Talk:James Randi
Sexual harassment[edit]
We can't prevent it that there are these allegations in our movement. [1] We can avoid sweeping allegations under the carpet as the RC's did with child abuse. If these matters were swept under the carpet later the whole skeptical movement could be blamed as well as those who actually did harassment. (It's likely that at least some of these allegations are true though we don't know (yet?) which.)
We can't insist harassment actually happened without further evidence but PZ Myers is fairly well respected and his blog is sufficient evidence that allegations were made. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Proxima, you are the last person who should be writing about this. You just lack the writing skills.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I hope this version is better. The constant fault finding can make it hard to motivate oneself to do well. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
AGW[edit]
Hi there, I'm new, but not new to Wikis. Regarding his AGW stand, I recall being dismayed to read about it a year and a half or so ago in an excellent book called the Heretics of Science (Will Storr). However, then I am fairly sure I found a message in passing that he had reviewed the science more carefully and changed his mind.
However, when I google, all I find are the links in this article. Does anyone know of Randi's current stance from a more recent source?
Many thanks, Leord (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Should we add anything about Eugenics and social darwinism?[edit]
Apparently on his old website, James Randi went on some pretty harsh pro-Eugenics rants.
Should a section be added for his statements? There is an entire section of Sam Harris's extreme statements, why not for James Randi?
Im curious why James Randi's controversial statements on social Darwinism are not in the article.
"I believe that if the sale and use of drugs were to be suddenly legalized, first, the entire criminal community would be almost instantly crippled due to lack of income, on an international scale. Second, those individuals who were stupid enough to rush into the arms of the mythical houris and/or Adonis’s they would expect to greet them, would simply do so and die – by whatever chemical or biological fate would overcome them. Third, the principle of Survival of the Fittest would draconically prove itself for a couple of years, after which Natural Selection would weed out those for whom there is no hope except through our forbearance, and I’m very, very, weary of supporting these losers with my tax dollars. As reader Wellcome points out, our species – the American sector – made the very expensive and very failed Prohibition experiment, yet we have survived cancelling that error, rather well"
Soarce is here:http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/533-following-up.htm"
Here is another tidbit:
"[T]hose individuals who were stupid enough to rush into the arms of the mythical houris and/or Adonis's they would expect to greet them, would simply do so and die - by whatever chemical or biological fate would overcome them... [T]he principle of Survival of the Fittest would draconically prove itself for a couple of years, after which Natural Selection would weed out those for whom there is no hope except through our forbearance.
...Any weeping and wailing over the Poor Little Kids who would perish by immediately gobbling down pills and injecting poison, is summoning up crocodile tears, in my opinion. They would - and presently do - mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored."
http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/533-following-up.html — Unsigned, by: Wan Abi Sufi / talk / contribs
- No; as it doesn't show support for eugenics. He merely observes that people who engage in self-destructive behaviour are less likely to have offspring and that the traits that lead to such behaviour will eventually die out. If would be eugenics if he supported killing drug users, but that's not what he says. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- CarpetSmoker, the quote shows he clearly favours it, and thinks it is a good thing. He isn't making an observation, the tone shows he believes it's good for society. It at least, shows a support for social darwinism "Let them kill themselves off for the betterment of mankind"
- Even if he doesn't directly say it, he calls the people that will die off from natural selection "Losers"
- It's not like he is making an observation but seems to delight in it.
