37 replies to this topic

[Camille]

Quote

I think many people (myself included) respect Randi, but are disappointed by what sometimes seems to be a closed minded approach to the paranormal.  He is an experienced, intelligent and fascinating man.  I have to admire someone smart enough to expose all the fakes that he has.  That being said, he is perceived by many as a closed minded debunker.  The verdict is still out from my point of view.  Problem is that he doesn't know the credability of those that submit pics to him and I believe that he errs on the side of caution to preserve his own credability (and the million).

Well, in light of this doubt over Randi's credibility, what is the point to be accomplished?

P.S.
Cease fire?!! What is that?  Hamas has already backed out of cease fire talks.  Antifada remains the word of the day, and, in light of today's recent events, Heaven has not yet run out of virgins.  

Aircraft from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are approaching, you say?  Holy s***, that must mean only one thing--another attempted Israeli strike against a Hamas militant.  A sneezing one-eyed dyslexic with acute DT's could aim that missile better...

I guess, in the end, none of us are "safe", or "right."

[flyingorb]

Quote

Well, in light of this doubt over Randi's credibility, what is the point to be accomplished?

Aircraft from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are approaching, you say?  Holy s***, that must mean only one thing--another attempted Israeli strike against a Hamas militant.  A sneezing one-eyed dyslexic with acute DT's could aim that missile better...

I guess, in the end, none of us are "safe", or "right."

Hi Camille,

The point is that hope springs eternal.  If Randi actually acknowledged a photo as paranormal,  Imagine what a ripple effect that would have through the media.  Might even be enough to actually find an answer to the afterlife through a well funded venture.  (yes I still believe in Santa Clause) *LOL*.

Unfortunately you are completely right about the Middle East.  Truth is in the eye of the beholder and a man with nothing to loose is a dangerous man indeed.  Sending missiles in just assures Hamas will find new recruits. :-/

[Rockhauler2k1]

There is always a hook in the bait . Randi does nothing to hide it .

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Above is the million dollar challenge . The hook is as follows :

UNDER PROPER OBSERVING CONDITIONS ( sorry bout the caps)  :-/  What exactly are proper conditions? Does he mean to say a controled environment? Im sure he does.

It surprises me that he doesn't use the adjective CONCLUSIVE before the word evidence  hehehehe

There is a place for him and people like him in the paranormal . They make us question ourselves and our results. People like Randi create a balance .

Randi at one end of the table , and Sylvia Brown and John Edwards at the other . Under those conditions , all you have to do is move to the center of the table and there lies the truth .


Rockhauler2k1

[flyingorb]

I have registered on Randi's Forum and posted an invitation for the skeptics there to visit us.  I am wondering if curiosity exists among them.  This could get interesting.

insightful, Rockhauler, insightful indeed...

[Camille]

Quote

I'll bet dollars to donuts that his response will be something like "this can be easily created" or "this is like looking at tea leaves, if you look hard enough you will always see something". He said something similar (can't remember the exact words) about some pics I sent him.  (without explaining how they could have been created *snicker*)

To be fair though, I suspect he is bombarded constantly by phony photos from charlatans and needs to keep his guard up.  Maybe too much....

Open-mindedness does not obligate a person (Randi or anyone else) to painstakingly anaylyze each and every piece of "proof" thrusted his or her way.

Plus, quite frankly, it can sometimes be a time-wasting, fruitless endeavor.  From my own experience here and on my site, I have obliged some requests and spent time reviewing evidence (photos, testimonial accounts, etc.) and asked very valid questions regarding the natural circumstances during which such evidence was collected, only to have the other person drop out of the discussion, leaving those questions unanswered.

For Randi, multiply that a thousand times over, and his terse responses are hardly surprising.

[JimTheBrit]

Rockhauler2k1 There is always a hook in the bait . Randi does nothing to hide it .

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Above is the million dollar challenge . The hook is as follows :

UNDER PROPER OBSERVING CONDITIONS ( sorry bout the caps)    What exactly are proper conditions? Does he mean to say a controled environment? Im sure he does.

