Skeptical Inquirer Vol.IX No. 3/Spring l985; Unleashed...of Poltergeists and Murder: The Curious Story of Tina Resch by William Roll, PH.D. and Valerie Storey (Paraview Pocket Books 2004).
I'm glad you made me find the book in my library because Roll is a parapsychologist investigating the story...not the Columbus reporter, as I remembered. Roll is a well-known parapsychologist.
Do you think Randi has ever witnessed or experienced things he couldn't explain? Would he talk about those things?

Thanks for the info about the book.



I've never met Randi, and don't know too much about him. I would guess that he has experienced things that he couldn't explain. I would think he would talk about them. But I don't know; just guessing.

I bet he would not.

In fact I think that is his problem with me Jim.

Do you think he goes after those he cannot beat?

If you do I have truly missjudged you.

Jack

H.12/O.17 A-X

I think he expresses his opinions freely, as you do. What do you mean by "beat"?

Tony you think Edward could be real? Seriously?
How can anyone whose spiel is "I see a contemporary to you,like a brother/uncle/father eneregy coming through/Whose got the J initial? They're showing me 2,this could be the second month or second of a month..what is this?"

Pleaselets be realistic.
ALso did you get your organizations mixed up in reference to Natasha Demnka(sp?)X-Ray eyes girl? The JREF werent involved in that case.You didn't mention who you were referring,so just in case Ive clarified.

J ack I assume you have passed a driving test.Did you set the conditions in order to take their test? I cannot think of one organisation that would let you set the conditions for their test.
When you get a paranormal ability perhaps people will take you seriously

Harry, how strange you should bring up such a test.

The researchers at the University of Pittsburgh had me do just such a test years ago when I was first starting out.

It was all filmed and they had I believe it was five or six researchers.

They used two lengths of ace bandages (Elastic bandages) to blind fold me.
It was their idea. (A few were followers/students of Randi's work).

So part of your assumption is correct Harry.
I did pass such a test on a bicycle and it was designed by the researchers.
(I have written about it on my site)

And for the record I will once again make it clear I do not believe in the supernatural or paranormal.

I think all of these things are natural though may not be explained at this point in time.

Jack

H.12/O.17 A-X

Harry
You are correct, it was not JREF that did the testing it was CSICOP. And the show was filmed for the Discovery Channel. (I do have it on tape.)

John Edwards, I have not meet the man. My friend, Reverend Dr. Earle Myers was presiden of one of the Congress of Spiritual Churches, and he had full confidence that Edwards was the real thing. He invited me to meet him, but the timing was not good on either of the two invites I had.

Danny
We are on the same side on fraud, arrest them and throw the key away.
Darwin did provide training for several groups of law enforcement. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

isso liwok
Thank you for the reference.

Jack
What can anyone say?

Tony

J ack let me guess, the tapes vanished right?

Nobody will provide testimony to your natural, supernatural powers unless they can test them. NOT if you can send them tapes of you making up a test.

According to that testing method, heck I am an orthopedic surgen!

Again why can you only seem to pass your own test and not others?

Tony the problem is that the people who are using your "methods" shall we say are using them for evil. And as such are being exposed as frauds. I think it bites that you and J ack are caught in the same net, but it happens when you associate yourself with those people, even if through method, or worse yet by claiming they are real.

Tony can you expalin what you mean here? I don't want to read into this yet, before I understand what you are saying.

I mean, in a performance setting, I can appear to do the same thing that he does. But just because I can do something that appears to be the same, it does not mean that what he does is not real. There is a magic effect that allows the performer to appear to be an amazing painter. If I can perform that trick, does that mean all painters use the same trick and only appear to pait pictures?

I can run my bow above the strings of my violin while a CD is playing, and it appears to all that I am a great violinist. Does that mean all violinists pretend?

Being able to mimic something does not diminsh the possibility that others may be able to do it for real.

Tony

Alright so you are taking the "mimic" side of that. That is what I needed to know. If you can DO what others do and it is not real. They can't be real either. That is why I wanted to make sure what you ment before I popped off.

Tony there is one important difference in all of this that you and J ack seem to miss.

We have many many many probably countless VERIFIED accounts of people playing a violin quite well (actually I will thank you to refer to it as a fiddle in my part of the country!) same with painting. BUT we have 0, zippo, nada examples of anyone actually remote viewing. Yes I said it none.

Does this mean that none exist or will exist? NO it does not. BUT it diminishes your comparison I am afraid.

I can say an Alien from Roswell taught me to play fiddle. That does not make it so.

So Tony your friend ,a Reverend,thinks Edwards is real! Have you studied transcripts of his show? Ian rowland has a couple on his site and the JREF site has many.
Can you explain the patter of Edward's I quoted in my last post? It seems when we die we become dumb! We cant explain who we want to contact ,what our names are,and what relation we are to the sitters.I call it afterlife charades!!
A man of GOd such as your friend is already swayed toward an afterlife exsisting anyway.

Actually Harry if you ask me (and this is only an opinion now mind you) Edwards show is kind of proof that maybe we are a little dumb while we are alive.

I enjoy the way people who believe these things point to 2 things consistantly as a scientific "proof".

First is the "well there are a lot of things you can't explain, so some of them must be what I say". Just not a valid arguement

Second is cool,"well you can't PROVE it beyond a shadow of a doubt it isn't what I say". Again not quite a valid arguement.

So armed with ambiguous definitions, a lot of double talk and a steadfast hatred of the messenger the trudge on. No matter what comes up the above 2 positions have them covered as true believers.

Again the fallback position is a great defence attorney tactic. Attack the manner in which they collect evidence when the evidence is against you. Keep up attacks on Randi, make him the subject of debate and you never have to answer a question.

Then if you do bother to sit for testing, claim all manner of "hits" you possibly can no matter how obtuse, and spin misses.

Harry
I'm not really sure what MY studying transcripts would have to to with a friends beleif. I've said that I can mimic what he does, but I have yet to see him in person to make up my mind. Note that I never said that he was real, I said that I don't KNOW (not that I don't suspect).

Danny
I like you.

Tony

This thread is about Randi and you fellas have brought all manner of other information into it.

Good job at obscuring the issue.

Jack

H.12/O.17 A-X

I keep trying to bring it back to Jimmy R.

Randi, Randi, Randi. My GOD, something is coming out of the mirror. I think its Randiman...........

Tony

Your making my point exactly J ack. WHY is Randi the issue? Why was Mark Furhman the issue in OJ's trial?

Do you know how much Bat Guano is collected every year in a cave from the Chillean Fruit Bat? Or how much Yak manuer is deposited every year on the plains of Rapture?
How about how much horse feces is used to make manuer for plant fertalizer?

Well what does this have to do with the subject? Nothing. ITS ALL A LOT OF CRAP! Just as Randi being the issue is.

YOU want to make Randi and the group the issue. They are not. The issue is weather the abilities exist right? NOT if Randi is a maniac. So what if he is? IF you could do what he asks so what?

PROVE him wrong, or better yet Penn and Teller. Prove them wrong. NOT by passing a test of your own devising, but one that is devised by a scientific understanding.

Till then you are an "internet remote viewer" and nothing more.

So start a group to prove Randi is a maniac. Offer a reward for proof. THEN you can make him the subject.

Well Danny,

This thread is about Randi is it not?

Yes, Yes it is.

And I need no one to help me prove my thoughts of Randi.
I do that quite well on my own.

Jack

H.12/O.17 A-X

Again J ack yea the thread is but it is a fine dodge.

I admire your hutspa! (bad spelling there)

You guys bring up Randi every time your point is called into question. It is really silly.