- Even if it isn't Eugenics, it's pretty damn shitty for him to say that, especially considering that many of the "losers" are probably also skeptics.— Unsigned, by: Wan Abi Sufi / talk / contribs
- That's not advocacy of eugenics. He's very harsh on addicts -- really meanspirited -- but he's only arguing that people whose habits make them self-destructive will simply proceed to do so if we alter our drug policies, and that this is nothing to lament.---Mona- (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's still a pretty damn despicable and reprehensible attitude to have. What of those people who suffer from major depression or similar disorders and may be driven to self-medicate for lack of being able to find anything else that could alleviate their suffering? What of people with physical problems that leave them in constant pain and likewise seek to self-medicate to relieve their suffering? (As someone with both major depression and social anxiety, and physical problems that leave me in constant pain, I can fully understand the very powerful urge to seek relief.) His attitude is apparently that these people are all simply "losers" and the lowest dregs of humanity who cannot contribute anything worthwhile to human society or culture, and the rest of the species is better off without them. Now, if all the artists throughout history who suffered from depression had simply been allowed to kill themselves off with uncontrolled drug-use, as Randi seems to be advocating, well... let's just say that the number of great artists of history who suffered from depression is pretty damn high, and with a policy like Randi is advocating humanity would have been deprived of some of its greatest works of art, literature, and music (just look at the "27 Club" as a small example of what we lost already.) One could even say that depression and pain is almost a requirement to creating great art. Offhandedly dismissing everyone who would seek to self-medicate as being "losers" who don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to humanity, or are even worthy of living (and apparently he believes that their simple existence as human beings isn't enough of a contribution to humanity to warrant their continued life, something I'm sure their friends and families might not agree with) isn't just insensitive and cold, it's a downright short-sighted, reprehensible, irrational Objectivist attitude ("losers" IE "useless eaters.") His comment that "I’m very, very, weary of supporting these losers with my tax dollars" makes it pretty clear that he doesn't see these "losers" as even being worthy of living, and actually resents their very existence as "freeloading" off of him. Reading these comments has caused me to lose a HUGE amount of respect for Randi; I had no idea he held such views and they make me think much, much less of him. I think that people should be made aware of such attitudes in people they would otherwise admire, or else it could leave RationalWiki open to criticisms of sweeping under the rug any unpleasant aspects of the personalities of people RW admires. As an ardent fan of HP Lovecraft I am long used to having to deal with unpleasant aspects of people I would admire, and I don't try to deny his virulent racism. If Randi holds such views as revealed by his comments, they shouldn't just be ignored. In fact, these comments are so bad they make me want to ask if they're actually real, or planted by someone wanting to discredit Randi... but I'll have to assume they're genuine. However, all of this is just my opinion; I'm new here and I'm not going to try to edit anything in or start an argument about it, I just wanted to add my two cents here on the Talk Page. I hope that's OK. :) Nyarlathotep (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not advocacy of eugenics. He's very harsh on addicts -- really meanspirited -- but he's only arguing that people whose habits make them self-destructive will simply proceed to do so if we alter our drug policies, and that this is nothing to lament.---Mona- (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Amongst skeptics Randi is viewed as a sort of godlike figure. But I think it's important to point out where the guys really got some shitty views.
And to be honest, that author may not have any evidence that Randi said he is a social darwinist, but it seems consistent with the collection of quotes where Randi says people with Low IQs should get taken out of the gene pool as well as addicts as losers and "we should let" draconian measures take them out.
I mean that is a really shitty and scary position. We should be able to appreciate James Randi's work without making him into some secular humanist saint. -Wan Abi Sufi
- I think it's worthwhile to include this - though, as CarpetSmoker points out, this isn't eugenics. This is "just" a rather cynical stance on wellfare and a disregard of the psychology surrounding drug abuse. That's worthy to mention, no doubt - but understand that eugenics takes far more steps than sourly concluding that "nature runs its course when it runs its course". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Mad kook[edit]
Dumbfuckery |
---|