Yes, he does mean a controlled environment. Imagine the following. A medium says she is in contact with the dead and receives gifts from them, straight from the spirit world. Randi goes to meet her, says “Okay, the test has begun” and then goes for a drink at the local bar. On returning two hours later, he finds a tin of beans, a banana and a candy bar on a table in front of the psychic. There you are, gifts straight from the spirit world! What would this prove? Nothing at all. The test controls were too lax, the medium was not monitored properly - she could have gone to the local shop and bought the goods. By ‘proper observing conditions’ Randi simply means an environment in which mistakes and possible deceit is minimised.

Some misconceptions regarding the test whilst I’m on the subject:
-People think that it is Randi himself who controls the testing. This is not the case. Randi may help design the protocols for the tests but he takes a back stage during the test implementation*. The tests are designed and run only with the consent of the applicant that everything is fair and balanced. If the claimant is unhappy with the tests in any way – then no go! If outside expertise is needed by either party, then agreement from both is needed before the person is brought in.
-The paranormal challenge is frequently said to be biased as it’s thought that Randi is the sole judge. Again, this is untrue. The tests are designed so that the results speak for themselves, i.e. there is no subjective judging procedure needed to determine if it has been passed or not. The test is either passed or failed and the result is plain for all to see.

It surprises me that he doesn't use the adjective CONCLUSIVE before the word evidence  hehehehe

To be one million dollars richer the applicant just needs to do what they say they can do under the conditions they say they can do it (all of which are detailed by the claimant on the application form). Nothing more. Randi doesn’t want to know the how’s and why’s. He ain’t after the kind of ‘proof’ required by the scientific community.

Randi at one end of the table , and Sylvia Brown and John Edwards at the other . Under those conditions , all you have to do is move to the center of the table and there lies the truth .

Randi and the popular psychics are often presented as polar opposites but I think this is wrong. Randi just asks for proof that psychics can speak to the deceased (as they claim) and are not, instead, using techniques such as hot or cold reading.

*Edited to add: I've just been rechecking my sources and  in his August 10 2001 commentary, Randi states that he even less input into the testing than I stated.

[Rockhauler2k1]

Jim,

I enjoyed your post ( I'll look forward to seeing more from you here on GV   ;D) and appreciate your response.  

First of all , let me begin by saying that I dont see Randi as being much different from any other skeptic ( including myself to some degree)( there needs to be a little Randi in us all ). My remark about John , Sylvia and Randi was simply meant to demonstrate the difference in opinions and the spectrum of views that exist in regards to the paranormal world and its phenomenon.

There is a rich history that evolves from the trickery that was discovered during the birth of the modern paranormal movement. The early 1900's and late 1800's were full of Wizard of Oz types who made claims of being in direct contact with the afterlife. They were exposed as fakes by those who were intelligent enough to look beyond the smoke and mirrors.

As an investigator, I question everything . If I didnt , I wouldnt be much of a researcher. My integrity wouldnt amount to a hill of beans if I didnt take the time to understand my practice of paranormal investigation. We are all practicing after all. No one has ever returned from the dead to verify information for anyone , including myself. Until the day that happens all I have is my word and my integrity.

Its also important to state that ones integrity can only be equal to ones knowlege :-/. I constantly read , educate and re-educate myself due to the very nature of the task that I undertake ( no pun intended ) . One of my favorite sites is the ISS site . Its very informative to understand the research performed by those who came before. Everything from death weights pre and post mortum to understanding the very nature of death itself , without having to take a visit to find out.

I appreciate people like Randi and what they stand for because ignorance when unchallenged to often and often sometimes become the truth.


Rockhauler2k1

[flyingorb]

Quote

Open-mindedness does not obligate a person (Randi or anyone else) to painstakingly anaylyze each and every piece of "proof" thrusted his or her way.

Plus, quite frankly, it can sometimes be a time-wasting, fruitless endeavor.  From my own experience here and on my site, I have obliged some requests and spent time reviewing evidence (photos, testimonial accounts, etc.) and asked very valid questions regarding the natural circumstances during which such evidence was collected, only to have the other person drop out of the discussion, leaving those questions unanswered.

