RANDI

slyp...@pop.mcn.net

unread,

Mar 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/9/97

to

maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be so
ultimately confident when he finds someone who wants to keep this
testing private, but when he comes about someone who is very confident,
and wants to make his tests public so john q. public can find out what
happens exactly he chickens out? perhaps there is more than meet the eye
than randi and his tests? if i were to do tests such as this i would be
more than willing to actually show i was for real and take a challenge
in public , in private, whatever=85

Jim Davis

unread,

Mar 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/10/97

to

slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:

>in public , in private, whatever…

Randi does not take challenges, he offers them. If anyone can meet
his challenge, they can have over a million dollars. If one doesn't
meet the challenge it simply means they have nothing to offer as
evidence, and should be viewed as unsubstantiated. The other method
used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate
feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
is not evidence of paranormal activity.

Randi doesn't prove people frauds, nor does he attempt to. He simply
provides a method that enable them to prove themselves. If they
can't, why believe their extraordinary claims?

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/10/97

to

From: ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis)

[THIS IS BEING POSTED TO 2 THREADS:

RANDI RUNS AWAY -- aka RANDI CHICKENS' OUT
and

RANDI]

Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal, alt.fan.art-bell, talk.religion.newage,
alt.paranet.paranormal, alt.out-of-body, alt.astrology, alt.pagan,
alt.magick, alt.paranet.ufo,
alt.consciousness.mysticism, alt.alien.visitors

Subject: Re: RANDI
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 05:31:31 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.

Message-ID:
<33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>
References:
<332336...@pop.mcn.net>
Reply-To:
ji...@wwdg.com

NNTP-Posting-Host:
cust23.max1.portland.or.ms.uu.net

slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:

>maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be so
>ultimately confident when he finds someone who wants to keep this
>testing private, but when he comes about someone who is very confident,
>and wants to make his tests public

See the other postings under:

"RANDI CHICKENS' OUT"

Yes, when it's public, he RUNS AWAY. He is afraid.

>so john q. public can find out what
>happens exactly he chickens out? perhaps there is more than meet the eye
>than randi and his tests?

Yes, much more, like a STAGE MAGICIAN - TRICKSTER, and he's not getting
this BS over on the public, and this will, not too long from now, show
him up in the *MAINSTREAM* MEDIA, not just Art Bell's radio program.

>if i were to do tests such as this i would be
>more than willing to actually show i was for real and take a challenge
>in public , in private, whatever

Yes, but then you are, it seems, an honest person.

Yes, when Dames says that he tried to contact Randi, and was refused,
and then Randi says Dames lied, and then Dames says, "no, we tried
again, even after he called us liars, and we want to discuss the terms
of a test, live, on the air," and Randi refuses, obviously:

WE DO NEED A PUBLIC AIRING OF THE CONTROVERSY

Now, it is no longer a "challenge" *from* RANDI, but a challenge from
Art Bell and Ed Dames TO RANDI, to put *THE* money where his big mouth
is.

===================================================================
and from this other person>>>>>>>

Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.

====================================================================

FROM ME, BDK:

Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING CHALLENGED.
====================================================================

and he continues>>>>>>>>

If anyone can meet his challenge, they can have over a million dollars.
If one doesn't meet the challenge it simply means they have nothing to
offer as evidence, and should be viewed as unsubstantiated.

====================================================================

Real simple, huh? No, if anyone with any sense meets the "challenge,"
they will do it in such a way that the terms are discussed in public,
and that a third party, independent group, does monitor the procedure
and results.

BDK
=====================================================================

The other method used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and
skills as a magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that
duplicate feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed
feat" can be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed
feat" is not evidence of paranormal activity.

THIS GUY SAYS ---- above ------->>>>>>>>>

======================

Hmmmm, still hasn't addressed the issue about private or public
discussion of the way the test is conducted.

BDK
======================

Randi doesn't prove people frauds, nor does he attempt to. He simply
provides a method that enable them to prove themselves. If they can't,
why believe their extraordinary claims?

and so he goes on, even more, above writing >>>>>>>>>>>>
======================

He "provides a method" Hmmmm. He just dictates the method and terms,
and some people are suckers for that, hmmmm?

Well, you seem to have avoided the matter discussed by the other person,
above. This is AVOIDANCE. Do you people ever get to actually deal with
matters, and stop running away from them?

I should rename this thread again.

"RANDI RUNS AWAY -- and drags his followers along
with him"

--

h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m

S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)

Wizard

unread,

Mar 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/10/97

to

In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com wrote:
>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.

True.

> If anyone can meet
>his challenge, they can have over a million dollars.

Or so he says.

>If one doesn't
>meet the challenge it simply means they have nothing to offer as
>evidence, and should be viewed as unsubstantiated.

Or that Randi has set it up so that nobody will ever win.

>The other method
>used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
>magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate
>feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
>be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
>is not evidence of paranormal activity.

But neither is performing something by tricks evidence that the reality
does not exist.
Merely because people improve with non-effective placebo drugs does not
mean that
drugs do not work.

>Randi doesn't prove people frauds, nor does he attempt to.

This is totally false. See his book, _The Faith Healers_ for proof.

> He simply
>provides a method that enable them to prove themselves. If they
>can't, why believe their extraordinary claims?

He sets it up so that they canıt win. He controls the money. He controls
the rules. He determines the outcome.
Thatıs hardly a fair test.

Wizard

Jim Davis

unread,

Mar 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/11/97

to

Dang you Bruce! Why can't you post and quote like a sane person. When
someone attempts to reply to one of your postings, the quoted areas
come out all screwed up, unless you want to do a lot of editing. Oh!
Well! Here Goes.

Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:

>>From: ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis)

>
>Now, it is no longer a "challenge" *from* RANDI, but a challenge from
>Art Bell and Ed Dames TO RANDI, to put *THE* money where his big mouth
>is.

No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.

>>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.
>

>Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING CHALLENGED.

No, as I said, the challenge comes from the one that puts up the
purse. He names the terms. If Bell and Dames want to dictate, or even
negoiate terms, then they have to have a wager and match Randi's bet.

>>If anyone can meet his challenge, they can have over a million dollars.

>>If one doesn't meet the challenge it simply means they have nothing to
>>offer as evidence, and should be viewed as unsubstantiated.

>Real simple, huh? No, if anyone with any sense meets the "challenge,"

>they will do it in such a way that the terms are discussed in public,
>and that a third party, independent group, does monitor the procedure
>and results.

When are you going to get off this challenge kick. Let me explain it
to you. Randi, puts up the money, and in doing so names the terms.
If someone can prove, by Randi's terms, they are using paranormal
methods of accomplishing whatever they say they can do, then they can
have the money. Otherwise, they can't.

For Bell and Dames to think without any monetary risk on their part
they can dictate how they're going to prove it, then they are both
nuts. Actually they aren't nuts, they are using a diversive tactic
for their propaganda.

I'll give you something you can try. Go into a casino, don't put any
money down, but challenge them with a claim your going to get a 21 at
blackjack. Now, notice how they "cowardly" decline your challange and
escort you to the door.

Art's Parts

unread,

Mar 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/11/97

to

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:39:06 GMT, ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis) wrote:

<<Kettler's spamming to alt.pagan and alt.out-of-body removed per
their request in this response>>

<<snipped Kettler's nonsense>>

>No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
>to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.

My suggestion is that Dames put up the keys to (and assets of)
PsiTech. That should be worth, oh, $100 or so. But then Dames would
have something tangible to lose and could legitimately negociate the
terms of the challenge with Randi.

One could argue that Dame's credibility is at stake, but how much
credibility does a guy have who claims a comet is bringing with it a
cosmic present containing "plant pathogens".

All of this is moot, however, given that Dames will never agree to a
true test of his abilities. I know this through remote viewing: I can
see the urine running down his leg when he thinks about Randi's
challenge. It's ashame, too - as I said before, I think it would make
for great theater for Bell's program.

<<snipped more of Kettler's nonsense, and some good points by Jim
Davis>>

robo...@aol.com

unread,

Mar 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/11/97

to

In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis) writes:

>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them. If anyone can meet

>his challenge, they can have over a million dollars. If one doesn't
>meet the challenge it simply means they have nothing to offer as

>evidence, and should be viewed as unsubstantiated. The other method

>used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
>magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate
>feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
>be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
>is not evidence of paranormal activity.
>

>Randi doesn't prove people frauds, nor does he attempt to. He simply

>provides a method that enable them to prove themselves. If they
>can't, why believe their extraordinary claims?
>
>

Why cannot he accept a challenge? If he cannot accept a challenge why believe his ordinary claims?. I like Wizards idea posted elsewhere, set up an independent test with independent, unbiased third parties. After all, that is the scientific method. Should either party have a legitimate objection to that type of process? If so, then they should have their credibility severely discounted.

BTW just because Randi can duplicate certain phenomenon with illusion or trickery, does not mean that the particular psychic phenomenon does not exist. It only shows there is another explanation or a way to duplicate the phenomenon using another method.

Robert

"Mr. President, truth is not always a pleasant thing"--Gen. "Buck" Turgidson (USAF)
"Your commie has no regard for human life, not even his own"--Gen. Jack D. Ripper (USAF)
"Watch out for snakes!" -- Tom Servo
"Bite me, its fun"-- Crow T. Robot

Gratuitous Pseudonym

unread,

Mar 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/11/97

to

In article <332336...@pop.mcn.net>, slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:
>maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be so
>ultimately confident when he finds someone who wants to keep this
>testing private, but when he comes about someone who is very confident,

>and wants to make his tests public so john q. public can find out what

>happens exactly he chickens out? perhaps there is more than meet the eye

>than randi and his tests? if i were to do tests such as this i would be

>more than willing to actually show i was for real and take a challenge

>in public , in private, whatever…

For bone-stupid argument of the year, this one should be nominated.

Randi issues the challenge to engage in a controlled experiment, not to play
word games on sensationalist radio shows. With $1 million on the line, he is
not about to let some fast-talking swindler dictate the terms such that Randi
cannot assure himself that the results are both honest and indisputable.
Given that proviso, I have never heard him object to a public test.

So, I definitely think it is just you and has nothing whatever to do with
Randi.

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

On 10 Mar 1997, Wizard wrote:

> In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com wrote:
>
>[snip]

>
> >The other method
> >used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
> >magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate
> >feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
> >be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
> >is not evidence of paranormal activity.
>

> But neither is performing something by tricks evidence that the reality
> does not exist.
> Merely because people improve with non-effective placebo drugs does not
> mean that
> drugs do not work.

If Randi can convince the world that Psychic powers are NOT possible by
showing how it can be faked, then I GUESS that means that Meg Ryan has
convinced the world that Women can NOT have orgasms!

DONALD - Down, but not out!

Looking for work come March '97!!
For my Resume (and eventually other neat stuff) - check out
**** http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dpedder ****

Don't pull up the flowers to see how the roots are coming.

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Art's Parts (ya...@my.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:39:06 GMT, ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis) wrote:
> <<snipped Kettler's nonsense>>

> >No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
> >to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.

It's a challenge to Randi to put *the* money where his mouth is. It's
not a bet. Randi has accused Dames of lying with his allegation that he
had made an offer to set up a test. Now, Dames is asking Randi to get
on the telephone, and be heard on the air, to discuss details of a test.

> My suggestion is that Dames put up the keys to (and assets of)

> PsiTech. That should be worth, oh, $100 or so. <snip>

IT IS A CHALLENGE ***TO*** RANDI, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVING ANYTHING
TO DO WITH A BET.

>.. but how much

> credibility does a guy have who claims a comet is bringing with it a
> cosmic present containing "plant pathogens".

It's probably more credible than the silly idea of Randi's followers,
that Randi's pathethic excuses for not being heard on the Art Bell
program make sense. Of course, credibility is not the issue, here. The
actual subject is about a

CHALLENGE TO RANDI

and it does not require credibility to discuss terms of a test that
would be supervised by other disinterested parties, which both RANDI
and DAMES would have to agree to.

> <snip> Dames will never agree to a

> true test of his abilities.

The above, is incorrect, because he has agreed before millions of
listeners. The ball is in RANDI'S court.

<snip>

So, Randi, if you are reading this, why not STOP YOUR PATHETIC EXCUSES,
which are in the archives for all to read (http://www.dejanews.com --
and enter my e-mail address) and get on the telephone to arrange a 3 way
meeting, live, on the air with Art Bell and Ed Dames to discuss the
method of a test, third parties, etc.