Might it not be a good idea to mention under the 'The Dark Side of Randi' section that James Randi has a history of seemingly pathological lying (as detailed in this article about him)? For example, in the 1970s Randi claimed in an interview to have examined the work of Dr Rupert Sheldrake concerning telepathic abilities in dogs and that his own tests did not reproduce the findings of Dr Sheldrake. Sheldrake himself alleged that in response to this interview he contacted Randi and inquired about the data of these tests which lead Randi to first fabricate excuses only to eventually admit to him that he had not conducted them in the first place. These fabrications included claims of the data having been washed away in a flood (which, as the author notes, took place four years before the alleged tests) and the dogs used in the test having been relocated to Mexico (which means outside of anyone's reach, apparently) because their owner died in a tragic accident. Despite this he publicly continued to claim that the data was available at their website and that Sheldrake could have always simply contacted him (thus denying that Sheldrake ever did so). The author of the article confronted Randi with his research into this affair in 2011 and Randi continued lying, even doubting that he ever said that any tests took place to begin with. When presented with evidence to the contrary and the author's overall impression of him he finally concedes that he 'sometimes' lies yet that he does not know 'whether the lies are conscious lies all the time' and finally ending with graciously allowing that 'there can be untruths'. Aside from this the article also mentions that he tells outlandish lies about his own past, claiming for instance that he had been born with an IQ of 168 and that as a result he was given a special pass that exempted him from attending school. Seems like something worthy of inclusion but I am not familiar enough with Wiki editing, etiquettes and style to do it, I think, so I would appreicate it if someone else would give it a try. --88.69.15.85 (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) |
Million dollar challenge[edit]
Dumbfuckery wall'o' text |
---|
A message to the The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge promoter James Randi you still owe me, Robert Lindblad, $10,000 from when I beat you at your contest called PUT UP OR SHUT UP in 1992 .... and you never put up the $10,000 you promised or shut up about your outright lie that psychics don't exist you then even raised the prize to a million and changed the name of the challenge after I won your challenge and being a magician you magically decided to hide that truth from everyone pretty easy to do when you choose what to tell people and not what to tell people ... as a magician your profession is to hide the truth and you have done so very well too bad you incorporated the outright lie that psychics do not exist in your act. And when you state that police have never mentioned that a psychic has ever solved a missing childs' case you know why ... it is because police never mention their informants whether that person is psychic or not however like a deceptive magician you leave that fact out of your statement... if you just stated that some psychics are fake but not all and I want to weed out the fakers you would sound better and it would make a lot more sense. Just visit my website where their are news articles and investigative documentary concerning my work that prove it. You believe in James Randi professing that psychics do not exist. You have read his books and listened to him speak however he has created a very narrow point of view from which to view the subject he has created that psychics do not exist. So it being that you believe absolutely in what he is saying you know as an educated observer that evidence that is proven through investigation of a subject is undeniable. Here is undeniable proof documented by investigative journalists: The articles of Le Journal de Montreal 31-05-98 & 01-06-98 on my site are certifiably acceptable in a court of law as evidence. In the article of Le Journal de Montreal 31-05-98 I stated to the mother Saturday morning over the phone within two minutes of her call that her son who had been missing for near a month and a half had accidentaly drowned and in which body of water his corpse was. The next day they found his corpse floating in the body of water which I had pointed out to the mother the day before and this was printed in the Le Journal de Montreal of 01-06-98. When the mother called me she had asked if I heard of her sons' case. I said "No but I can help." She then filled me in on the details that he had been missing for near a month and a half and that police with hundreds of volunteers, divers, searh dogs, and helicopters had been searching daily since the day he went missing with no results as to what happened to him, whether he was living or dead, and his whereabouts. Within two minutes I told her that her son had accidentaly drowned and in which body of water his corpse was and the next day they found his corpse floating in the body of water I had pointed out to the mother. Their is also another news article providing undeniable evidence concerning a dog I found in Lake Oswego, Oregon from here in Montreal.
