Rupert Sheldrake: "James Randi is a Liar"

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
I made my mind up over a decade ago by reading what was written on the subject by both sides, not by reading only one side.
And not by just looking into one anti-Randi ranter like Michael Prescott.

As I said, he's not the only butt-hurt woo dispenser that has attacked Randi.

Glad you don't give your money to charlatans. I watch Uri Geller do a typical "mind reading" trick on the Mike Douglas show (or maybe it was Merv Griffin, those two guys looked so alike I can't remember which show it was.)

Geller is a fraud and Randi proved it so many times that it's hard to believe his name even comes up anymore.

Harte
 

jcolanzi

Active Member
Messages
946
I made my mind up over a decade ago by reading what was written on the subject by both sides, not by reading only one side.
And not by just looking into one anti-Randi ranter like Michael Prescott.

As I said, he's not the only butt-hurt woo dispenser that has attacked Randi.

Glad you don't give your money to charlatans. I watch Uri Geller do a typical "mind reading" trick on the Mike Douglas show (or maybe it was Merv Griffin, those two guys looked so alike I can't remember which show it was.)

Geller is a fraud and Randi proved it so many times that it's hard to believe his name even comes up anymore.

Harte

I've read both sides and read up on Randi in the past.

The research is out their including research by Sony. The research was abandoned because although they were getting results, they couldn't find a way to monetize it.

In "Thoughts through Space: A Remarkable Adventure in the Realm of Mind (Studies in Consciousness" by Sir Hubert Wilkins,‎ Harold M. Sherman

They documented their experiment in long term telepathy.

Whether you choose to believe or not is your option.

I've been experimenting on myself since grade school and I'm 65 now.

I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it.

Who believes and who doesn't believe has no effect on my life.
 
Last edited:

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Messages
13,705
Because he couldn't win the prize.

Randi isn't a liar. He exposes liars.

Harte

He didn't compete for the prize. He contacted Randi about an article Randi wrote and Randi had no proof to back up the facts in his article.

Have you listened to the explanation or just responded?
I'm not spending any of the time I have left listening to Rupert Sheldrake.
I was joking about not winning the prize.

I know all about Randi's (former) prize though. And Sheldrake isn't the only fringe bozo to attack Randi.

Did you try to find Randi's article?
Did you look for Randi's response to being called a liar (again?)

Sheldrake - a man who is himself either a complete fool or a liar, stands up and calls someone a liar, and you believe him?

I know Randi. He may be a little overzealous, but he's interested only in the truth.

It's damn obvious that Sheldrake is not.

Harte

I can prove 100% that Sheldrakes books on Morphic Resonance and the Morphic field, the latter which was included in an episode of Doctor Who, proves beyond any doubt of the integrity and honesty of Sheldrake...and as you know Hartey, DrWho never lies (y) :D
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
Actually, Dr. Who lies all the time.
But, as a time lord, he can use time travel to erase any evidence of it, so it looks to us like he doesn't lie.

Harte
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
"No one can make the preliminary test."
There was no set "preliminary test" in Randi's challenge. The tests had to be agreed upon by BOTH parties - including who would be the judge of success or failure, before any challenge could proceed.

(Randi can say) "Get lost, I had the money yesterday, but not today."
The money for the JREF challenge was never held by Randi. He paid an insurance company to cover the expense should the challenge be met.

"(Agreement not to sue) would be illegal..."
This guy is really parsing the subject. An agreement not to sue is part of the majority of contracts executed all over the world, wherever such issues apply.

"No provision for perjury..."
This led me to think that this guy is an ex-lawyer for a reason. Perjury is judicial matter, not a contractual one. Had Randi put anyone "under oath," that would not have any meaning whatsoever, since the challenge does not itself take place in a courtroom.

"The test is subject to experimental effect... a closed-minded skeptic will always obtain negative results."
Earlier in the vid, the guy claims there has been 'Excellent" evidence of psychic ability demonstrated under scientific conditions (the Windbridge Institute.) It seems that he would prefer these "experiments" because (apparently) to him they were not "subject to experimental effects?"
And, since he brought it up, here's what the Windbridge Institute has to say:
DISCLAIMER: The Windbridge Research Center can only endorse the listed mediums’ successful completion of the eight screening steps. The Windbridge Research Center does not control the appearance, content, or claims made in the mediums’ personal websites or during readings. The Windbridge Research Center does not endorse the opinions or ideas expressed in the websites or during readings or guarantee the validity of the information provided. Neither the Windbridge Research Center nor any associated entities or individuals shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in the websites or in a reading with a medium.
Source
Well, what have we here? Looks like one of those contractual "agreement not to sue" stipulations. I guess this guy's favorite research group is committing illegalities just like Randi.

"The evidence shows.... that they have to be self-evident."
Can't really tell what he means by this, but I think it's safe to say that evidence certainly should be self-evident. Also, it bears repeating - the evidence that had to be presented for the challenge had to be agreed upon by BOTH SIDES before the challenge could even begin.

This (supposedly) ex-lawyer claims to have evidence for the afterlife and that Randi simply dismissed that without saying why.
If this guy actually presented any good evidence for the afterlife, is EVERY researcher on Earth a "closed-minded skeptic" because there has been no further investigation into his "afterlife" claims?

"The claims have to be verified by evidence. Now I ask you, is Randi and expert on evidence?"
I had to stop here. This was the most ridiculous thing (up to that point) that the guy let come out of his pie hole.

Harte
 

Top