Because he couldn't win the prize.
Randi isn't a liar. He exposes liars.
Harte
Because he couldn't win the prize.
Randi isn't a liar. He exposes liars.
Harte
I'm not spending any of the time I have left listening to Rupert Sheldrake.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.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 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
hit the link for Randi's responseNOTE: James Randi responded to this article, and Michael Prescott then responded to James Randi. To read this ongoing controversy, see http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm
It seems we get everyone's voice except Randi's.404 page not found
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Michael Prescott: Ex-skeptic hates RandiHere are some further developments after that first article, including a half-hearted but important rebuttal from Randi (Hebard still agrees with Flim Flam, which says a lot in itself about Prescott's information).
It always fascinates me to hear people who take an 'ex-sceptic' platform - the implication being "I was once like you, but then I found out a load of stuff that you don't know, and also I'm cleverer" - they actually rarely demonstrate any knowledge of or aptitude for critical thinking, but consider themselves an authority simply because they claim to have held certain views previously. A fallacy in itself.
When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became "interested in parapsychology" as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff.
Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, "As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means." He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over
the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! "There were unusual excursions of the data recorder," he told me – again! – "but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations." Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had "selective memory" of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions.
Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the "signed statement" that Rogo says he made.
hit the link for Randi's responseNOTE: James Randi responded to this article, and Michael Prescott then responded to James Randi. To read this ongoing controversy, see http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm
It seems we get everyone's voice except Randi's.404 page not found
However, I read Randi's reply years ago, the link was at the JREF forum.
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Michael Prescott: Ex-skeptic hates RandiHere are some further developments after that first article, including a half-hearted but important rebuttal from Randi (Hebard still agrees with Flim Flam, which says a lot in itself about Prescott's information).
It always fascinates me to hear people who take an 'ex-sceptic' platform - the implication being "I was once like you, but then I found out a load of stuff that you don't know, and also I'm cleverer" - they actually rarely demonstrate any knowledge of or aptitude for critical thinking, but consider themselves an authority simply because they claim to have held certain views previously. A fallacy in itself.
In that same thread are some quotes from Randi's response. For example:
When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became "interested in parapsychology" as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff.
Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, "As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means." He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over
the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! "There were unusual excursions of the data recorder," he told me – again! – "but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations." Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had "selective memory" of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions.
Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the "signed statement" that Rogo says he made.
These people that make money off of the weak-minded (such as yourself) HATE Randi and everything he stands for - because what he stands for is the truth and that cuts into their cash cows.
That, my friend, is truth. Take it to the bank.
Harte