Contrary to what is written here, and I'm surprised to see this write up here because rationalwiki is normally scientifically sound, Randi's challenge didn't (necessarily) disprove anything paranormal. In order to win the challenge, the test subject had to score 100% accuracy. That isn't the standard for scientific claims which is that something has to be 'statistically significant' to, at least, merit further study. Since the challenge did not use proper scientific protocols, it couldn't conclude anything. The challenge was nothing more than an ongoing publicity stunt to dishonestly attempt to discredit all paranormal claims. "If you're so certain in your paranormal abilities, put up or shut up, take Randi's challenge" was often heard, or something like it. Well, Randi's challenge itself used pseudo-scientific methods. Randi did good work exposing frauds and charlatans, but he himself is, in many ways, a fraud and a charlatan. So, essentially, I think either this sentence should be removed from the article: "No one has ever produced any actual evidence for faith-healing, telepathy, psionics, dowsing, precognative psychic friends with astral bodies, past life remembrance, or spectral manifestations of any kind", or an explanation of the failure of the challenge to use proper scientific protocols should be added. — Unsigned, by: Robert Lindblad / talk / contribs
|
If you feel like proving me wrong[edit]
All you have to do is describe the experiment he had you do and the methodological controls that were in place. If you can accurately describe such an experiment, even if you make it the fuck up, it'd be enough for me to conclude you're at least not batshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
Apparently, Randi is right that people with low IQ shouldn't be able to reproduce. It's for the science and reason. We should kill or spay all the faithheads and accomodationists, and not just psi researchers but also FTL and extrasolar planets researchers. Astronomical observation isn't good enough because nothing can travel faster than light. Accept it. Yours, Dracus Eternus the Truth Harbinger. 81.162.223.132 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
Praise[edit]
Don't praise him too much, he's not that good. Miss gleaming (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
KiwiFarms is a reliable source, trust me[edit]
![]() |
---|
“May 3, 1999 To Whom It May Concern: You are one of those persons who may have received a strange and uninvited packet in the mail, purporting to deal with me and my history. Documentation is contained in the packet that seems to indicate a disgraceful series of events, a police record, arrests, and immoral, illegal, behavior on my part. It claims that a recording contained in the packet is of an officially-placed wiretap that was in operation on my phone years ago, and that proves shameful actions that I performed at that time. Taken as presented, this material might well have caused you to doubt my character and validity. If this possibility has not occurred to you, I apologize. The attached document is being sent to you and to a number of others who have in some way participated with me and/or have supported me or the James Randi Educational Foundation. The senders pf these packets have been involved in a concerted effort to undermine our work, and rather than attacking us directly, have chosen to stab us in the back. I regret having to send you this material, but I think you'll understand that there is no other way that I may hope to neutralize the damage this campaign may have done to me and my cause. Any feedback you may wish to provide to me would be welcome. I want you to be completely informed on this matter, and I will do all I can to help you understand. I'm sure you will relate to my dismay and concern, and I again express my regrets at having to involve you in any way. If you did indeed receive this material, I ask you to observe the request at the bottom of the last page of the attached document. The Postal Inspector involved needs as much material as can be assembled, and your help is welcome. If you have not -- yet -- received the packet, I ask you to be on the lookout for it. It is usually mailed from a location in the USA, in a brown kraft-paper envelope measuring 4" by 6" and bearing a paste-on label. The packet should be handled as little as possible and sent as directed in the document. Thank you for any help you may offer in this respect. Sincerely, James Randi And here's the full document.....
April, 1999. To Whom It May Concern: In any battle, the character of the enemy is something that should always be determined and evaluated. One can only hope to be facing an opponent who at least respects the basic rules of human behavior. After reading this account, I believe that you will have a better understanding of the quality of my enemies. I believe that the old saw still holds: Truth will out. In these few pages, you will learn to what lengths certain people have gone, and to what depths they will sink in their desperation. It is no secret that the undersigned has for many years been very actively involved in investigations of paranormal claims. Some persons have believed that I consider the parapsychologists and the "psychics" to be my enemies; that is far from true. My real enemies are those who would try to prevent a proper and complete investigation from taking place, and would try to prevent the results from becoming known. Their motives for such actions are varied. Many self-proclaimed "experts" resent the fact that I have exposed their fumbling and their mendacity. The performers of psychic trickery have feared that responsible