--

h t t p : / / w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m

click at

scientific study of psychic phenomena

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Jim Davis wrote:

> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >>From: ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis)

> >Now, it is no longer a "challenge" *from* RANDI, but a challenge from
> >Art Bell and Ed Dames TO RANDI, to put *THE* money where his big
> >mouth is.

> No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
> to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.

When a person meets a challenge, as Ed Dames has done, and RANDI RUNS
AWAY, then it's a challenge for RANDI TO KEEP HIS WORD. There's another
post from me, today, which gives more detail, in reply to "ya...@my.org"

Readers can look at all posts:

http://www.dejanews.com

and enter the e-mail address or name of the person who's posts
you wish to see, and though one name is entered, writing of
other's in the discussion may be read.

> >>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.

> >Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING CHALLENGED.

> No, as I said, the challenge comes from the one that puts up the
> purse.

You still don't get it, do you?

> He names the terms. If Bell and Dames want to dictate, or even
> negoiate terms, then they have to have a wager and match Randi's bet.

If the terms are dictated by RANDI, then it's not a fair test, and
cheating by RANDI is possible. As illogical as the statement is, what
you've written above, it seems to me you have been DUPED by Randi.

For more on this GROUP MENTALITY -- click at "skeptics" at the first
page of the WWW SITE shown below.

<snip>

> When are you going to get off this challenge kick. Let me explain it
> to you. Randi, puts up the money, and in doing so names the terms.

No, that's not a fair challenge. Terms should be negotiated, or

THE CHALLENGE OF RANDI IS BOGUS

and this FACT will be plastered all over the USA AND WORLD MEDIA if
Randi keeps this up. He will RUIN himself, and *MANY MORE* people will
laugh at this so-called "challenge."

> If someone can prove, by Randi's terms, they are using paranormal
> methods of accomplishing whatever they say they can do, then they can
> have the money. Otherwise, they can't.

No, it is NOT THAT SIMPLE. If that's all you can see, then YOU HAVE
BEEN DUPED. This is so illogical, this assertion that RANDI
would, necessarily, bring about a fair test while dictating the
terms.

> For Bell and Dames to think without any monetary risk on their part

> they can dictate <snip>

You are alleging a position of the opposition that is incorrect.
There was no communication to "dictate," but rather to discuss,
live, on the air, the terms of a test. Randi can discuss the use of
ROGET'S RULES OF ORDER, or any format, and have it agreed upon in
writing, before going on the program.

> they {Bell and Dames] are using a diversive tactic
> for their propaganda.

Supposedly, RANDI IS NOT USING A DIVERSIVE TACTIC, it would seem
from your writing.

You consider an offer for RANDI to appear on the air, via the telephone,
a diversive tactic. Oh come on, "get real," will you?

> I'll give you something you can try. Go into a casino, don't put any
> money down, but challenge them with a claim your going to get a 21 at
> blackjack. Now, notice how they "cowardly" decline your challange and
> escort you to the door.

The above is dissimilar. If someone offers to GIVE money for
demonstrating PARANORMAL ABILITIES, and THAT PERSON TO RECEIVE THE
MONEY, ESPECIALLY A PERSON AS WELL-KNOWN AS DAMES, WHO HAS HIS
REPUTATION IS STAKE, it's gambling. This would be especially true if
DAMES WENT ALONG WITH AN AGREEMENT, PROPOSED TO ALL BY THE JREF, THAT HE
RELINQUISH HIS RIGHT TO LITIGATION AFTER THE TEST.

Also, if you want to insist on your analogy, EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO
INSIST THAT FAIR, THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATORS, INSIST UPON VERIFICATION
THAT THE CASINO IS NOT CHEATING. LIKEWISE, EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE
SURE THAT RANDI IS NOT CHEATING.

In any event, the requirement that a person put money up at a casino,
and this matter, are dissimilar, when this writing is seen in it's
entire context, so the analogy of your's does not fit entirely.

So, if you, or anyone reading this, are looking at this rationally,
write or call RANDI, and ask him to stop his lame excuses, and get on
the phone with ART BELL AND ED DAMES to arrange terms for a meeting on
the air with them, to discuss terms of a test.

If RANDI doesn't, he's running away, and all you duped folks following
him, are just thoughtlessly running along with him.

Matt Kriebel

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:

: When a person meets a challenge, as Ed Dames has done, and RANDI RUNS

: AWAY, then it's a challenge for RANDI TO KEEP HIS WORD. There's another
: post from me, today, which gives more detail, in reply to "ya...@my.org"

Wrong. Randi has not run away, he has merely not come scrambling when
Dames starts posturing like this. Dames has *not* by any indication agreed
to the terms of the challenge and only *says* he has. Given that he made
up details about the challenge (allegeing 'backers' for Randi that got
cold feet in spite of the fact that they don't exist). Again, I've
explained it to you: Randi is under *no* obligation to come running at
every nutcases beck and call. Randi has tried to get the terms of the
challenge to Art, but all we hear in return is BS posturing from Dames and
mental idiots like Kettler having a collective wet dream.

: > >>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.

:
: > >Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING CHALLENGED.
:
: > No, as I said, the challenge comes from the one that puts up the
: > purse.
:
: You still don't get it, do you?

No *you* don't get it. What is Dames risking here? *Nothing* If he fails,
he just makes up excuses and bozos like you make derisive comments about
Randi and his methods. So the idea of Dames 'challenging' Randi is a farce
that you subscribe to. Dames has nothing to lose in his little game.
Therefore he is making no challenge but rather making bluster and
chest=pounding little RV groupies like Kettler can groove to.

:
: > He names the terms. If Bell and Dames want to dictate, or even

: > negoiate terms, then they have to have a wager and match Randi's bet.
:
: If the terms are dictated by RANDI, then it's not a fair test, and
: cheating by RANDI is possible.

First of all, it is Randi's money and his challenge. Second of all, you
are accusing him of cheating without any reason whatsoever. Thirdly, as
always, you deomstrate that you have little clue as to how the challenge
works by comments like the above.

Quite simply if this test is going to happen, Dames agrees to the terms,
Dames also tells Randi what can do with his RV'ing, Randi & Dames agree on
what will make a good test that will prevent cheating and give easily
defined terms of sucess & failure, they both agree on a judge for the
matter and then run the test. So far, Dames hasn't even done the first
thing so he tries to make this BS end-run so that he can try to control
the test himself.

: As illogical as the statement is, what

: you've written above, it seems to me you have been DUPED by Randi.

No, you've been duped by Dames &Bell into thinking that they have some
kind of right to demand the challenge on their terms and conditions

: > When are you going to get off this challenge kick. Let me explain it

: > to you. Randi, puts up the money, and in doing so names the terms.
:
: No, that's not a fair challenge. Terms should be negotiated, or
:
: THE CHALLENGE OF RANDI IS BOGUS

The terms negotiated? Why? The conditions of the test can be negotiated,
sure. But the terms are set in stone for a very good reason: They are to
assure that the testee doesn't get to run the experiment.

Your declaration of the challenge being bogus is laughable. You 've
obviously had it in for Randi and I doubt your opinion counts for much.

: and this FACT will be plastered all over the USA AND WORLD MEDIA if

: Randi keeps this up. He will RUIN himself, and *MANY MORE* people will
: laugh at this so-called "challenge."

Wrong. This stunt that Dames has pulled has been tried before. Soemthing
you might know if you read on occasion instead of ranting. This is tir4ed
and the only ifference is that Art Bell has a radio program to let Dames
pull a tired old stunt attack against Randi.

: > If someone can prove, by Randi's terms, they are using paranormal

: > methods of accomplishing whatever they say they can do, then they can
: > have the money. Otherwise, they can't.
:
: No, it is NOT THAT SIMPLE. If that's all you can see, then YOU HAVE
: BEEN DUPED. This is so illogical, this assertion that RANDI
: would, necessarily, bring about a fair test while dictating the
: terms.

The test esign is agreed upon *after* the terms of the challenge are
agreed to by the challanger.

You really, *really* on't know squat about the Randi challenge, do you?

I'll explain. Its really simple.

If you say you have a power, Randi will test you in a double blind test
that prevents cheating (purposeful cheating or not). The test can *only*
stop cheating by slight of hand or other trickery, that is all that Randi
can prevent, he being a magaician and all. The test will run and if you
have real powers all of the controls to prevent cheating will mean nothing
as you perform your miracle without cheating. Then the judge of the event
(who both you and Randi agreed upon) then says you win.

If you have no powers, or have powers so weak that simple controls
interfere with the powers (such as the precense of styrofoam or masking
tape), or if your powers just don't work that day. You do not win.

Does not winning prove such powers do not exist? No, but Randi has never
said so. He merely points to the experiement as a example of how many
'powers' disappear when tested in a double blind test.

So for all your raving about Randi 'chating' I have to laugh. I mean, how
could Randi truly stop such a thing as an authentic RV'er? Hmm? answer
that question Kettler. With a neutral judge present, what could he do?

: > they {Bell and Dames] are using a diversive tactic

: > for their propaganda.
:
: Supposedly, RANDI IS NOT USING A DIVERSIVE TACTIC, it would seem
: from your writing.
:
: You consider an offer for RANDI to appear on the air, via the telephone,
: a diversive tactic. Oh come on, "get real," will you?

Yes, it is an attempt to get around the terms of the challenge and make
Randi negotiate a test in a hostile environment. No matter how much you
ramble about 'Roget's rules' Bell's show is definately on the side of
their fancy-boy Dames.

And again, Randi has the money, he has the effort to put out. He is not at
the beck and call of every crack-pot that has nothing to lose.

: Also, if you want to insist on your analogy, EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO

: INSIST THAT FAIR, THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATORS, INSIST UPON VERIFICATION
: THAT THE CASINO IS NOT CHEATING. LIKEWISE, EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE
: SURE THAT RANDI IS NOT CHEATING.

You really never actually rea the terms of the challenge, did you...

Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
The truth is out there... But the speculation is way, *way* out there...

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Gratuitous Pseudonym wrote:

> In article <332336...@pop.mcn.net>, slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:

> >maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be so
> >ultimately confident when he finds someone who wants to keep this
> >testing private, but when he comes about someone who is very confident,
> >and wants to make his tests public so john q. public can find out what
> >happens exactly he chickens out? perhaps there is more than meet the eye

> >than randi and his tests? <snip>

> For bone-stupid argument of the year, this one should be nominated.

> Randi issues the challenge to engage in a controlled experiment, not to play
> word games on sensationalist radio shows.

Then why doesn't he communicate terms of the test, with DAMES, via
certifiable written communication?

Why won't he discuss this via tape-recorded telephone?

Why will he not talk to ED DAMES on the telephone, and why does he
continually
hang up on him when DAMES calls him? Of course, this is Dames'
allegation,
but why should anyone believe RANDI any more than DAMES, when RANDI SAYS
DAMES HAS NEVER CONTACTED HIM.

>With $1 million on the line, he is not about to let some fast-talking swindler >dictate the terms <snip>

Excuse me? What!? Was Dames, supposedly, trying to "dictate" terms?

Why do you conclude that Dames or Bell are "fast-talking swindlers"?
That's rather harsh, isn't it?

> such that Randi
> cannot assure himself that the results are both honest and indisputable.

What about DAMES assuring himself that the results are proper?

Hey, you mentioned how this other writer, "slypisces" was supposedly
putting
forth a "bone stupid" argument. Your's is illogical and unrealistic.
To begin with, Dames has not asked to "dictate" anything.

The realistic fact of the matter is that "honest" and "indisputable"
results of
a test can be accomplished through discussion and agreement about how
the
test should be conducted.

It is not logical to assume that people must trust RANDI to dictate
the terms of a test, or to assume that we could, then, be sure that
RANDI, left to his own devices, would produce an honest test.

The unrealistic assumption from most of RANDI'S DUPED FOLLOWERS,
that I've seen here on USENET, is that RANDI SHOULD DICTATE THE
TERMS OF THE TEST, AND THE PERSON SUBMITTING TO IT, SHOULD JUST
TRUST RANDI'S HONESTY.

> Given that proviso, I have never heard him object to a public test.

Well, certainly a public test, and the procedure must be discussed
first,
AND THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE OPEN TO PUBLIC
SCRUTINY.
Without such public view of this discussion, THERE WILL CONTINUALLY
REMAIN A GREAT DEAL OF DOUBT ABOUT THE HONESTY OF RANDI'S "CHALLENGE."

