricks on him because the evidence isn't tied to his fallible mind but to our physical reality.
There's no need to talk about personal experiences or hearsay to skeptics since they'll never ever believe it anyway.

But that might be PROOF to them.. you don't know how well they understand science, they don't have to be superstitious and uneducated, that's a stereotype. They might have proved it to themselves courtesy of the scientific method.. how do you know some of the 'believers' haven't done just that?
Can you admit that there's a chance there is believers out there that actually knows?

What about this survey:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

How come education fuels belief in the paranormal?
Aren't we all braindead hippies that believe in power crystals, vibrations and stuff like that?


I used the word probably to mean that it wouldn't surprise me at all knowing everything else TPTB have their hands in. So while I don't necessary believe in it without evidence, I'm just sayin' it wouldn't surprise me and it certainly wouldn't be beyond them.
It would suit their modus operandi and would at once fulfill several functions that suit their agenda.

As a pessimistic cynical 'believer',
if you don't believe they're capable of doing that then I wouldn't consider you a true cynic. Of course, you wouldn't believe in PSI anyway(?) so maybe your cynicism stems from having to deal with 'believers' like me?
My cynicism stems from having to live in an opressive world where most people call you crazy and ridicule you for having different opinions no matter how deserved they are.
Caring about society and people in this world pretty much amounts to being spit in the face.

I often take a step back and wonder.. every single day.
Do you? Do you ever wonder? What if the believers, the conspiracy theorists and the abductees are the real skeptics?

Misanthropy night at my place tonight.. none of you are invited!

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
reply to post by WolfofWar

 

How do you know how common they are? I mean it's all relative but on a global or even national scale these things must happen pretty much daily.

How do you know how common they are? You were the one that stated that they were common. Where is your proof? I can say they aren't common because we don't see a lot of credible claims come out often. Most of the claims of "haunted houses" and paranormal activity come generally from civilized countries, and from businesses, usually hotels. It's interesting that hotels, which get profit off of people that spend nights there, are always the ones with the haunted areas. It's a great business tactic.

What's your skeptical stance towards entities affecting the physical world?
How would you explain it in a non metaphysical way if you saw it with your own eyes.. a bed moving, a chair flying across the room damaging other furniture. What's the rational explanation for that?

I would have no rational explanation for seeing a chair flying across the room, as long as I was able to touch it and examine it. I need to make sure it's not attached to wires and I may need to test for magnetism and see if there was some trickery involved.

Yeah, our minds are tricky.. but the interesting cases are the ones where it doesn't matter if the persons mind were playing tricks on him because the evidence isn't tied to his fallible mind but to our physical reality.

What cases?

What about this survey:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

How come education fuels belief in the paranormal?
Aren't we all braindead hippies that believe in power crystals, vibrations and stuff like that?

A lot of people believe in things, regardless of intelligence. A poll of less than 500 people isn't really an accurate assessment either. Polls are heavily variable with lower numbers. Sort of like the psychic experiments done in the 50's. In low numbers people were getting awesome scores, but as time and data broadened it was revealed that it was just luck and random chance. A larger poll is more accurate than a less than 500 person tabulation.

I used the word probably to mean that it wouldn't surprise me at all knowing everything else TPTB have their hands in. So while I don't necessary believe in it without evidence, I'm just sayin' it wouldn't surprise me and it certainly wouldn't be beyond them.
It would suit their modus operandi and would at once fulfill several functions that suit their agenda.

The "powers to be" are a group of rather dumb, incompetent people most of the time, and subject to their own prejudices and superstition. Currently dowsing rods are being paid for by the US military to be used in Iraq for bomb detection, even after they were proven to be ineffective. In certain platoons, the only thing that is between a young soldier, a son or daughter of somebody, and a bomb, is a freakin' stick.

As a pessimistic cynical 'believer',
if you don't believe they're capable of doing that then I wouldn't consider you a true cynic. Of course, you wouldn't believe in PSI anyway(?) so maybe your cynicism stems from having to deal with 'believers' like me?

I believe there is a lot of stuff we don't understand yet, about the human mind, about nature. I'm open to any possibility, all I ask is to provide some evidence. I've gone on many ghost hunts across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland in search for paranormal events. I probably have done about 80now. They were fun, and none of the people there that were involved were stupid people in any regard, but I simply asked for more evidence than them. They were content with "feelings" and hair raises, and orbs of dust. They would often get upset with me, because I didn't just "believe" that the place was haunted, and I was actually looking for evidence. I wanted something more substantial. I never got it, I'm still looking.

Many years ago I had done some experiments on ATS before involving various means of telepathy, astral projection, remote viewing. There had been several people that claimed to be able to view anything in my house. I asked all of them to describe to me one of the five posters that are on my walls in my bedroom. I gave them my address, a google maps overhead, and a visual blueprint of the room, down to where and which walls these posters were on. When the u2u's came back, even with repeat tries, none of them could preform their skill. A higher majority actually just refused out right to do it.

I'm a skeptic, all I require is some proof. Some evidence. Nobody on your side of the fence, the "believers" the "knowers" seem to want to try to provide it, and many are aggressively resistant to it. That seems to indicate something.

I don't know how common it is, neither do you. I'm just going off my own experiences, friends and families experiences and famous examples.
I don't think it's extraordinarily rare but I'm just going off a small sample of the population.. so, none of us really knows.

Ok.. that's a little more objective than some skeptics, I recently read an old thread where the OP that was a die hard skeptic said he would've scoffed at flying chairs if he had experienced it.

No famous cases or anything.. just talking about those types of phenomena that are hard to debunk because their reality isn't dependant on the fallible mind of humans but on physical reality itself.

Nice to hear that you're actively seeking evidence, I find that admirable and refreshing because I've met so many skeptics that have this arrogant attitude suggesting they know it all already without researching.
I hope you find the evidence you're searching for some day.