Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Still Waters

Recommended Posts

You know, it would have helped if the OP would have said something about this being a biased source. I don't know anything about JREF. All I had was that link. It would be much appreciated if next time if someone would simply point that fact out to me. I believe Shadowsot did...

I saw that and that was the point of the post, to offer a neutral ground by seeing both sides of the story. I know where you are coming from, I remember getting excited about Roswell Rods, I think it might have even been Shadowsot who pointed me in the right direction there quite some time ago when he had much bigger ears (LOL - avatar joke) New claims come out, it pays to see these titles as guilty until proven innocent, and see what other sources can tell us on these claims.

Anyhow, back on track now I hope, all sorted and done, the claim is embellished, we all see that now. It won't be long before someone comes along and states how they think Randi is a fraud and we will see where the bias comes from :tu:

As a side note, Chrlz like me, tends to fire both barrels and wait for the smoke to clear, so many woo claimants come here, it is expected they will be the first cab of the rank, if you ever need good photography advice, particularly analysing submitted claims, Chrlz is the goto man. If you had experienced some of the wild and rude claimants we see, it would be apparent as to why some of us are a little edgy at times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, a few of the skeptics here are trigger hapy. Comes from being here for a long while.

Not a good thing to develop a habit of and I sometimes find I do it and have to pull back.

Aso far as the JREF, from what I know about it with Randi retiring it is being folded into Michael Shermer's Skeptic organization.

The JREF was founded after Randi split from CSICOP due to him pursuing Uri Geller.

It was pretty much built around him, and there has been some issues over the last several years with the management when he tried to retire initially. At this point, he is retiring for good and the organization can't really survive without him.

It's scaling back heavily while whatever is being worked out is being handled by Skeptic and others.

Since I never really had any direct dealings with them, my biggest disappointment is the ending of the conference out in Vegas.

Lots of good speakers and presented, but the crowd was the big draw.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To give an idea, some of these guys literally filled out the forms in scribbles and crayons. Some turned up drunk and rowdy, or demanding that they refund costs they spent showing up. Also while drunk.

Then there are the ones who renegades on the agreements they signed stating they agreed the tests were fair after failing.

After many years, Randi has retired with his partner, that he was finally able to marry after many years. I have issues withave the egos that plague these small groups, but will miss the JREF.

And they wonder why it is terminated.......... and have the gall to complain about it.

amazing isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that and that was the point of the post, to offer a neutral ground by seeing both sides of the story. I know where you are coming from, I remember getting excited about Roswell Rods, I think it might have even been Shadowsot who pointed me in the right direction there quite some time ago when he had much bigger ears (LOL - avatar joke) New claims come out, it pays to see these titles as guilty until proven innocent, and see what other sources can tell us on these claims.

Anyhow, back on track now I hope, all sorted and done, the claim is embellished, we all see that now. It won't be long before someone comes along and states how they think Randi is a fraud and we will see where the bias comes from :tu:

As a side note, Chrlz like me, tends to fire both barrels and wait for the smoke to clear, so many woo claimants come here, it is expected they will be the first cab of the rank, if you ever need good photography advice, particularly analysing submitted claims, Chrlz is the goto man. If you had experienced some of the wild and rude claimants we see, it would be apparent as to why some of us are a little edgy at times.

Maybe I'll give him a second chance, not that it matters to him, I would guess. I get it tho...I can be quick with my mouth too and I'm sure some people will ignore me at some point over it. I'll just try to remember this and try to tone it down. I think I will also stay away from threads in areas I do not care about...I wasn't trying to rile up the ones that are passionate about this topic...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, a few of the skeptics here are trigger hapy. Comes from being here for a long while.

Not a good thing to develop a habit of and I sometimes find I do it and have to pull back.

Aso far as the JREF, from what I know about it with Randi retiring it is being folded into Michael Shermer's Skeptic organization.

The JREF was founded after Randi split from CSICOP due to him pursuing Uri Geller.

It was pretty much built around him, and there has been some issues over the last several years with the management when he tried to retire initially. At this point, he is retiring for good and the organization can't really survive without him.

It's scaling back heavily while whatever is being worked out is being handled by Skeptic and others.

Since I never really had any direct dealings with them, my biggest disappointment is the ending of the conference out in Vegas.

Lots of good speakers and presented, but the crowd was the big draw.

Ah, Michael Shermer...there is a name I am familiar with. I don't know a ton about all of his work, but I have found his views on religious beliefs and the way the brain works, interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... he is a bit ofor a mixed bag.

Happen to have gotten mixed up by proxy in a bit of a scandal involving him.

Still don't know who was right and who was wrong.

His work is good, don't get me wrong.

Met a bunch of people for whom his book was their big influence, like Sagan's Demon Haunted World was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Folks, dial back the attitude and keep it civil, please.

We all know better than to resort to name-calling, which is not only against the rules of UM but comes across as childish.

Grimmie, I read through all relevant posts and do not see where or how ChrLzs insulted you. If you feel otherwise, feel free to report the offending post—but do not resort to ridicule in the public forum.