When one person allegedly contacts Randi to meet the challenge, and
then when RANDI says, "no, Dames is lying, he didn't contact me."
Then when DAMES SAYS, "yes I did, but he keeps hanging up on me,"
it's obvious that some public scrutiny of this is a good logical
step forward, to eliminate the questions that come up from the
events described in the beginning of this paragraph.

> So, I definitely think it is just you [slypisces] and has nothing

> whatever to do with Randi.

--

Dan Pressnell

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:

>He sets it up so that they canıt win. He controls the money. He controls
>the rules. He determines the outcome.
>Thatıs hardly a fair test.

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:

: Then why doesn't he communicate terms of the test, with DAMES, via
: certifiable written communication?
:
: Why won't he discuss this via tape-recorded telephone?

:
: Why will he not talk to ED DAMES on the telephone, and why does he
: continually
: hang up on him when DAMES calls him? Of course, this is Dames'
: allegation,
: but why should anyone believe RANDI any more than DAMES, when RANDI SAYS
: DAMES HAS NEVER CONTACTED HIM.

Why the hell should we believe Dames? Dames has made several statements
about the challenge and the money (namely involving 'backers') that are
patently untrue by the JREF's set-up. So in his comment, and on radio,
Dames has stated a lie. Randi then promptly tried to send Dames the terms
of the challenge by any mans he could (which weren't many) and Dames tries
to weasle around the arrangement with this radio condition.
:
: >With $1 million on the line, he is not about to let some fast-talking swindler >dictate the terms <snip>

:
: Excuse me? What!? Was Dames, supposedly, trying to "dictate" terms?
:
: Why do you conclude that Dames or Bell are "fast-talking swindlers"?
: That's rather harsh, isn't it?

Has Dames even read the terms of the challenge? By all accounts he has not
even mentioned the terms being accepted (in writing). And yet you want to
force Randi to bypass that stage and jump into experiemtnal design?

: > such that Randi

: > cannot assure himself that the results are both honest and indisputable.
:
: What about DAMES assuring himself that the results are proper?

Such as what? If Dames has real powers all of Randi's controls to prevent
mundane cheating won't mean squat! Dames has a right to assure that Randi
doesn't make him o things he does not claim to be able to do, but i you
had a *clue* about the mechanics of the challenge you would know that
Randi never does that.

: It is not logical to assume that people must trust RANDI to dictate

: the terms of a test, or to assume that we could, then, be sure that
: RANDI, left to his own devices, would produce an honest test.

Hey you incredicbly thick-headed moron, if you knew what you were talking
about you would know that there isn't much Randi can do to prevent real
powers. Got it? This is an RV tes, presumably, they will pick a nuetral
judge tomake sure Randi doesn't change the target or whatever, in the
middle of the test. That, and assuring that the test is of something Dames
claims to be able to do is what the design is all about. This 'terms for
fairness' bull your tossing aroun demonstrate that you haven't read word
one of the way the challenges have been run in the past. You are just
supporting Dames attempt to prevent Randi from placing proper controls to
prevent Dames from cheating.

: The unrealistic assumption from most of RANDI'S DUPED FOLLOWERS,

: that I've seen here on USENET, is that RANDI SHOULD DICTATE THE
: TERMS OF THE TEST, AND THE PERSON SUBMITTING TO IT, SHOULD JUST
: TRUST RANDI'S HONESTY.

Idiot. Randi has the right to place controls to assure that mundane
cheating is not used. Nothing else! He can't (that's *can't* not won't) do
much else besides that. Perhaps you care to tell us how Rani could cheat
and prevent a real RV'er with a nuetral judge knowing the target in
question?

Tell us you psychic sycophant, how could Randi prevent true powers?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that you are just posturing.

: When one person allegedly contacts Randi to meet the challenge, and

: then when RANDI says, "no, Dames is lying, he didn't contact me."

And also points out that Dames said a lot of false things about the
challenge (that it involves some kind of backers). That put the dishonesty
in Dames court.

: Then when DAMES SAYS, "yes I did, but he keeps hanging up on me,"

Posturing. I doubt Randi could descriminate a real Rv'er froma fake
without testing them. Without that to go on, how would he 'know' who to
accept and hang up on?

Art's Parts

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 01:02:19 +0000, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:

<<snipped Kettler's nonsense>>

>> >No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
>> >to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.
>

>It's a challenge to Randi to put *the* money where his mouth is.

Randi already appears to have his cash on the line, nitwit. Dames
should either agree to the terms of the challenge, or shut up. He
will, of course, never allow a true test of his abilities.

> It's not a bet. Randi has accused Dames of lying with his allegation that he
>had made an offer to set up a test. Now, Dames is asking Randi to get
>on the telephone, and be heard on the air, to discuss details of a test.

It appears to be Randi's money and Randi's challenge. I agree with
the other writers trying to pound some sense into you - Dames has the
responsibility to meet Randi's terms if he is interested in the
challenge, not vice versa.

>
>> My suggestion is that Dames put up the keys to (and assets of)
>> PsiTech. That should be worth, oh, $100 or so. <snip>
>
>IT IS A CHALLENGE ***TO*** RANDI, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVING ANYTHING
>TO DO WITH A BET.

Yep, but only by putting up his own money or capital would it be
appropriate for Dames to try to dictate terms.

>
>>.. but how much
>> credibility does a guy have who claims a comet is bringing with it a
>> cosmic present containing "plant pathogens".
>
>It's probably more credible than the silly idea of Randi's followers,
>that Randi's pathethic excuses for not being heard on the Art Bell
>program make sense.

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. Dames' Plant Pathogens
nonsense is more sensible than Randi's desire to discuss terms of a
challenge for HIS money in the way he prefers.... good argument,
Bruce.

> Of course, credibility is not the issue, here. The
>actual subject is about a
>
> CHALLENGE TO RANDI
>
>and it does not require credibility to discuss terms of a test that
>would be supervised by other disinterested parties, which both RANDI
>and DAMES would have to agree to.

Still milking this topic for all it's worth, aren't you Bruce.

>
>> <snip> Dames will never agree to a
>> true test of his abilities.
>
>The above, is incorrect, because he has agreed before millions of
>listeners. The ball is in RANDI'S court.
>

He hasn't agreed to anything yet. He stated he would take up Randi on
his challenge, but Dames has not agreed to a "true test of his
abilities", and I predict he never will.

><snip>
>
>So, Randi, if you are reading this, why not STOP YOUR PATHETIC EXCUSES,
>which are in the archives for all to read (http://www.dejanews.com --
>and enter my e-mail address) and get on the telephone to arrange a 3 way
>meeting, live, on the air with Art Bell and Ed Dames to discuss the
>method of a test, third parties, etc.
>--
>

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Matt Kriebel wrote:

> The bottom line is that Kettler hasn't read enough to understand the
> challenge, let alone accuse Randi of being 'cowardly' about it. But this
> whole thing is nothing but Dames posturing for the sake of little
> sycophants like Kettler. Kettler of course falls for it like a stone and
> gets it in his head that since Randi offers a challenge he *must* be at
> the becka nd call of the standards and whinings of any psychic wannabee.
>
> It seems most apparent that Kettler has not really read the challenge or
> any other 'blasphemous' skeptical material that would give him a clue as
> to what he is talking about.
>
> I wonder if Kettler thinks that Dames has anything to lose by posturing
> like this?

Its amazing that someone like Dames has anything at all. I mean, the man
is convincing people that a giant container full of evil alien pathogens
is careening towards our planet disguised by a comet. People STILL
belive him as being credible. Give me a break! People still listen to
Brown, amazingly enough. It must be gut wrenching for true-blue,
die-hard, woo woo folks like Bruce to choose between conflicting
fantasies. Alien ship, or evil earth destroyer? Alex, I'll take "Its
just a damn comet" for $500.

>
> Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
> got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
> ***************************************************************************
> The truth is out there... But the speculation is way, *way* out there...

--
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration
Officer #01-22112-324
"The Badge Means We Don't Care"

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> screeched:

>You are alleging a position of the opposition that is incorrect.
>There was no communication to "dictate," but rather to discuss,
>live, on the air, the terms of a test. Randi can discuss the use of
>ROGET'S RULES OF ORDER, or any format, and have it agreed upon in
>writing, before going on the program.

I believe you meant "ROBERT'S THESAURUS" there, Kettlebanger.

<more tedious horseshit buried>
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

to

Matt Kriebel wrote:

> Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:

> : When a person meets a challenge, as Ed Dames has done, and RANDI
> : RUNS
> : AWAY, then it's a challenge for RANDI TO KEEP HIS WORD. There's
> : another
> : post from me, today, which gives more detail, in reply to
> :"ya...@my.org"

I don't to type the same things again and again, and much of this issue,
with rebuttals repeated by others, has been replied to by me:
http://www.dejanews.com for my posts -- enter d...@psicounsel.com

Matt writes:
> <snip>Randi has tried to get the terms of the

> challenge to Art, but all we hear in return is BS posturing from Dames > and mental idiots like Kettler having a collective wet dream.

Now, this is interesting. This is a vague reference, and it probably
refers to the reply to DAMES that's been circulating on USENET,
which ART BELL read on the air. It, essentially, says nothing more
than that Ed Dames should go to the WWW SITE of the JREF, read RANDI's
Rules, and comply.

In essense, the meaning is: trust me, follow me, and I will lead
you right, give a fair test, and if you fail, too bad.

It's a bunch of BS, put out by a BS'r and all his BS ing followers.

More character assassination from members of the RANDI CULT:

"mental idiots" a term from Matt

For more on this CULT MENTALITY, with examples, click at "skeptics" at
the below listed WWW site. They think that the message will not be
believed if they make these lame attempts to portray the messengers as
idiots. What a joke!

> : > >>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.

> : > >Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING
> : > >CHALLENGED.

I wrote the above, and the full text, along with careful and logical
explanation is in that post, and in other recent posts. See
dejanews -- above referenced.

<snip>

--

h t t p : / / w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m

Steve Monson

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

to

Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:
>

>: Then when DAMES SAYS, "yes I did, but he keeps hanging up on me,"
>

>Posturing. I doubt Randi could discriminate a real Rv'er from a fake
>without testing them. Without that to go on, how would he 'know' whom to
>accept and whom to hang up on?

Excellent point. The answer, of course, is that ... RANDY IS HIMSELF PSYCHIC!
He knows in advance who has real powers and who doesn't. Naturally, he
only accepts challenges from fake psychics, because otherwise he'd lose his
challenge funds! What a great scam. I'm ashamed I didn't tumble to it
before! Way to go, RANDI!

Steve monson

p.s. :-)
--
Q: What do you call someone who studies surjections?
A: An ontologist.

Kevin Craner

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

to

Wizard Wrote.

DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:
>On 10 Mar 1997, Wizard wrote:
>

>> In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com wrote:
>>
>>[snip]

>>
>> >The other method
>> >used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
>> >magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate
>> >feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
>> >be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
>> >is not evidence of paranormal activity.
>>

>> But neither is performing something by tricks evidence that the reality
>> does not exist.
>> Merely because people improve with non-effective placebo drugs does not
>> mean that
>> drugs do not work.

=========================================================================

There are some interesting points that need to be addressed here and
mistakes that require correction. Firstly the arguement which states:

"just because something can be done by trickery does not mean it isn't
real"

The Law of Parsimony (some may know it as Occum's Razor) tells us that if
we are faced with two possible explainations to something then we should
take the simpler. For example, lets look at the ever popular Remote
viewing.

1. We can either reject all known scientific laws and conclude the
phenomenon is genuine.

OR

2. If the claimed power can be reproduced by ordinary means (ie,trickery
was possible) then we should accept the simpler expaination.

On a personal level as a magician is is easy to tell when you see a
psychic that they are using simple (I use that word with caution because
conjuring requires dedication and practice) tricks. When I hear somebody
giving a cold read, using the exact spiels contained in a book on my
shelf I know it is fake. When I see somebody drive blindfolded I realise
it is a trick because I know what to look for. Seemingly innocent acts
may be the key to a trick and if you don't know what to look for you
won't spot it. A magician knows if a psychic feat is fake. The quandry
we are faced with is do we expose the method or bite our lips and keep
quiet. If you were familiar with the techniques you would start to spot
them when they are used.

The JREF provides a way of testing a psychics powers under conditions
which do not allow trickery. Most psychics will admit there are some
fakes but they themselves are real. You would have thought they would
jump at this chance to show they are genuine.

