Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Psychic Ability & Powers of the Mind
Rupert Sheldrake: "James Randi is a Liar"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 165292" data-attributes="member: 443"><p>"No one can make the preliminary test."</p><p>There was no <u>set</u> "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.</p><p></p><p>(Randi can say) "Get lost, I had the money yesterday, but not today."</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"(Agreement not to sue) would be illegal..."</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"No provision for perjury..."</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"The test is subject to experimental effect... a closed-minded skeptic will always obtain negative results."</p><p>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?"</p><p>And, since he brought it up, here's what the Windbridge Institute has to say:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.windbridge.org/mediums/" target="_blank">Source</a></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"The evidence shows.... that they have to be self-evident."</p><p>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 <u>before</u> the challenge could even begin.</p><p></p><p>This (supposedly) ex-lawyer claims to have evidence for the afterlife and that Randi simply dismissed that without saying why.</p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>"The claims have to be verified by evidence. Now I ask you, is Randi and expert on evidence?"</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 165292, member: 443"] "No one can make the preliminary test." There was no [U]set[/U] "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: [URL='http://www.windbridge.org/mediums/']Source[/URL] 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 [U]before[/U] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Psychic Ability & Powers of the Mind
Rupert Sheldrake: "James Randi is a Liar"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top