persons would awaken to recognize how they have been deceived. Both groups, cherishing their small fantasies, would do much to see me silenced. This statement will, I believe, expose the extent to which a certain group of my enemies have gone to discredit me. It should shock and repulse responsible and decent members of the media, the public and the academic world. I ask you to note that I am preparing this statement as an independent individual, and not on behalf of any organization or colleague with whom I am affiliated. It is an action that I take with full knowledge of my liability under the law and my personal responsibility for having absolute proof of everything I state in this document. This statement is not made lightly, nor will I retreat from one word of it. I have a certain reputation for being able to support any statement I have ever made. Some have chosen to doubt that fact, and have subsequently regretted that decision. x x x x x x x x x x It began when in February of 1983, NBC-TV broadcast a "special" about my battle against the "psychics." Prominently featured in that program was Uri Geller, a showman from Israel who claimed psychic powers and who was at one time believed by some scientists to really have paranormal ability. Several of his fans and supporters were also represented on that program, rather unfavorably. In July, an anonymous blackmail campaign was started against me. Packets of defamatory material -- consisting of newspaper clippings, a fake "rap sheet" and a cassette recording -- were mailed out to (initially) at least 30 members of the media, my neighbors, and my colleagues. The way it was presented, and on first perusal, the material appeared to establish that I was a person of very low character, and, in fact, a criminal. It was of such a nature that it most certainly could damage my career and reputation, regardless of the fact that the information contained in the packets actually was either total fiction, carefully edited, and/or easily explained. All that will be discussed in the following account. I have no idea of how many packets were mailed out altogether, nor can I determine just how effective this smear campaign was. Many persons I contacted denied that they had ever received the blackmail material, though I know they did receive it. More importantly, one letter addressed to me arrived from Sweden -- at a time when the prime suspect was in Europe -- stating that unless I ceased my investigative work, this material would continue to be circulated. This letter brings the entire matter into the legal area of blackmail. (More recently, the threat has been issued that unless the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) pays out the million-dollar prize before July 4, 1999, the writer will distribute the blackmail packet to "thousands" of persons. This is a threat that I cannot afford to ignore.) At the very onset of these events, I contacted the FBI office in New Jersey, who turned the case over to the Postal Service Investigation Department in Newark, New Jersey. Postal Inspector Ray Mack began work on it which continues to this day. He presently has a mass of evidence on hand that demonstrates the depth of this extensive effort to nullify my effectiveness. Those newspaper clippings, far from being something I would be ashamed of -- had they been available to the reader in unedited form -- detailed my battle against the police force of Middletown, NJ. A police officer, Steven Xanthos, had illegally searched and physically assaulted friends of mine, and I had brought the matter to the attention of the public via meetings and press releases. (More about the eventual fate of Xanthos, later in this document.) As a result, I was harassed almost every time I drove through Middletown, was falsely arrested for fictitious traffic offenses and equally false minor infractions of the law, until the police there were satisfied that I was silenced. I paid many thousands of dollars in legal costs to defend myself against these charges. But I was not silenced. The tape cassette which formed part of the blackmail package, rather than being the product of a "tap" on my phone, as the blackmail package claimed, was a copy of a tape that I was specifically asked to make back in 1968, by the police chief -- Zerr -- of Rumson, New Jersey, where I lived at that time. That request was because of obscene phone calls I'd been receiving at home, at all hours of the day and night. The object of my conversations on that tape had been to keep the callers on the line and thereby trace and identify the persons responsible. Zerr informed me that though a recording could probably not be admitted into evidence, it would be a powerful tool to possess. (At that time, to establish a trace, it was necessary to keep a caller on the line a minimum of four minutes.) That investigation resulted in a minor in a neighboring town being identified and charged with the crime. At that time, the minor's lawyer was informed by the local police that I possessed a recording of the phone calls. The very next night, my home was broken into, and only my small reel-to-reel tape recorder that had been connected to the telephone, was taken; no other valuables were touched. Police subsequently found the minor in possession of the recorder and its tape reel, and he was then also charged with the break-in. The tape recorder held the very tape that was subsequently given to officer Steven Xanthos by the local Rumson police who investigated the break-in for me, in an apparent show of police solidarity with the Middletown force. (Subsequent to that event, in 1984, I was again similarly plagued by similar calls, and