Daniel Bruce Kettler is constantly saying there is no need for evidence
and accuse those who promote science and critical thinking as being
cultists. He expects people to accept what he says on blind faith.
Despite not proving evidence he assures believers that evidence is not
needed. He expects 100% trust. If the power is real there is no reason
not to validate it. Mr Kettler only makes excuses.

Another point raised was that about placebos and medical drugs. The
point was that because people improve with placebos does not mean medical
drugs do not work. It was related to the "just because you can do it by
trickery does not mean it is not real" argument.

This analogy breaks down easily. Medical drugs require evidence that
results are more than just a placebo. You attempt to falsify your
results (being able to falsify is vital in scientific investigation) and
if they still stand up, ie indicate more than just a placebo you are
getting somewhere.

In regard to the psychic argument this would be equivlent to conducting
tests with a psychic under conditions that make trickery impossible. If
then you get results above chance you are onto something.

Psychic powers need evidence. If it can be done by trickery it must be
performed under conditions making this impossible. Why do they all
refuse? Draw your own conclusions.

Kevin Craner

twi...@worldnet.att.net

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

to

robo...@aol.com wrote:

>In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis) writes:
>
>>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them. If anyone can meet
>>his challenge, they can have over a million dollars. If one doesn't
>>meet the challenge it simply means they have nothing to offer as

>>evidence, and should be viewed as unsubstantiated. The other method

>>used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
>>magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate
>>feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
>>be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
>>is not evidence of paranormal activity.
>>

>>Randi doesn't prove people frauds, nor does he attempt to. He simply
>>provides a method that enable them to prove themselves. If they
>>can't, why believe their extraordinary claims?
>>
>>
>

>Why cannot he accept a challenge? <snip>

Because he isn't making any claims. He has nothing to
prove.

Jerry Watson

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> Matt Kriebel wrote:

[snip]

>
> > : > >>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.
>
> > : > >Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING
> > : > >CHALLENGED.

Why does a vision of Daniel Ortega, insisting that his election
was fair, come to mind?

jdw

twi...@worldnet.att.net

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Then why doesn't he communicate terms of the test, with DAMES, via
>certifiable written communication?

><snip.

Randi has said that he will accept Dames if he fulfills the
terms of the challenge that are posted on Randi's home page
at
http://www.randi.org

What is Dames so afraid of that he refuses to follow the
terms of the challenge?

Why is Dames avoiding meeting the reasonable terms of the
challenge?

Why is Dames apparently not even reading the terms of the
Challenge?

Is Dames and PSI tech so hard up for publicity that they
must go on radio shows and say things that are clearly not
true?

You can understand why Bell wants the publicity, but what
about Dames? This way he can make the more gullible of the
populace believe that he is ready when he is clearly
avoiding the challenge.

Matt Kriebel

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:

: Matt Kriebel wrote:
:

: > Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:
:
: > : When a person meets a challenge, as Ed Dames has done, and RANDI
: > : RUNS
: > : AWAY, then it's a challenge for RANDI TO KEEP HIS WORD. There's
: > : another
: > : post from me, today, which gives more detail, in reply to
: > :"ya...@my.org"

:
: Matt writes:
: > <snip>Randi has tried to get the terms of the

: > challenge to Art, but all we hear in return is BS posturing from Dames > and mental idiots like Kettler having a collective wet dream.
:

: Now, this is interesting. This is a vague reference, and it probably

: refers to the reply to DAMES that's been circulating on USENET,
: which ART BELL read on the air. It, essentially, says nothing more
: than that Ed Dames should go to the WWW SITE of the JREF, read RANDI's
: Rules, and comply.

No, it means that when you are trying for the challenge money, you must
follow the terms of the challenge. You can get the terms of the challenge
via other methods besides WWW.

: In essense, the meaning is: trust me, follow me, and I will lead

: you right, give a fair test, and if you fail, too bad.

No, the meaning is: If you are going to test or the money, you have to
understand that conditions will be set so that you cannot cheat or cop-out
in other ways.

: It's a bunch of BS, put out by a BS'r and all his BS ing followers.

You once again demonstrat that you do not understand how the challenge
works. Otherwise you would know that your claims are BS.

: More character assassination from members of the RANDI CULT:

*yawn*

:
: "mental idiots" a term from Matt

I find it so much more dignified than your favorite word: 'vomit'.

: For more on this CULT MENTALITY, with examples, click at "skeptics" at

: the below listed WWW site. They think that the message will not be
: believed if they make these lame attempts to portray the messengers as
: idiots. What a joke!

Your web site is a joke. That and the fact that one must make their way
through a giant ad to find it. Why not give the direct address Kettler?

ske...@sprintmail.com

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain
to have such powers to demonstrate it ??????

How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any
special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly.

It can ONLY be expected that one who makes extraordinary claims to
offer extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we shold all send all of our
money to Jim and Tammy Bakker ( or whatever nut we happen to run
accross...Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm, The Dali Lamma, Uri
Geller..ect..ect...).

William R. James

Kristine Campbell

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

In article <5g7m2b$n...@bolivia.earthlink.net>,
bog...@earthlink.spamguard.net (Dr. Tim) wrote:

>In article <33302a00...@news.cyberhighway.net>, address@sig wrote:
>>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> screeched:
>>
>><reams of bullshit sanitized for your protection>
>>
>>>You are alleging a position of the opposition that is incorrect.
>>>There was no communication to "dictate," but rather to discuss,
>>>live, on the air, the terms of a test. Randi can discuss the use of
>>>ROGET'S RULES OF ORDER, or any format, and have it agreed upon in
>>>writing, before going on the program.
>>
>>I believe you meant "ROBERT'S THESAURUS" there, Kettlebanger.
>

>Or was it "Websters Parlimentary Procedures"
>
>Dr. Tim, BsD, Please pardon my discordant harmonic overtones
>
>Let's get drunk and talk about aliens
>Art Bell Parody Pages:
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4695

and folks wonder how bruce got the nickname idiot the bruce. sheesh.
kristine
--
--
Official Knight of What is Deemed Funny and Amusing in afab
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avenging Archangel of * Go Penguins!
the Spelling Flame *
Proud Board Member * Jesus saves but Jagr shoots and
of AFAB since October '96 * scores
-----------------------------------------------------------------
visit MY web page www.my.border.collie.com/~is.a.channeler.htm.
-------------

JohnAcadInt

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
> Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain
> to have such powers to demonstrate it ??????

Depends how you define 'negative'. If you mean, for example, that it cannot
be shown that I have not concealed a herd of elephants under 'e' in the
English alphabet, you would be right; of course, I might have hidden them
under the upper case 'E' - and that would have been wicked of me, wouldn't
it! What this nonsense means is only that if something cannot be shown to
be untrue it might very well be true or untrue. Curiously, though always
quoted by the sceptic, it simply leaves all possibilities open - including
'magic' - in the sense that our world might appear magical to men of an
earlier age.

> How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any
> special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly.

'NOT'? Thought you said this was impossible!

My impression, however, is that some of them were tested extensively,
but got fed up of it!

> It can ONLY be expected that one who makes extraordinary claims to
> offer extraordinary evidence.

You refer to that sharp Scot, David Hume, who, by the way, virtually
accepted that if conscious experience consists only of isolated steps,
then no real knowledge is possible. His stricture that we should
'believe the lesser' miracle does NOT mean that 'miracles' are ruled
out; indeed, in Hume's epistemology, or in his theology, there would
be nothing at all extraordinary about a miracle. Notoriously, he can
give you no reason why a rainmaker might be less effective than a shoe-
maker - albeit you expect little of the former and much of the latter!

.> Otherwise we shold all send all of our
.> money to Jim and Tammy Bakker ( or whatever nut we happen to run
.> accross...Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm, The Dali Lamma, Uri
.> Geller..ect..ect...).

From Hume's standpoint they are all of a piece: like Pareto, I
should be very interested in knowing how you do decide who gets
your money.

.> William R. James

Yrs evr
JohnM

PS - James answered Hume's problem. Discuss!

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

Kevin Craner wrote:

> Wizard Wrote.
> DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:

> >On 10 Mar 1997, Wizard wrote:
> >> In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com

> >>[snip]

YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED MY WRITING, AND THAT IS TYPICALLY
DECEPTIVE, AND CULT-LIKE ACTIVITY. FURTHER DOWN IN THIS POSTING, THE
READER WILL SEE HOW THIS WAS DONE, AND MAY ACCESS MY WEB SITE FOR OTHER
EXAMPLES -- quotes -- OF THIS *so-called* "SKEPTIC" activity.

> There are some interesting points that need to be addressed here and
> mistakes that require correction. Firstly the arguement which states:

> "just because something can be done by trickery does not mean it isn't
> real"

> The Law of Parsimony (some may know it as Occum's Razor) tells
> us that if we are faced with two possible explainations to
> something then we should
> take the simpler. For example, lets look at the ever popular Remote
> viewing.

> 1. We can either reject all known scientific laws and conclude the
> phenomenon is genuine.

Your interpretation of what "all known scientific laws" is
questionable. See, on my INSTANT LINKS page a link to
the site of physicist, Jack Sarfatti.

> OR

> 2. If the claimed power can be reproduced by ordinary means
> (ie,trickery was possible) then we should accept the simpler
> expaination.

A third alternative would be to INVESTIGATE. With the initials
CSICOP -- the "I" is "investigatation" -- what CSICOP cultists are
*supposed* to do. As one example, examine the data of Professor
Jessica Utts, on my "scientific study of psychic phenomena" page. It
seems that, to this "black-white" mentality,
there is little or no disposition to look at probabilities, to risk
the time involved, rather than to insist on EITHER absolute proof,
OR no evidence at all. I'm not calling this evidence, *JUST*
evidence, but for the sake of argument, I'm calling it hypothetical
evidence, while to competent individuals, it is considered proof.

Why accept either of the above two you listed, and only them, even if
we, hypothetically, accept your view of "known scientific laws"?

In my WEB PAGES, (click on "skeptics") I have written about this
"either-or," "black-white" mentality.

><snip> A magician knows if a psychic feat is fake. <snip>

> The JREF provides a way of testing a psychics powers under conditions
> which do not allow trickery.

> Daniel Bruce Kettler is constantly saying there is no need for evidence
> and accuse those who promote science and critical thinking as being
> cultists.

I never said there "is no need for evidence," in the manner you
cut it out of context. I wrote that people who write in paranormal
newsgroups are, as it is proper, discussing these things amongst
themselves, and are quite tired of reading repeated demands from
people like you to prove these *DISCUSSSIONS* to you, *AS IF*
they were making, "CLAIMS."

Obviously, evidence is important for scientific investigation,
in the proper place, and at the proper time.

YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED MY WRITING, AND THAT IS TYPICALLY
DECEPTIVE, AND CULT-LIKE ACTIVITY.

Your writing, above is an absolutely false statement about a person,
which is typical of this CULT mentality, and this has been demonstrated
by the writing of this cult, most recently, in what was written about
the physicist, JACK SARFATTI. sTARBABY is another clear indication of
the PATTERN OF DECEPTION OF THIS CULT. There are books on the market
about this pattern of DECEPTION -- one example:

THE NEW INQUISITION
by
Robert Anton Wilson

CULTISTS and people who promote "science and critical thinking,"
are, as all my writing shows, especially on the first of my WEB PAGE --
"SKEPTIC" pages, OBVIOUSLY TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

As one example, your misrepresentation of my writing, is AN OBVIOUS
HABIT OF THIS CULT OF SO-CALLED "SKEPTICS," FAR REMOVED
FROM science and critical thinking.

More on these CULTISTS, at my WEB PAGE: http://www.psicounsel.com --
click at the word "skeptics" from the first page.

>He expects people to accept what he says on blind faith.

You are OBVIOUSLY QUITE SELF-DECEPTIVE. This is what you would
expect, and so you see it that way. YOU ARE BLIND (don't take
"blind" literally as in physical blindness, ok?)

> Despite not proving evidence he assures believers that evidence is not
> needed. He expects 100% trust.

AGAIN, MORE SELF DECEPTION FROM THIS TYPICALLY DELUDED MENTALITY.

>If the power is real there is no reason
> not to validate it. Mr Kettler only makes excuses.

I have never asked people to take anything on faith, only that
I am not obligated, on USENET, to answer any of the FANATICAL
DEMANDS FROM CULTISTS TO ANSWER THEIR SICK WRITING, AND IRRATIONAL
STATEMENTS.