Thanks.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting to see if Still Water will respond. Usually she just provides the story and it it gets engaged by those who reply.

Classic case of "don't shoot the messenger" - members who contribute news stories should not be expected to provide an account of themselves. It's simply an article that has been doing the rounds on paranormal-themed websites over the last few days that was deemed to be of interest to the community here.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To give an idea, some of these guys literally filled out the forms in scribbles and crayons. Some turned up drunk and rowdy, or demanding that they refund costs they spent showing up. Also while drunk.

Then there are the ones who renegades on the agreements they signed stating they agreed the tests were fair after failing.

After many years, Randi has retired with his partner, that he was finally able to marry after many years. I have issues withave the egos that plague these small groups, but will miss the JREF.

I had a bit of experience with that with the Canberra Skeptics when we tested someone who claimed to be able to divine water.

We worked out a test (determining whether bottles hidden inside plastic bags had been filled with water or sand) and she agreed it was fair. We had a couple of extra bottles she was able to examine and test herself on beforehand. She had a test run and was happy with everything.

Then she failed the test.

And then the complaints and excuses started: it was an unfamiliar location; the sand wasn't dry; the plastic bags threw her off. The only thing she didn't blame was her ability (or lack thereof). And this was despite agreeing beforehand that she was completely satisfied with the test.

And the best bit (well, depending on how you saw it) was that I proved my own psychic abilities that day: we had a journalism student along as a witness, who was going to write up the day's proceedings for an assignment. Before the test I told the student that the diviner would fail and would find excuses for her failure.

The Australian Skeptics had a similar situation when they tested water diviners at Mitta Mitta some years ago: when the test was set up the diviners all agreed it was a fair test. Then, when they failed, all of a sudden they about-faced and claimed the test wasn't fair. Then one of them claimed he'd been thrown off by an underground stream, and within minutes several more latched on to this explanation. So the organisers asked these six diviners to plot the course of the stream and collated the results. And between them, the six diviners managed to place the stream in seven different locations (one of them reckoned there were two streams).

So, yeah, it's sometimes hard to take these people seriously. Yet people pay good money to have them "find" water.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my biggest disappointment is the ending of the conference out in Vegas.

Lots of good speakers and presented, but the crowd was the big draw.

Yep.

I went to TAM2 in 2004, and it was pretty amazing. When I caught the bus from the airport to the hotel I suddenly realised I was sitting opposite Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, so I introduced myself - it was that sort of event. Somewhere I have the program of the event with quite a few signatures from the speakers.

And yes, it was pretty neat chatting to (and sometimes dancing with) skeptics I'd only previously known online.

It makes me think that an Aussie UM get-together would be a bit of fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I got to have a sit down with some of my favorite podcasters, sang songs with people on the last night lead by George Hrab, got caught sleeping by Bill Nye.

It was great.

I met Phil Plait at a different event some years back, had to tell him how much I appreciated his blog. What got me into skepticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why anyone would bother with an organization that is clearly biased. They set up the rules of their ''contest'' and can change them at any time. There are no independant, third-party verifications, the 'testers' are skeptics-disbelievers known to have adovcated against a reality to the paranormal for most of their lives. How can you even take that kind of thing seriously? Why would a genuine psychic put his/her head in the lion's mouth for a virtually unwinnable price? This is just plain silly.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why anyone would bother with an organization that is clearly biased. They set up the rules of their ''contest'' and can change them at any time. There are no independant, third-party verifications, the 'testers' are skeptics-disbelievers known to have adovcated against a reality to the paranormal for most of their lives. How can you even take that kind of thing seriously? Why would a genuine psychic put his/her head in the lion's mouth for a virtually unwinnable price? This is just plain silly.

Again, the testing parameters are created with the person or persons being tested. Once they are set, both parties have to sign their agreements to the test and that is it. There is no willy nilly adjustments on the fly.

And yes, the people conducting the test are skeptical of the claims; this really is no different than someone presenting a claim in science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

shadow, Peter - do you listen to the SGU?

Yep. And a few others as well.

Even had the pleasure of meeting the rogues, except for the new host and Perry.

Sometimes I wish Steve would take a more active role in things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why anyone would bother with an organization that is clearly biased. They set up the rules of their ''contest'' and can change them at any time. There are no independant, third-party verifications, the 'testers' are skeptics-disbelievers known to have adovcated against a reality to the paranormal for most of their lives. How can you even take that kind of thing seriously? Why would a genuine psychic put his/her head in the lion's mouth for a virtually unwinnable price? This is just plain silly.

Giving up your some of your legal rights for testing would keep anyone in their right mind from participating with Randi for sure. Its like a person might claim to bend a spoon but needs to touch it. Randy would write it off because he knows how to use a chemical to produce the same effect. He would not scientifically analyze the spoon for lack of the chemical residual and claim hoax publically. The whole foundation thing was set up as publicity for the professional magician IMO. I don't think we lose anything with the end of the challenge. We need scientists with the consultation of professional magicians to analyze the truly weird stuff.