the calls were traced, almost instantaneously this time due to improved technology, to a teen-age girl who admitted the fact, but that case did not go to court.) The young man who did go to court and was convicted of both crimes, tried to later avenge himself on me by claiming that my house was full of pornography -- a dreaded crime in those days. He said he knew that because when he had broken into my house and stolen the tape recorder from my office, he had observed an article on pornography in my typewriter. That was true. That article was being prepared by me for editor John Durniak of Popular Photography magazine, and it was a lighthearted spoof on what different cultures -- and eras -- have believed to be pornographic photography. Steven Xanthos, then a senior police officer on the Middletown force notorious for conducting illegal searches without "probable cause," set out to do all he could to damage me. Thus, in March of 1983, when three men showed up at the Middletown police department pretending to be conducting an investigation for the Department of the Navy in Washington, DC, the Middletown police chief, Joseph McCarthy, fell for the ruse and happily turned them over to Xanthos, who was only too anxious to help them. They said they were officially investigating James Randi. They were told fanciful tales about orgies that I had conducted at my home with children, shown pornographic photos that Xanthos said were of myself and a Haitian friend (Martial Roumaine, of New York City, one of my friends who had been harassed by Xanthos) and there was all sorts of information given them on criminal activities that Xanthos said I'd been involved in. It was all fiction. Not long after this, passing through Middletown late at night on my way back from New York City, I saw a car pulled over to the side of the highway by officer Steven Xanthos. It was a "hippie" van, exactly the kind of vehicle that Xanthos specialized in. He was inside, searching the van by slashing up the seats and throwing everything out the door onto the road. I approached the two terrified kids who were standing outside, and advised them that they had rights, and that Xanthos would have to prove "probable cause" elements other than their long hair and painted van, to be properly stopping and searching them. Xanthos emerged from the van, flustered, and yelled at me that I was "interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duty." I left the scene after giving my phone number to one of the kids. Years later, I learned from that same kid that Xanthos had confiscated my number from him. The next night, I was arrested by the Middletown police, spent the rest of the night in a cell, and was released the following day. I was then charged with "interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duty," and was fined $100. x x x x x x x x x x x x Within a month, the blackmail campaign was started. Editors of newspapers received packets. My neighbors began bringing them to me. I was called from all over the country and told that this material was being sent everywhere. By conservative estimate, hundreds of such packets were sent out, from various postal districts around the USA, to domestic and foreign addresses. Postal Inspector Ray Mack, as part of his investigation on my behalf, visited the Middletown police department giving as his premise that he was investigating me. That made them very co-operative. Inspector Mack spoke with Chief McCarthy and with Officer Xanthos and was given the whole pack of lies. He took with him two or more of the pornographic photos, the source of which has never been established. But it was established beyond question by Inspector Mack that those persons in the photographs were neither James Randi nor Martial Roumaine, and in any case, the photos were circa 1930. Of course, it was incredibly inept of the Middletown police to allow themselves to be taken in by three characters who claimed they were with the US government. But those police have never been known as intellectual giants. Two of the men who carried out this subterfuge were actually persons who were used as part of the NBC-TV "special" program previously referred to. Since they had not come out too well on that program, they had chosen this means of taking their revenge and trying to neutralize me. Unable to fight me with the facts, they had resorted to a method that has been used before by desperate persons facing exposure as frauds, incompetents or simple liars. The three men who showed up at the Middletown police department to ask for "dirt" on James Randi were persons well-known to those who follow the "occult" world. One is a performer, the other two are merely followers. The first is former "psychic" star Uri Geller, and the others are Eldon Byrd, a would-be parapsychologist who has contributed much nonsense to the literature of pseudoscience, and Robert Warth, publisher of a minor UFO newsletter. Byrd had used identification documents he carried from a project he was then doing for the US Navy, to pose as an investigator for that service. The Middletown police accepted this ID as legitimate. Byrd was soon after fired from that position when he was arrested, and he can never again hold a federal job. (A few years ago, in California, I confronted a UFO fanatic who had come into possession of the blackmail material. He'd written a letter to the FBI and to a group of scientists in Los Angeles, repeating the scandalous drivel he'd chosen to believe. In front of an audience assembled to hear my lecture, I had the great pleasure of punching him out -- to a standing ovation. But it's little satisfaction, considering the damage that