"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