You are, as all these cultists, IRRATIONAL, to the POINT THAT YOUR
RATIONAL THINKING IS COMPLETELY OBSCURED BY THE BRAINWASHING OF
THIS CULT.

<snip>

> Why do they all refuse? [psychics to be tested]
>Draw your own conclusions.

Well, obviously, as has been shown quite clearly in my recent posts,
to be tested by RANDI'S organization, without renegotiation, is like
being LED ALONG LIKE A SHEEP TO THE SLAUGHTER, and THIS TEST IS TOTALLY
BOGUS -- as may be noted by the fact that RANDI HAS RECENTLY RUN AWAY
FROM DISCUSSING A FAIR TEST, ON THE AIR, LIVE, WITH ED DAMES.

To view these posts, use your WWW browser: http://www.dejanews.com and
enter d...@psicounsel.com -- then look at the most recent references in
the subject headers to RANDI.

> Kevin Craner

--

http://www.psicounsel.com

Matt Kriebel

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:

: Your writing, above is an absolutely false statement about a person,

: which is typical of this CULT mentality, and this has been demonstrated
: by the writing of this cult, most recently, in what was written about
: the physicist, JACK SARFATTI. sTARBABY is another clear indication of
: the PATTERN OF DECEPTION OF THIS CULT.

Hey Kettler! For the eleventh time I challenge to you to tell us what
happened in the sTARBABY incident that lets you use it like a club against
skeptics. I gave you my FAQ, you said you saw Jim Lippard's site, and yet
you claim both are decpetive without giving any reason. So I challenge you
again to tellus what happened in the whol sTARBABY incient that makes the
skeptics so bad.

Most likely you will ignore the challenge, again.

:There are books on the market

: about this pattern of DECEPTION -- one example:
:
: THE NEW INQUISITION
: by
: Robert Anton Wilson

Quotes about Bruces favorite book:

"In fact the attitude that Wilson finds laudable is exhibited more often
by CSICOP than by Wilson himself" -From SKEPTIC magazine's review

Gee, sounds like Kettler!

"It is a habit of Wilson's; when he writes about people he doesn't like,
he paraphrases rather than quoting them directly. Not very ehtical, that"
Jim Lippard

Not to mention how Wilson outright makes stuf up to make skeptics look
bad. Witrness his comments on Randi at SRI & the Columbus Poltergiest
case, or the laughable re-telling of sTARBABY

Another damming Quote:

"Wilson writes a book attacking an organization whose publication he has
not read, acusing it of the 'crime' of criticizing what it does not
understand, while having no comprehension of what that organization is
really like" R. Sheaffer

Gee! Sounds like Kettler who once said he 'could not pick up a copy of
Skeptical Inquirer or one of Randi's books' without seeing examples of his
imaginary skepticult. Never mind that he admitted long ago that he did and
would not read Randi's books.

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

gop...@deltanet.com (Kristine Campbell) wrote:

>and folks wonder how bruce got the nickname idiot the bruce. sheesh.
>kristine

Where the hell have you been, prissy? I was beginning to think one of
those hockey pucks had "high-sticked" you, if you know what I mean and
I think you do.

It's about time you got back here to keep Kettlepotblack in line. The
rest of us are getting kinda tired of doing it for you. Besides, I
think he has a crush on you. He did put you on his web page, after
all.

Jim Rogers

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> Art's Parts (ya...@my.org) wrote:

> > On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:39:06 GMT, ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis) wrote:

> > >No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
> > >to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.

> It's a challenge to Randi to put *the* money where his mouth is. It's

> not a bet. Randi has accused Dames of lying with his allegation that he
> had made an offer to set up a test. Now, Dames is asking Randi to get
> on the telephone, and be heard on the air, to discuss details of a test.

As quoted from the JREF page with the details of "the challenge," here
is how one accepts the challenge:

: Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form,
: signifies agreement with the above rules.

Has Dames done this yet? If not, he has NOT "accepted the challenge."

...

> > <snip> Dames will never agree to a
> > true test of his abilities.

> The above, is incorrect, because he has agreed before millions of
> listeners. The ball is in RANDI'S court.

Once again:

: Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form,
: signifies agreement with the above rules.

Has Dames done this yet? If not, he has NOT "accepted the challenge."

Jim

Earl Curley

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
> Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain
> to have such powers to demonstrate it ??????
>

> How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any
> special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly.
>

> It can ONLY be expected that one who makes extraordinary claims to

> offer extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we shold all send all of our

> money to Jim and Tammy Bakker ( or whatever nut we happen to run

> accross...Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm, The Dali Lamma, Uri

> Geller..ect..ect...).
>
> William R. James

Well, fools did send their funds to those hypocrits except to my
knowledge, Billy Graham, the Dali Lama and my friend Uri Geller.

So what you are stating is that your friends are crooks while mine
aren't?

Earl Curley
psy...@globalserve.net
http://www.webdesign.ca/

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> Kevin Craner wrote:
>
> > Wizard Wrote.
> > DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > >On 10 Mar 1997, Wizard wrote:
> > >> In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com
> > >>[snip]
>
> YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED MY WRITING, AND THAT IS TYPICALLY
> DECEPTIVE, AND CULT-LIKE ACTIVITY. FURTHER DOWN IN THIS POSTING, THE
> READER WILL SEE HOW THIS WAS DONE, AND MAY ACCESS MY WEB SITE FOR OTHER
> EXAMPLES -- quotes -- OF THIS *so-called* "SKEPTIC" activity.

Yes, further down you may see more examples of the SKEP-TI-CULTS fine
work in destroying LOO-NIcy at its roots. We try our hardest.

> > There are some interesting points that need to be addressed here and
> > mistakes that require correction. Firstly the arguement which states:

<<snip>>

> A third alternative would be to INVESTIGATE. With the initials
> CSICOP -- the "I" is "investigatation" -- what CSICOP cultists are
> *supposed* to do. As one example, examine the data of Professor
> Jessica Utts, on my "scientific study of psychic phenomena" page. It
> seems that, to this "black-white" mentality,

I prefer to think of our CULTs mentality as more of a reddish hue. The
LOO-NIs are of course represented by orange. I think you can clearly see
who is better, as orange is a silly color.

> there is little or no disposition to look at probabilities, to risk
> the time involved, rather than to insist on EITHER absolute proof,
> OR no evidence at all. I'm not calling this evidence, *JUST*
> evidence, but for the sake of argument, I'm calling it hypothetical
> evidence, while to competent individuals, it is considered proof.

Bruce, on research and investigation,
"-You don't need "expertise," just a couple of hours looking at a
web site or two...."

"-No expertise.
No long hours in the library.
Just a few hours.
BDK"

I think we see who needs to "investigate" here.
<<snip>>

> In my WEB PAGES, (click on "skeptics") I have written about this
> "either-or," "black-white" mentality.

Yes, so have I.

> I never said there "is no need for evidence," in the manner you
> cut it out of context. I wrote that people who write in paranormal
> newsgroups are, as it is proper, discussing these things amongst
> themselves, and are quite tired of reading repeated demands from
> people like you to prove these *DISCUSSSIONS* to you, *AS IF*
> they were making, "CLAIMS."

They are making claims. You also post into sci.skeptic frequently. If
you don't want to discuss it in the context of reality make the ng
alt.fake-ass.stories.paranormal. Then we might consider alt.bash.bell.

> Obviously, evidence is important for scientific investigation,
> in the proper place, and at the proper time.

We know how Bruce investigates. Art Bell said it was real, it *MUST* be.

> YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED MY WRITING, AND THAT IS TYPICALLY
> DECEPTIVE, AND CULT-LIKE ACTIVITY.

Yes it is. Upon joining the SKEP-TI-CULT one must sign a contract
agreeing to just that. We don't just encourage it, we require it. But
hell, not much of a trade for FREE drinks in the clubhouse. (Join now!)

> Your writing, above is an absolutely false statement about a person,
> which is typical of this CULT mentality, and this has been demonstrated
> by the writing of this cult, most recently, in what was written about
> the physicist, JACK SARFATTI.

Actually I've written about it too. At my WEBSITE. (heehee, this is
fun.) Your CULT comments don't phase us anymore Bruce. These folks are
PROUD to sign up with a snazzy new outfit like ours. We even have cool
graphics at our SITE. Yours is an ugly green color.

>sTARBABY is another clear indication of
> the PATTERN OF DECEPTION OF THIS CULT. There are books on the market
> about this pattern of DECEPTION -- one example:

WARNING! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! This is LOO-NI-KULT propaganda! It
probably has no neat pictures, or lewd references! You are encouraged to
by-pass this obvious attempt to force your defection from the ONE TRUE
CULT®.

> THE NEW INQUISITION
> by
> Robert Anton Wilson
>
>
> CULTISTS and people who promote "science and critical thinking,"
> are, as all my writing shows, especially on the first of my WEB PAGE --
> "SKEPTIC" pages, OBVIOUSLY TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

Yes, we promote all kinds of fun stuff, like sky-diving. Bruce portrays
us as being stodgy fools, but we know better. The SKEP-TI-CULT won't
stand for this type of criticism.

> As one example, your misrepresentation of my writing, is AN OBVIOUS
> HABIT OF THIS CULT OF SO-CALLED "SKEPTICS," FAR REMOVED
> FROM science and critical thinking.

I think critically every time I look at your nonsense. LOO-NI-KULTists
often try to twist the words of others. Also, they have a habit of
rambling incoherently at times. They think they can confuse us, but then
again, they are mostly deluded and maniacal.

> More on these CULTISTS, at my WEB PAGE: http://www.psicounsel.com --
> click at the word "skeptics" from the first page.

More on CULTists, and how you can join FREE at
http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998/

> >He expects people to accept what he says on blind faith.
>
> You are OBVIOUSLY QUITE SELF-DECEPTIVE. This is what you would
> expect, and so you see it that way. YOU ARE BLIND (don't take
> "blind" literally as in physical blindness, ok?)

Okay, although I think Randi Chicken has some blind friends.

<<snip>>

> AGAIN, MORE SELF DECEPTION FROM THIS TYPICALLY DELUDED MENTALITY.

Notice the LOO-NI-tics character assassination. He can't just tell
someone nicely, nooooo, he has to shout it. BRUCE, YOU ARE BEING WACKY
AGAIN. In our CULT you won't find any delusion, just posh comfort.

> >If the power is real there is no reason
> > not to validate it. Mr Kettler only makes excuses.
>
> I have never asked people to take anything on faith, only that
> I am not obligated, on USENET, to answer any of the FANATICAL
> DEMANDS FROM CULTISTS TO ANSWER THEIR SICK WRITING, AND IRRATIONAL
> STATEMENTS.

He is really advertising us heavily today. Every time you mention the
CULT Bruce, millions of people flock to our WEB SITE and see you for
what you are. They also get drunk. We are not fanatical. We encourage
free thought, as long as it fits the contracts policies.

> You are, as all these cultists, IRRATIONAL, to the POINT THAT YOUR
> RATIONAL THINKING IS COMPLETELY OBSCURED BY THE BRAINWASHING OF
> THIS CULT.

Nothing wrong with a good bit of brainwashing, although we can't do it
as much as we'd like to. Mostly try to recruit people who are ALREADY
brainwashed. Brains always feel bettter after a good scrubbing.

> <snip>
>
> > Why do they all refuse? [psychics to be tested]
> >Draw your own conclusions.
>
> Well, obviously, as has been shown quite clearly in my recent posts,
> to be tested by RANDI'S organization, without renegotiation, is like
> being LED ALONG LIKE A SHEEP TO THE SLAUGHTER, and THIS TEST IS TOTALLY
> BOGUS -- as may be noted by the fact that RANDI HAS RECENTLY RUN AWAY
> FROM DISCUSSING A FAIR TEST, ON THE AIR, LIVE, WITH ED DAMES.

Look at Bruce assassinating the good name of RANDI. It seems like these
psychics would learn not to publicly call him dishonest among other more
vile assaults. I mean, just because Dames is loopier than a donut is no
reason to make fun of Randi. He hasn't signed up with the forces of GOOD
in our CULT yet, so per contract, I can't defend him too heavily.

> To view these posts, use your WWW browser: http://www.dejanews.com and
> enter d...@psicounsel.com -- then look at the most recent references in
> the subject headers to RANDI.