he and others like him, along with the principals, Geller, Warth and Byrd, have done to me.) Blackmail -- defined as the actual distribution of defamatory material accompanied by a threat of some sort of physical, professional or financial damage -- is one of the most despicable acts of mankind. And it is a crime. It tries to be an assassination of reputation and character. It seeks to silence victims by frightening them into submission. It is done in the dark, from the protection of anonymity. It is a cowardly, detestable, malicious performance. I hope that you will recall this account when next you consider those who have chosen me as a target. And I hope that when critics of my work make comments on it, they will remember this document. Further information on the matter is available to responsible persons who ask. Those who have distributed the blackmail packets have characterized the audio recording as a "tap" made on my telephone by the police. The fact that all the calls on that tape are calls made to me and not by me, shows the true nature of the tape. The tape was made by me, at the instruction of the Chief of Police of Rumson, New Jersey, for the purpose of obtaining evidence on the night callers. A careful listening to the tape establishes this beyond doubt. The distributors cite references that are simply not on the tape, and they fail to mention its provenance. The fake arrest record that is part of the packet, is ludicrous. I am shown with a huge grin, holding a number on a piece of cardboard. That photo resulted from an event in about the year 1963, when I had been taken "into custody" by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (I&NS), on a technicality whereby I was required to physically leave the USA and was then free to re-enter after 24 hours. This arose because I had "worked" for an employer that was not listed on my work visa at that time. That was a technical error, not on my part, but on the part of the I&NS, since I'd not been paid, and was thus not actually employed. However, the I&NS officers suggested that since I was scheduled to return to Canada anyway, and already had my air ticket, it would be simpler to just go along with the system and all would be resolved. I agreed. I was not incarcerated, I was not accompanied to the airport, and I never heard anything more about the matter. But the blackmailers dug up this dreadful "arrest record," and are now holding it up as evidence of my perfidy and criminal history. It would be well to relate another aspect of this matter that is powerful evidence against the detractors. While I lived in New Jersey, I applied for American citizenship. When the time came for my examination before the I&NS officer, in which I knew I would be asked the usual questions about U.S. government and history, I was hit with the question, "Have you ever been arrested?" With some trepidation, I told the officer about both cases. He seemed unmoved by both accounts, and said to me, "Mr. Randi, I lived in Middletown, and your arrest there I consider to be a definite plus toward your being granted citizenship." I was relieved. The officer continued. "Now I have to ask you questions about the U.S. Constitution and system of government." He paused, then looked up at me. "Mr. Randi, who was the first president of the United States?" I rather saw the direction he was going, and went along with it. "Richard Nixon?" I asked. "Ummm, no. But that's close enough." He stood up, reached across his desk, and shook my hand with a big smile. "Welcome to the United States of America, Mr. Randi." Shortly thereafter, I was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in a hall in Newark, New Jersey. I relate this event to show that my whole record was and is known to the U.S. government, yet I was granted citizenship. Had there been any truth to the horrendous canards that are presently being circulated, that would not have happened. Furthermore, when the would-be parapsychologist Eldon Byrd sued me in Baltimore a few years ago, his lawyer brought up the famous tape recording as evidence against my character. My own lawyer, at my insistence, asked that the entire tape be played for the courtroom and jury, so that the true nature of the record would be understood, instead of being misrepresented as it usually was. It was played, and Postal Inspector Ray Mack, who followed this matter from its inception, was a witness we brought in to validate the true nature of the recording. His evidence was accepted by the jury, who then gave Eldon Byrd zero of the four penalties he was demanding of me, totaling thirteen million dollars. My detractors claim that at that trial, I was established to be "a malicious liar," and that I was found guilty. The truth is that (a) the term "malicious liar" was invented by Byrd's lawyer, and was not any part of the jury's decision, and (b) I entered that courtroom having already admitted that I did indeed make the statement about Eldon Byrd for which he sued me, but that I did it based upon evidence supplied to me. I was notconvicted of having made that statement; it was already part of the record. I had said that Byrd was "a convicted child molester," while I should have said that he was "an admitted child molester," a fact that was developed during that trial -- though I was the defendant in the case! Byrd had plea-bargained himself out of the original charge, settling for a lesser charge and a summary judgement. This was unknown to me. In any case, I certainly won that case, since I was represented pro bono most efficiently, and paid Byrd not a nickel. x x x x x x x x x x x Now you know the actual facts behind the accusations. I cannot