Edited by White Unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people seriously not try to understand the protocols for these tests before railing on it?

You claim to be able to bend spoons by touching.

Great. We provide the spoons. You have to wear short sleeves, and are watched by magicians and camera to make sure no slight of hand is done.

Something similar was done with Uri Geller back when he was popular doing his spoon bending tricks.

The entire point of the challenge was to make a difficult challenge working with the contestant that should only be passable if they actually have the abilities they claimed.

It wouldn't be absolute proof, but it would be a very good show stopper.

The panels who work to do the tests are a mix of magicians and scientists and average persons with good technical skills. Randi himself hasn't hosted the challenge in several years, being as he's in his 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penn and Teller have a show called 'Fool Us'..... where magicians/performers have to do just that, the prize being a contract to work in Vegas, I like the show,not much gets by these two magicians, but occasionally....someone does fool them, or at least have a trick so far not understood..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The panels who work to do the tests are a mix of magicians and scientists and average persons with good technical skills. Randi himself hasn't hosted the challenge in several years, being as he's in his 80s.

They are all folks at the James Randi Educational Foundation. Not exactly neutral, independant researchers. That's one big issue. They have a bias against the paranormal. Nobody can prove anything to them. This ''contest'' is of no real scientific value and has been brushed off as pure entertainment by most serious scientists. There's really nothing to gain if you're a genuine psychic from having your reputation stained for a unwinnable challenge at the JRFED.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all folks at the James Randi Educational Foundation. Not exactly neutral, independant researchers. That's one big issue. They have a bias against the paranormal. Nobody can prove anything to them. This ''contest'' is of no real scientific value and has been brushed off as pure entertainment by most serious scientists. There's really nothing to gain if you're a genuine psychic from having your reputation stained for a unwinnable challenge at the JRFED.

The test is straightforward. It doesn't matter if the hosts are skeptical.

If anything, that's the point. A good test is created, protocol agreed to, and during the test ifor the claimant has the problem they start over.

And this is really not much different from the same sort of scrutiny you'd expect from a true scientific research.

Which is why when scientists do look into it, you get the same sort of backlash the JREF gets from the believer crowd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truthseeker and White Unicorn, your last few posts have been nothing but handwaving, and as nicely outlined by shadowsot it is clear that you have not actually looked at how the JREF challenge worked. Or maybe you have ... and would rather not discuss it for fear that you will agree with the logic...

But before we go on, you really should admit that the claimants have biases too. Go on, concede that one before we proceed, so we know that you are debating in good faith. Then given we know BOTH sides have obvious biases, you tell us - how we should proceed to find the truth?

Feel free to provide the simplest test you can come up, that would provide a useful result. Also feel free to tell us what aspect of the now-defunct JREF protocols were unfair - let's be specific, shall we - no more unsupported claims of 'unfairness' - show us where it was unfair.

Do you really think we should just take people's word for it? If so, have I got some deals for you....

And if you don't believe this is testable, then I'm sorry - it may as well not exist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that while the Randi prize was the largest I know of, several groups also have monetary prizes offered at various amounts. IIG has a 10,000 dollar proze, I believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truthseeker and White Unicorn, your last few posts have been nothing but handwaving, and as nicely outlined by shadowsot it is clear that you have not actually looked at how the JREF challenge worked. Or maybe you have ... and would rather not discuss it for fear that you will agree with the logic...

But before we go on, you really should admit that the claimants have biases too. Go on, concede that one before we proceed, so we know that you are debating in good faith. Then given we know BOTH sides have obvious biases, you tell us - how we should proceed to find the truth?

Feel free to provide the simplest test you can come up, that would provide a useful result. Also feel free to tell us what aspect of the now-defunct JREF protocols were unfair - let's be specific, shall we - no more unsupported claims of 'unfairness' - show us where it was unfair.

Do you really think we should just take people's word for it? If so, have I got some deals for you....

And if you don't believe this is testable, then I'm sorry - it may as well not exist.

I was going by original OP posted article. I don't believe anyone will really miss out on the challenge being gone except for celebrities who challenge it! The foundation seems to be a promo for himself.

I think a scientific protocol should be followed accompanied by professional magicians, not the other way around. I don't know much about the methods used by his foundations, but when I read the OP link it didn't sound totally legit and in favor to the foundation's advantage financially to expose hoaxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, as has been mentioned several times that article is seriously flawed. They hold up Rupert Sheldrake as a positive example, when his work was reviewed and found faulty he had basically a tantrum and decided all of science was wrong.

I've already talked about how the protocols are set, that they bring in outside experts to assist with them, and always require the contestant to be fully comfortable with and agree to the test before proceeding.

In the one I actually sat in on they were very accommodating when the contestant expressed uncertainty, but he pressed on absolutely certain he would succeed.

When he failed they were more than willing to redo the test taking into account the concerns he had raised.

In my experience they try to be as accommodating as possible to the person, while still preventing room for fakery.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The causation of "Reality" remains a complete mystery.

No-one has ever explained it to the satisfaction of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.