Or go to my search page, and enter the addresses given. Also for more
goofiness on Bruce, go to dejanews and in the old database section type
"~a dket...@ix.netcom.com"
without the quotes, and "darklady." See the head of the LOO-NI-KULT make
a fool out of himself again and again. Also try "idiot" with either of
his addresses to have great laughter erupt from your person.

> > Kevin Craner

--
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration
Officer #01-22112-324

http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998/

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:

> Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain
> to have such powers to demonstrate it ??????

> How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any
> special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly.

<snip>

You have missed the boat, here. Randi issued a challenge, Ed Dames
replied and accepted, offering to discuss details ON THE AIR, as
both of them have been invited to the ART BELL RADIO SHOW.

NOW IT IS A CHALLENGE TO RANDI, SINCE RANDI HAS DUCKED HIS OWN
CHALLENGE, REFUSING TO DISCUSS THIS PUBLICLY.

http://www.artbell.com

If you have missed out on the details, and all the debates of
this subject, then go to the USENET ARCHIVES:

http://www.dejanews.com

and enter my e-mail address: d...@psicounsel.com

and then look at all the postings with "RANDI" in the subject header.

I have debated this issue thoroughly, and so far, no-one has a valid,
sensible, argument that stand's up to the facts.

> William R. James

--

h t t p : / / w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m

click at

scientific study of psychic phenomena

John Mcgowan

unread,

Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97

to

-=> While talking of RANDI, DONALD PEDDER
-=> said to All on 11 Mar 97 11:27:04: From: DONALD PEDDER

> > The other method used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience

> > and skills as a magician. He demonstrates methods of performing
> > tricks that duplicate feats claimed by others as psychic feats.
> > If the "claimed feat" can be performed by natural trickery,
> > then performing the "claimed feat" is not evidence of paranormal
> > activity.

> But neither is performing something by tricks evidence that the reality

> does not exist. Merely because people improve with non-effective
> placebo drugs does not mean that drugs do not work.

DP> If Randi can convince the world that Psychic powers are NOT possible
DP> by showing how it can be faked, then I GUESS that means that Meg
DP> Ryan has convinced the world that Women can NOT have orgasms!

Good point Don. (LOL) Just because something can be faked does not mean
it is all fake. :)

People counterfeit money all the time, does that mean real money is
worthless! :) (Maye that was a bad example. ;->)

{ John.M...@Ghostrdr.Wierius.Com }

... Remember, not all lynch mobs are this friendly.
--
|Fidonet: John Mcgowan 1:114/314
|Internet: John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Dr. Hugh Morles

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

to

Hi there Moe--I mean "Curly"

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

to

Kevin Craner <cra...@cf.ac.uk> writes:
> Wizard Wrote.
> DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:
> >On 10 Mar 1997, Wizard wrote:
> >

> >> >If the "claimed feat" can
> >> >be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
> >> >is not evidence of paranormal activity.
> >>
> >> But neither is performing something by tricks evidence that the reality
> >> does not exist.
>

> =========================================================================

> There are some interesting points that need to be addressed here and
> mistakes that require correction. Firstly the arguement which states:
>

> "just because something can be done by trickery does not mean it isn't
> real"
>
> The Law of Parsimony (some may know it as Occum's Razor) tells us that if

> we are faced with two possible explanations to something then we should
> take the simpler.

This is a popular misconception. See the following article:

--===--

THE ECONOMIST 5 October 1996, pp. 81-2.

OCCAM'S DISPOSABLE RAZOR
Is Seeing Believing?

..

Occam's principle did say that superfluous things should not exist; but
it was devised only to cut through the metaphysical mess that the
philosophy of his time was producing. Since then, however, flabby
thinkers have manufactured from it a sort of philosophical spot cream,
the liberal application of which makes undesirable things vanish. Worse,
it gets used to prop up all manner of otherwise unsupported notions. It
has stood in for management non-ideas: "Applying Occam's razor, a
[business] unit should be as small as it can be and as large as it must
be to survive"--or even to make simple questions look deep: "Applying the
scientific principle of Occam's razor..what was so special about PanAm
flight 103?"

Occam here, Occam there, Occam, Occam everywhere--like the barber of
Seville, the barber of philosophy has been hoisted by his own popularity.
People credit him for their own bad ideas and blame him for other
people's. And all over something that he did not, in fact, really invent.

..[history of aristotlean philosophy snipped]...

Worse still, scientific method wants no part of it. The
belief that Occam's razor is a scientific principle stems from a subtle
confusion between parsimony (the denial of unnecessary entities--ie,
Occam's razor) and simplicity.

Scientists like simple theories. If two theories agree equally well with
experiment, the simpler one usually gets chosen, just because it is
easier to use. It makes sense to do things simply, like walking in a
straight line rather than a wobbly line.

Parsimony--ie, not believing in unseen entities, be they tiny particles,
intelligent life on other planets or God--is merely a philosophical
principle, not a scientific one. (You cannot have scientific evidence
that aliens do not exist if you have never seen an alien). There is no
logical reason why a parsimonious theory, rather than an extravagant one,
should be true. Yet, since it describes the same observations with less
fancy detail, it is likely to be simpler too; so scientists are likely to
choose it.

The scientists are often vindicated. Take the solar system. In
challenging the geocentric model that had the planets dancing a complex
set of epicycles to explain their erratic motions as seen from the earth,
Copernicus found that the same thing would be seen if the planets, and
the earth, went round the sun. His theory was both simpler and more
parsimonious.

This and many other examples have led many scientists to associate
simplicity and parsimony not only with ease, but with truth. On the face
of it, this looks fine: surely it is wise to go for the simpler
explanation and reject things you have no positive evidence for, like
epicycles or aliens or God? Well, no. It merely seems to be, because
things have been simple in the past.

What this implies is that the universe is somehow inherently simple--an
idea that gives ulcers to some philosophers and pay packets to all. Some
argue that the history of science shows no such trend, and that Occam's
razor, indeed, has conditioned people to see simplicity where there is none.

Most scientists carry on in blissful disregard. They see pragmatic
reasons why simple theories might win out. This is a universe in which
all things are made up of progressively smaller, simpler ones. As a
science advances, it usually generalises, covering more phenomena. To do
so it must theorise about what they have in common, and, in this
universe, that is something more basic. So newer, broader theories
describe increasingly basic things;(and also have fewer exceptions),
hence are simpler themselves. Of course, the things they describe (like
electrons) are far from everyday experience, so the theories seem
hideously complex to all but their cognoscenti.

Either way, Occam loses. His razor was made for the philosophical realm,
but gets dragged into the real world as some kind of mystical truth to
explain the universe. The explanation turns out to be either flawed or
unnecessary, and he gets the blame for confusing people. His other, very
advanced, philosophical and political ideas have been overshadowed. And
to crown it, foolish people turn his razor into an amulet, and use it to
ward off little green men.

--===--

| Medical drugs require evidence that
| results are more than just a placebo.

Placebos work, don't knock 'em.

In a recent double-blind field trial of headache tablets done by a
consumer programme (BBC Watchdog, 17/6/96), it was found that with a 50%
success rate, the placebos were as effective as the headache tablets.
But does this mean aspirin is just a placebo?

I leave the answer to this conundrum as an exercise for the reader.

-Shez.
_____________________________________________________________
hdU+++0cZgzIKTCF0DtD-Y-tyLDH-AvirpaNifmme31g817TvDjPVu72vMtq+
03jC+ ############# Omnia Quia Sunt Lumina Sunt #############
_____________________________________________________________
If replying by email delete .SPAMBLOK from address

Matt Kriebel

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:
:

: According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent

: to Randi. See my other recent posts.

Oh, so then they should have a nice reciept to prove that, right?

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

to

| In a recent double-blind field trial of headache tablets done by a
| consumer programme (BBC Watchdog, 17/6/96), it was found that with a 50%
| success rate, the placebos were as effective as the headache tablets.
| But does this mean aspirin is just a placebo?

Most headaches vanish before anything has a chance to work!

Eric Bear Albrecht

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

to

> In article <332440...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>
> >[THIS IS BEING POSTED TO 2 THREADS:
....

and then, lacking a keen sense of the obvious but making up for
it with nyah-nyah, Dr. Tim <bog...@earthlink.spamguard.net> wrote:

> Why? Isn't that a waste of bandwidth? Perhaps the folks at UUNet and
> phisys.net would be interested in in this abuse.

Good grief!! Look at the Esperanto "thread"!!

--
"I'm not a member of any organized political group --
I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

Eric Bear Albrecht eb...@presto.com / eb...@laplaza.org

dr. digger

unread,

Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97

to

Matt Kriebel wrote:

>The bottom line is that Kettler hasn't read enough to understand the
>challenge, let alone accuse Randi of being 'cowardly' about it. But this
>whole thing is nothing but Dames posturing for the sake of little
>sycophants like Kettler. Kettler of course falls for it like a stone and
>gets it in his head that since Randi offers a challenge he *must* be at
>the becka nd call of the standards and whinings of any psychic wannabee.
>
>It seems most apparent that Kettler has not really read the challenge or
>any other 'blasphemous' skeptical material that would give him a clue as
>to what he is talking about.

Of course Kettlebanger has read the challenge. As dumb as
he is, he fully realizes that he's pushing deliberate
disinformation. He does that without hesitation.

B'ruce has backed himself too far into the whole paranormal
debate to acknowledge what is clear to almost everyone else.
He has little choice but to assume a posture of denial,
otherwise he would have to admit that he's a fraud as well.
Even so, I can't see a good reason for him to be so
strident, except that he really is a bona fide idiot.

Besides, politicians have shown time and again that you
don't need a coherent argument to win the propaganda war for
the hearts and minds of the public.

>I wonder if Kettler thinks that Dames has anything to lose by posturing
>like this?

Like a dog who lives from one supper dish to the next, I
doubt that Bruce thinks that far ahead. You may be
overestimating him.

Even if Dames actually accepted the challenge, and lost, he
would probably be able to put on the "I bravely challenged
the Amazing Randi" facade. He would make up lame excuses,
and his true believers would continue to believe and buy his
tapes. Art Bell would continue to have him as a guest, as
long as his tapes sell.

dr. digger

>Matt Kriebel

YBMcGee

unread,

Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97

to

>>Wow, look at these bitches go at one another. It's a cat fight.
Woo-wooo.<<

And all this time I thought it was a fantasy!

--
At the risk of sounding like a spam, if you are single, check out my buddies webpage http://users.aol.com/bradleyi/shyman.html If he can help a geek like me meet women, he can help anyone

Peter M.

unread,

Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97

to

In article <3329B8...@globalserve.net>, Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote: -ske...@sprintmail.com wrote: -> Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain -> to have such powers to demonstrate it ?????? -> How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any -> special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly. -> It can ONLY be expected that one who makes extraordinary claims to -> offer extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we shold all send all of our -> money to Jim and Tammy Bakker ( or whatever nut we happen to run -> accross...Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm, The Dali Lamma, Uri -> Geller..ect..ect...). -> William R. James -Well, fools did send their funds to those hypocrits except to my -knowledge, Billy Graham, the Dali Lama and my friend Uri Geller. -So what you are stating is that your friends are crooks while mine -aren't? -Earl Curley -psy...@globalserve.net -http://www.webdesign.ca/ I would like to notice everyone that MR Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> isn't a honest person and has habit of using black calumny. See Yourselves this habit bellow my comment. I would like also notice that I have right to have MY OWN believes and they are MINE. I'm also catholic, but not practicing one <small grin> :) *********************************************************************** Newsgroups: alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.paranormal From: Pet...@mbox200.swipnet.se (Peter M.) Subject: Re: Can everyone be a telepath? nope! Declaration of hostilities toward Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> by Pet...@mbox200.swipnet.se (Peter M.) Organization: http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-21981/ References: <5coleo$3...@mn5.swip.net> <19970131034...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <32F133...@globalserve.net> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 97 15:16:28 GMT Lines: 54 In article <32F133...@globalserve.net>, Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote: -tome...@aol.com wrote: -> In article <5coleo$3...@mn5.swip.net>, Pet...@mbox200.swipnet.se (Peter -> M.) writes: ->> The telepaths have no problem with reading anything from one's ->> brain, no matter of tries to hide the information or flood it over with ->> something else. I mean REAL telepaths. ->> Peter M. -> You are describing a "Psychic Reader" or "Clarivoiant" NOT telepathy -> or a telepath. Telepathy is a "natural" "pre-vocal" form of mental -> communication. Telepathy is NOT "mind reading" Do not Confuse -> "Clarivoyance" and "Psychic attacks" with mental Telepathy. There is a -> BIG difference between the transferrence of simple "thought information" -> from brain to brain and preformining an "active psychic reading" of a -> person's thoughts. Forcing "thoughts" into another's mind is a branch of -> "Black Magic" that goes by several names, eg. Voo Doo, Possession or more -> properly, "PSYCHIC ATTACK". -> IF indeed you ARE being "attacked" mentally, you are being -> "attacked" by "MAGICIANS" or "WITCHES" , and NOT the "harmless" -> "telepath". -> TOM Eleven -> Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ -> tome...@aol.com -> Home page: http://members.aol.com/tomeleven/tomindex.html -Tom, although you are absolutely correct and your post is valid -information for the newbis please understand that you are wasting your -time addresing any of PeterM's questions. He's a sick cookie and -there's nothing in this world that you or I or anyone else can do to -help him with his infliction. Just a side note. -Earl Curley -psy...@globalserver.net -http://www.webdesign.ca/ ...and you are basing your opinion about my imaginary and claimed by you craziness on grounds of??? Tell everyone and me too, as black-calumny isn't something to take it easy. I'm internet user also and I can begin to spam you all over the place too. Please, supply your proofs or you will be spamed by me, Pet...@mbox200.swipnet.se (Peter M.) over whole net by the end of 5 march 1997. Thank you for your attention. If this will escalate to impossible limits I shell take the case before a court of law. It's not my intention to fight anyone except the telepaths, but I will defend myself if attacked, specially if it's totally unprovocated by my side. Sincerly *********************************************************************** Peter M. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigfrid Siwertz---You shouldn't fight to death a shadow. Kill it with a light. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jack rose

unread,

Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97

to psy...@globalserve.net

Earl Curley wrote:

>
> ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain

> > to have such powers to demonstrate it ??????
> >

> > How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any

> > special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly.
> >

> > It can ONLY be expected that one who makes extraordinary claims to

> > offer extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we shold all send all of our

> > money to Jim and Tammy Bakker ( or whatever nut we happen to run

> > accross...Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm, The Dali Lamma, Uri

> > Geller..ect..ect...).
> >
> > William R. James
>

> Well, fools did send their funds to those hypocrits except to my

> knowledge, Billy Graham, the Dali Lama and my friend Uri Geller.
>

> So what you are stating is that your friends are crooks while mine

> aren't?
>
> Earl Curley
> psy...@globalserve.net
> http://www.webdesign.ca/

Earl,

I'm new to this discussion. Are you saying that Uri Geller is not a
proven fraud? Please explain.

Jack

Jim Rogers

unread,

Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> William Barwell wrote:
...

> > Dames CLAIMED he had accepted it.
> > But did he?
> > The challenge is clear as to how it is to be done.
> > You contact Randi in writing.
> > If he did not follow the official challenge instructions,
> > he did not actually accept the challenge.

...

> > There is a reason for doing things this way.
> > To prevent the very sort of games Bell and Dames
> > are playing, which can go on for a small
> > piece of forever if Randi let's em start.

...

> According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent
> to Randi. See my other recent posts.

So what was in this 'registered letter'? Did it, by any chance, contain
a signed and notarized copy of the challenge, agreeing to the terms, as
specificed in the challenge? To wit:

: Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form,
: signifies agreement with the above rules.

Has Dames done this yet? It's a simple question; claiming to have sent a
registered letter doesn't answer it.

Jim

Kristine Campbell

unread,

Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97

to

i wish i had been highsticked...or boarded... perhaps a two line pass....

what really happened is that my isp is the antichrist, and i moved....i
think things are finally settled....

as for the webvertizement of idiot the bruce's, just a little bit of
immortality...my fifteen minutes, as it were. although why it couldn't
have been the lottery instead of windbag bruce's webpage i'll never know.

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97

to

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Jim Davis wrote:

> [snip]

>
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>

> >>From: ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis)
>
> >Now, it is no longer a "challenge" *from* RANDI, but a challenge from
> >Art Bell and Ed Dames TO RANDI, to put *THE* money where his big mouth
> >is.

>
> No it's not a challenge from Art Bell and Ed Dames, unless they want
> to put up a matching million plus bucks against Randi's.

There is no monetary requirement for making challenges. In the OLD days,
all you had to do was throw down your GAUNTLET. :-) Randi is CHOOSING to put
up some money if he loses the challenge, it doesn't mean OTHER people have to!

> >>Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.

That's a very DUPLICITOUS approach.

> >Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING CHALLENGED.
>
> No, as I said, the challenge comes from the one that puts up the
> purse. He names the terms. If Bell and Dames want to dictate, or even
> negoiate terms, then they have to have a wager and match Randi's bet.

No they don't (I'm not taking sides - just correctong mistaken ideas about
WHAT consitutes a "challenge").

> When are you going to get off this challenge kick. Let me explain it
> to you. Randi, puts up the money, and in doing so names the terms.

Let me explain it to YOU. Randi makes a challenge, and makes the terms. He
SUBSEQUENTLY offers a cash reward for anyone who MEETS it. That's his
perogative, but totally unneccessary. I'm sure there are people who would want
to take his challenge even if there WASN'T any money involved. It's just
showmanship on his part.

> For Bell and Dames to think without any monetary risk on their part
> they can dictate how they're going to prove it, then they are both
> nuts. Actually they aren't nuts, they are using a diversive tactic
> for their propaganda.

No, they just happen to know what a CHALLENGE is (as opposed to a BET say).

> I'll give you something you can try. Go into a casino, don't put any
> money down, but challenge them with a claim your going to get a 21 at
> blackjack. Now, notice how they "cowardly" decline your challange and
> escort you to the door.

They MIGHT let you. They're not risking any of THEIR money if you merely
challenge them (they won't give you any free drinks though. :-) ) - and they
would DEFINITELY let you stay if you BET them you could do it!

DONALD - Down, but not out!

Looking for work come March '97!!
For my Resume (and eventually other neat stuff) - check out
**** http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dpedder ****
^^^^^^^^^
note NEW URL

Don't pull up the flowers to see how the roots are coming.

Jim Davis

unread,

Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97

to

DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:

Then if the money isn't involved in the challenge, Randi isn't needed.
If all they want to do is demonstrate that Dames can indeed do all he
claims with remote viewing, they can simply provide information about
something that he verifiably could not know without remote viewing.
He could tell us the winners of next weeks NBL games, or even who the
next few succesive callers on the wild card line will be. He could
describe what a present caller is wearing, what their hair color is,
and eyes are, or the name of the latest birth in Reno's most popular
hospital (easily verified). Randi's money is only an incentive. If
they want Randi's money, they have to play Randi's game by his terms.
Challanging him to put up money by their terms is ridiculous.

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97

to

On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Kevin Craner wrote:

> Wizard Wrote.

> DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:
> >On 10 Mar 1997, Wizard wrote:
> >

> >> In article <33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>, ji...@wwdg.com wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]

> >>
> >> >The other method
> >> >used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience and skills as a
> >> >magician. He demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate

> >> >feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can

> >> >be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
> >> >is not evidence of paranormal activity.
> >>
> >> But neither is performing something by tricks evidence that the reality
> >> does not exist.

> >> Merely because people improve with non-effective placebo drugs does not
> >> mean that
> >> drugs do not work.
>

> =========================================================================
>
>
> There are some interesting points that need to be addressed here and
> mistakes that require correction. Firstly the arguement which states:

DEFINITELY! :-)

> "just because something can be done by trickery does not mean it isn't
> real"
>
> The Law of Parsimony (some may know it as Occum's Razor) tells us that if

> we are faced with two possible explainations to something then we should

> take the simpler. For example, lets look at the ever popular Remote
> viewing.
>
> 1. We can either reject all known scientific laws and conclude the
> phenomenon is genuine.
>

> OR
>
> 2. If the claimed power can be reproduced by ordinary means (ie,trickery
> was possible) then we should accept the simpler expaination.

I don't know about YOU, but I think it's unhygenic to use another guy's
razor! :-)

SERIOUSLY, I've never HEARD of this. It doesn't sound very SCIENTIFIC to
me! My understanding of Science is that the MOST LIKELY theory will be
accepted - NOT the SIMPLEST. All tests of Hypotheses are based on this
assumption. How (UN)LIKELY is it that you would get the result you DID.

MORE to the point (in general), have you heard of Carl Popper? He stated
(quite correctly) that NOTHING can be PROVEN - things can only be DISPROVEN.
e.g. Let's say I drop an egg off a cliff. It breaks. I do it again. Same
result. I could do it a MILLION times, and the same result each time. I can
ACCEPT that "all eggs break when dropped off a cliff", but I haven't PROVEN
it. It might be that the 1,000,001st egg falls and DOESN'T break.

It is actually not POSSIBLE for you to claim that there's no such things
as psychics, since you would (neccessarily) have to show that NO-ONE, on this
planet of 4,000,000,000, is psychic - whereas the paranormalists only have to
show that someONE is psychic to show that they DO exist (I've seen claims and
counter-claims on this. I'm not familiar with the research - all I know is
that *I* can dowse ley-lines. Direct EXPERIENCE is a great convincer! You
should TRY it!).

> On a personal level as a magician is is easy to tell when you see a
> psychic that they are using simple (I use that word with caution because
> conjuring requires dedication and practice) tricks. When I hear somebody
> giving a cold read, using the exact spiels contained in a book on my
> shelf I know it is fake. When I see somebody drive blindfolded I realise
> it is a trick because I know what to look for. Seemingly innocent acts
> may be the key to a trick and if you don't know what to look for you
> won't spot it. A magician knows if a psychic feat is fake. The quandry
> we are faced with is do we expose the method or bite our lips and keep
> quiet. If you were familiar with the techniques you would start to spot
> them when they are used.

>
> The JREF provides a way of testing a psychics powers under conditions

> which do not allow trickery. Most psychics will admit there are some
> fakes but they themselves are real. You would have thought they would
> jump at this chance to show they are genuine.

Not neccessarily. Some people SHUN attention you know. Not EVERYONE wants
to be famous. *I* certainly don't feel that *I* need to prove myself to anyone
(so don't even bother asking) - I am happy enough within MYSELF knowing what I
can (and can't) do (and I'm WORKING on the "can't"). I merely mention what I
can do to make the point.

> Daniel Bruce Kettler is constantly saying there is no need for evidence

There's plenty of EVIDENCE, I just don't know if there's any PROOF
(remember Carl Popper).

> and accuse those who promote science and critical thinking as being
> cultists. He expects people to accept what he says on blind faith.

I suspect BLIND faith is putting words into his mouth. I would merely ask
for FAITH, not BLIND faith. I have seen things both for and against psychic
powers - therefore I'm am not "blind" - and I have faith that it is REAL (at
least SOME psychics are real. There ARE a lot of frauds out there).

> Despite not proving evidence he assures believers that evidence is not

> needed. He expects 100% trust. If the power is real there is no reason

> not to validate it. Mr Kettler only makes excuses.

Maybe he does. I don't know (there's simply not enough TIME to read every
post in this area). I know that *I* wouldn't (ask for 100% faith).

> Another point raised was that about placebos and medical drugs. The
> point was that because people improve with placebos does not mean medical
> drugs do not work. It was related to the "just because you can do it by
> trickery does not mean it is not real" argument.
>
> This analogy breaks down easily. Medical drugs require evidence that
> results are more than just a placebo. You attempt to falsify your
> results (being able to falsify is vital in scientific investigation) and
> if they still stand up, ie indicate more than just a placebo you are
> getting somewhere.
>
> In regard to the psychic argument this would be equivlent to conducting
> tests with a psychic under conditions that make trickery impossible. If
> then you get results above chance you are onto something.
>
> Psychic powers need evidence. If it can be done by trickery it must be
> performed under conditions making this impossible. Why do they all
> refuse? Draw your own conclusions.

And you have CONVENIENTLY deleted my ORIGINAL (humourous) post that showed
how RIDICULOUS this stuff you've written is (for those who MISSED it, a made a
refernce to Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally"). What are you gonna do in THIS
case? Gag her so she can't "fake" noises, tie her up so she can't writhe
around, and then say "THERE! Now PROVE that you can have an orgasm!". In
eliminating the TRICKERY, you have ALSO made it impossible to do the REAL
THING!! I can tell you THIS, SHE knows whether she can have an orgasm or not -
and whether she can FAKE it. :-)

You know what COULD "prove" it? Asking the person to take a LIE-DETECTOR
test! But then of course, Randi probably doesn't believe in THEM EITHER! ;-)
As someone previously noted, sometimes for something to be "proved", you
have to admit that it is POSSIBLE first. It's part of the SCIENTIFIC approach!
(Sceptics, by their very definition, are NOT scientific. They merely ACCEPT
the current views, and have no INTEREST in trying NEW theories). If you DON'T
believe it's possible, then it's NOT possible to "prove" it. Are YOU willing
to look into dowsing to see if YOU can do it? Or are you just gonna say "No.
It's not POSSIBLE. It'd just be a waste of time"??? I know what *I* can do,
from having TRIED it.