hope that this document will receive the attention or the circulation given to the scandalous fantasies that have been giggled over by so many for the last sixteen years. Those who really know me simply refuse to believe what was contained in the blackmail package, and also know that I would never, under any circumstances, yield to such pressures. They also know that there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in my life that cannot be known to anyone, that can cause me to back away from my chosen work. I am my own person, and always will be. The blackmailers cannot recognize that fact. I have felt it necessary to issue this statement so that those who may have believed any or all of the scurrilous attack that was committed against me, can have the facts to consider, rather than the invented ravings that have heretofore been circulated. I have no intention of softening my attacks on nonsense. In a battle that I suspect I cannot win, I continue to fight. Perhaps -- is it a futile hope? -- there will come a day when superstition, fear and scientific illiteracy will no longer rule our minds. Then, perhaps I will be vindicated. Until that time, I can only hope that those with whom I disagree will at least agree to pursue their ends as responsible, honorable persons. It is not too much to ask.” Randis story about the tapes has changed multiple times. There was a copy of them floating around awhile ago but its dropped off the face of the earth. Interestingly enough any mention of it has been scrubbed off his wiki page too. If you listen to the actual tapes, its very very obvious the story is bullshit. Also, supposedly the people spreading the tape are blackmailers. Releasing blackmail material publicly kind of defeats the purpose of blackmail. Found it. It isnt hosted anywhere but you can still download a zip. http://www.happierabroad.com/JamesRandi.zip ^(NSFW obviously) Link to original poster: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/rationalwiki.14720/ |
Reverted edits[edit]
I tried to re-word them, and you reverted them again. In such case: what is wrong with them? How i should word them in way acceptable for page? --95.167.183.120 (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Minimal Power Level[edit]
What's the minimal Power Level which wizard needs to complete Randi's challenge? In other words - which is the weakest, least powerful supernatural character who, nevertheless, can complete Randi's challenge? My first examples: 1) can make candle-light sized fire; 2) can create tiny light equivalent to tiny LED; 3) can create 1-V electrical current or 1-Lumen light; 4) can telekinetically lift a single fine object (e.g. feather, 1-pence coin, single A4 paper); 5) is obviously supernatural creature (e.g. ghost, alien, spirit, etc) who is obviously visible to naked eye; 6) same as previous examples, but so weak that effect can only be seen under microscope (not a big problem, as the commission does have microscopes). --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that "wizards" do or could exist. So there is no point is speculating about their power levels. Demonstrating that supernatural claims are nonsense is the whole point of the challenge.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- "Demonstrating that that supernatural claims are nonsense" is part of my idea. Analysis explain what magic either doesn't exist or is useless. As such, we could try to determine what is the minimum supernatural power required to win at Randi's Challenge - as argument for magic not existing - since if even the most absolutely pathetic kinds of magic don't exist, then anything bigger should also not exist. --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- You still didn't answer the question. Which is the weakest, least powerful supernatural character who, nevertheless, can complete Randi's challenge? --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, take your bloody fan fiction somewhere else, for fuck's sake! Nobody's fucking interested here. Spud (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's all aliens magic and other nonsense from this user. Trying to further define useless speculation does not mean that it ceases to be useless speculation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- What about dropping the fan-fiction part and answering the "what's the minimal power which supernatural character needs to complete Randi's challenge/which is the weakest, least powerful supernatural character who, nevertheless, can complete Randi's challenge" question? --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Because it's pointless speculation that nobody's interested in apart from you. Nobody's going to answer your question. So, you might as well sod off. Spud (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's on the same level as trying to debate the colour, thickness and water-repellence of bigfoot's fur. Or the spectral qualities of a fairy's wings. There are no bigfoots of fairies around, and no evidence that they exist. So talking about their qualities on this wiki is pointless. In another thread you want to speculate about alien technologies.
- This all might be fun stuff - but it's not for article-pages on this wiki.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Because it's pointless speculation that nobody's interested in apart from you. Nobody's going to answer your question. So, you might as well sod off. Spud (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, take your bloody fan fiction somewhere else, for fuck's sake! Nobody's fucking interested here. Spud (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)