For Randi, multiply that a thousand times over, and his terse responses are hardly surprising.

You scared them away Camille!  Don't you know yet that you can't ask uncomfortable questions like that?  snickers

I know what you are saying, I get quite a few pics submitted to my site too.  Multiply that by thousands and that is probably the problem Randi faces also.

[flyingorb]

Glad to see you Jim, think about sticking around will you, your posts are quite interesting.

[Camille]

Quote

You scared them away Camille!  

Hardly.  [on further thought, sniffs armpits, checks teeth for stray lettuce, and considers adding more smileys to her emails and posts]

The more likely reasons are that they:

1) didn't know the answers.  

This is usually because they do not understand their equipment, or cannot remember the details.  Many ghost hunters do not keep contemporaneous, detailed records of the natural conditions at the time the evidence is collected.  With respect to photos especially, most ghosts are not seen (or "sensed") at the time the pic is taken.  Rather, they are "discovered" later, when the photos are reviewed.  This in turn can influence, distort, and even create memories of the event.  With that in mind, onto the next possibility....

2) knew the answers, but
       a) felt the questions were
           i)   irrelevant, and/or
           ii)  too critical;

    and/or..

        simply wanted the evidence to be accepted, not put to the test.


Fly, on a separate note, I wanted to say that you are doing an excellent job as Moderator and extend a big THANK YOU for venturing over to JREF and inviting the forum members to the Village.  It has generated some really thoughtful and interesting contributions from all positions.  

[Rockhauler2k1]

Very true Camille,

The one time I witnessed a ghost/spirit first hand  ( full bodied apparition), I took numerous photos of course , while at the same time fighting the normal flee response and add in awe struck and you have the experience described pretty clearly.

The after effect was photos with electrical distortion and a white blob in them . Not that clear beautiful photo that I wanted so badly from the experience. In hind site , I'm pretty sure my hands were shaking too .  :-/
Not condusive to great photography.

I did take something away from the whole experience though.  

I got to see it first hand . No one can take that experience away from me nor can they convince me that it didnt happen . I double and triple checked the area during both day and night conditions and nothing could have presented that hallucination no matter how hard I tried to find it.

I saw it plain and simple . One time in 11 years of research , when I least expected to witness it .

99.99999999% of what is found in photos is found after the moment .

Getting a ghost or spirit on film under controled conditions is definitly worth a million bucks if not a billion because the chances are about the same as hitting the lottery for that amount.

I believe the breakthrough will come with time and advances in technology. Eventually someone will figure it out. Weve been trying for 11 years ( Spirits and I ) and many who came before us spent a lifetime trying only to join the folks for whom we search . You think one of them would have contacted me by now. *Snickers into his hand*  

Rockhauler2k1

[Camille]

Quote

I got to see it first hand . No one can take that experience away from me nor can they convince me that it didnt happen .

Rock, your chilling account of your experience (itself a rarity) raises a point that you had hinted at in an earlier post, one which is probably the most frustrating aspect of this type of research--By their very nature, events such as this may not be capable of reproduction in a controlled environment.  So, what we are left with is anecdotal evidence and photographs, evps, or whatever, which, as you can understand, can be fundamentally flawed.  

But, even in light of the "crappy" photos, that experience is not without its own value--it fuels the drive necessary to keep working, searching, and thinking ....

[flyingorb]

Welcome PygmyPlaidGiraffe,

Glad you dropped in.  For general edification, can you give an example of what Mr. Randi would consider a double blind test?  

[flyingorb]

Hi All,

Just wanted to let you know that Rockhauler hit the nail on the head....again!  Rockhauler was correct in his evaluation of Randi's Spook Photos.  

James Randi had sent me another photo where he recreated the "trace" effect.  Not as nicely done as the first pics presented, but sufficient to prove his point.  

Unfortunately, in my lifelong battle with Windoz 98, another computer crash occurred and I lost the 2nd photo.  As I write this I have moved to winders XP and hope this will help solve the problem.

[move]Congratulations Rockhauler!  You know your stuff![/move]