Now, I don't USUALLY post to Usenet, but have a bit of time lately. It
TAKES some of my time to get past all the SCEPTICS in these groups! Can you
please stick to your OWN NG?! These groups are for the PRODUCTIVE discussion
of paranormal phenomena (i.e. discussions between LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE), and NOT
for flame wars, and antagonists.
And DON'T complain about "freedom of speech". That's what the OTHER NG's
are for. These NG's are for OUR freedom of speech (Try just walking into your
local government gathering and excercising your "freedom of speech". See where
THAT gets you. Everyone had their OWN forum for THEIR views, and should STICK
to it! You sceptics remind me of CHRISTIANS. It's not ENOUGH to believe what
you do - you have to FORCE it on everyone ELSE as WELL!! WE know what we
believe, and we're just happy with THAT!).

>
> Kevin Craner
>
>
>

DONALD - Down, but not out!

Looking for work come March '97!!
For my Resume (and eventually other neat stuff) - check out
**** http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dpedder ****

Don't pull up the flowers to see how the roots are coming.

Ray Cochener

unread,

Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97

to

First science is interested in discovery of new laws, with
restrictions: the first of these is that if a known phenominon can
account for the way something was accomplished, then it is not
considered evidence for something new. In order to count as evidence for
psychic phenominon, the trick must not be able to be duplicated by
legardimain.
It may be acomplished by psi or not, but to count as evidence,
it must meet conditions that a stage magician cannot duplicate.

> > which do not allow trickery. Most psychics will admit there are some
> > fakes but they themselves are real. You would have thought they would
> > jump at this chance to show they are genuine.
>
> Not neccessarily. Some people SHUN attention you know. Not EVERYONE wants
> to be famous. *I* certainly don't feel that *I* need to prove myself to anyone
> (so don't even bother asking) - I am happy enough within MYSELF knowing what I
> can (and can't) do (and I'm WORKING on the "can't"). I merely mention what I
> can do to make the point.

Heck, I *did* jump at this chance, because I was tired of
everyone insisting I was lying if I didn't, and Randi *backed down
without doing the test*. I was willing to be tested, but he wasn't
interested in testing me...

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97

to

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Jim Davis wrote:

>
>[snip]

>
> Then if the money isn't involved in the challenge, Randi isn't needed.

What "logic" are you using here??? The CHALLENGE was for Randi to appear on
the radio show. How can he not be needed for the challenge? He is an integral
PART of the challenge.

> If all they want to do is demonstrate that Dames can indeed do all he

^^^^^^^^^

> claims with remote viewing, they can simply provide information about

^^^^^^^^

> something that he verifiably could not know without remote viewing.
> He could tell us the winners of next weeks NBL games, or even who the
> next few succesive callers on the wild card line will be. He could
> describe what a present caller is wearing, what their hair color is,
> and eyes are, or the name of the latest birth in Reno's most popular

Did he CLAIM he could do all these things? Somehow I doubt it. A FAVOURITE
sceptic tactic is to say "well, if you're psychic, then you can do THIS....".
WRONG!
If I told you I was an athlete, does that give you a right to say that I
should be able to run the 100m,high jump,play basketball, play football, run a
marathon, jump over the moon, journey to a nearby galaxy......
Only the INDIVIDUAL psychic can say what he is capable of - NO-ONE else
(and I don't know of any legitimate psychics who have claimed they can do what
you have said. I don't watch Babylon 5 because they attribute powers to
psychics that they simply CAN'T have. e.g. being able to communicate with and
control a COMPUTER!! Psychics pick up on the energies of living things -
which a computer AIN'T. Neither are the machines that pick lottery numbers
BTW).

> hospital (easily verified). Randi's money is only an incentive. If

EXACTLY! You just managed to contradict yourself. Money is NOT a neccesary
ingredient for a challenge.

> they want Randi's money, they have to play Randi's game by his terms.

Yes. And if Randi wants the respect of anyone OTHER than the sceptics, he
has to play by THEIR terms.

> Challanging him to put up money by their terms is ridiculous.

They didn't challenge him to put up money - just to appear on the radio.

Tony Sanders

unread,

Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97

to

Note: I've pruned the Newsgroups a bit...

In conversation between DONALD PEDDER, Wizard, ji...@wwdg.com et.al.:
...
> > >> >[Randi] demonstrates methods of performing tricks that duplicate

> > >> >feats claimed by others as psychic feats. If the "claimed feat" can
> > >> >be performed by natural trickery, then performing the "claimed feat"
> > >> >is not evidence of paranormal activity.

(1).
That surely qualifies as the most misguided statement in a long time.
I think you are also misrepresenting Randi on that one.

Replace "tricks" and "feats" with "calculations" and
you have disproven the existence of computers:

I demonstrate methods of performing calculations that duplicate
feats claimed by computers. If the "claimed calculation" can
be performed by natural calculation, then performing the "claimed
calculation" is not evidence of computer activity.

Ludicrous logic to say the least :-)

> > The Law of Parsimony (some may know it as Occum's Razor) tells us that if
> > we are faced with two possible explainations to something then we should
> > take the simpler.

(2).
That is an accurate summation of Occam's Razor.

Unfortunately, that is as far as you got :-) ...

Occam's Razor in *NO WAY* applies to picking and choosing *which*
data you use to form your theories which is what the sceptics that
use it are trying to do. Stated another way. Occam's Razor has
*NO* place in the discussion of whether or not PSI functioning
exists, that solely rests on the data.

Occam's Razor only says that if the data fits x^2+C then you don't
need a theory like x^2+y^3+C to explain it; but it *does not* let
you pick and choose amoung the data -- you must supply a theory
that fits *ALL* data.

Occam's Razor will only be used to sort out the numerous theories that
emerge and have emerged (see below) to explain PSI functioning.
For example, see Matti Pitkanen's work on TGD:
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/
Some relevant articles:
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/TGDconsc.html TGD
consciousness
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/exo.html exotic atoms

> For example, lets look at the ever popular Remote viewing.
> >
> > 1. We can either reject all known scientific laws and conclude the
> > phenomenon is genuine.

Like, oh I don't know, say relativity? Or how about Quantum mechanics?
Or any of 1000's of other discoveries that have shaped our modern
understanding of the universe.

PSI functioning, like these other world shattering discoveries,
requires only a small adjustment in our *UNDERSTANDING* of the
universe. Newtonian physics will still be with us for a long time
even though we know that is flat out WRONG, it's still accurate
enough for non-relativistic speeds and classical scales.
That's how physics works.

Remote Viewing doesn't contradict anything in physics, it mearly
adds to what is already there and there are *plenty* of theories
that allow (even require) this kind of "anomalous" information
transfer already in existance:

For example, Jack Sarfatti's "Quantum Back Action" is a very small
addition
to Quantum mechanics that explains PSI functioning pretty well...
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/muse.html
[Quantum Mind and Microtubles is also an interesting link;
What if our mind is, at the most fundamental level, part of a
giant quantum system? There is mounting evidence that it is!]

See also http://monatomic.earth.com/database/research/ for other
interesting research links.

> > 2. If the claimed power can be reproduced by ordinary means (ie,trickery
> > was possible) then we should accept the simpler expaination.

That is incorrect not only because the "no PSI functioning" theory
fails to explain the mounds and mounds of data on the face of it but
also because of the serious logic flaw presented in (1).

So neither of your above 2 conclusions were accurate.

[on Occam's razor]

> SERIOUSLY, I've never HEARD of this. It doesn't sound very SCIENTIFIC to

Occam's Razor is SOP as discussed above and it is indeed the only
reasonable way to proceed (which I'm afraid is the only choice
we currently have).

Of course, that doesn't mean that people will be able to use it
correctly
as pointed out in (2).

> counter-claims on this. I'm not familiar with the research - all I know is
> that *I* can dowse ley-lines. Direct EXPERIENCE is a great convincer! You
> should TRY it!).

Indeed. Armchair sceptics aren't doing anyone a service.
And neither are those that perpetrate frauds (possibly doubly so).

> > A magician knows if a psychic feat is fake.

Now it sounds like you are claiming psychic powers for your kin' :-)

> > The JREF provides a way of testing a psychics powers under conditions
> > which do not allow trickery.

You state this a prioi, again claiming your own form of psychic powers.

> > You would have thought they would
> > jump at this chance to show they are genuine.
>
> Not neccessarily. Some people SHUN attention you know. Not EVERYONE wants
> to be famous. *I* certainly don't feel that *I* need to prove myself to anyone
> (so don't even bother asking) - I am happy enough within MYSELF knowing what I
> can (and can't) do (and I'm WORKING on the "can't"). I merely mention what I
> can do to make the point.

Indeed again. It is most likely that anyone making outrageous claims
is a fake (now you have me jumping to conclusions :-)

PSI is a very subtle effect and it often seems to work contrary to
what you thought were your intentions. If it were as powerful as
the sceptics seem to require, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This should be self-evident given the facts (such as you don't see
people
levitating every day).

> > Daniel Bruce Kettler is constantly saying there is no need for evidence

I don't know anything about ``Mr. Kettler'' being discussed and my
comments are in no way related to that tread of conversation.

> There's plenty of EVIDENCE, I just don't know if there's any PROOF
> (remember Carl Popper).

The sceptics do not want proof or evidence.

They focus on the obvious hoaxes and leave the real evidence alone,
like:
McMoneagle on the ABC special ``Put To The Test'' a remote
viewing that hit 100% (he even detected as a ship pulled into
harbor).

> > and accuse those who promote science and critical thinking as being
> > cultists. He expects people to accept what he says on blind faith.
>
> I suspect BLIND faith is putting words into his mouth. I would merely ask
> for FAITH, not BLIND faith. I have seen things both for and against psychic

Again, you focus on one situation -- ignore the crap and focus on
what is of value. I mearly ask for a true, unbiased judging of
the facts and I've never seen a sceptic willing to do that remain
a sceptic for long.

> > This analogy breaks down easily. Medical drugs require evidence that
> > results are more than just a placebo. You attempt to falsify your
> > results (being able to falsify is vital in scientific investigation) and
> > if they still stand up, ie indicate more than just a placebo you are
> > getting somewhere.

Read the truely scientific studies on PSI functioning.

For example, have you read:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING
Professor Jessica Utts
http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/air.htm

See also, Brian Josephson's (you know, the Nobel Prize winning physicist
who
discovered the Josephson effect) web page on Anomalous Information
Transfer:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi.html

> > In regard to the psychic argument this would be equivlent to conducting
> > tests with a psychic under conditions that make trickery impossible. If
> > then you get results above chance you are onto something.

There is a plethora of rigorous, scientific research on the topic.
Sceptics don't really seem to care.

> > Psychic powers need evidence. If it can be done by trickery it must be
> > performed under conditions making this impossible. Why do they all
> > refuse? Draw your own conclusions.

Any legitimate person would refuse to operate under the conditions
that certain sceptics have put forward as "required" but are created
out of ignorance (I'm giving them the benefit doubt, I could say worse).

If they would care to work with real researchers, doing real
studies then some progress might be made.

An Analogy:
I hold that you are an ignorant fool and to prove otherwise you
must calculate the Nth millionth digit of pi in your head. Come
to me (the godhead of sceptics) when you are ready to prove that
you are not an ignorant fool and I will give you an N to compute on.

How many non-ignorant fool's would accept that challange?

How many hoping to guess the correct value and win a prize?

William R. James

unread,

Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97

to psy...@globalserve.net

Earl Curley wrote:
>
> ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Since a negative cannot be proven, isn't it up to whomever might clain
> > to have such powers to demonstrate it ??????
> >
> > How can you expect anyone to prove that anyone does NOT have any
> > special powers if they refuse to be tested scientificly.
> >
> > It can ONLY be expected that one who makes extraordinary claims to
> > offer extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we shold all send all of our
> > money to Jim and Tammy Bakker ( or whatever nut we happen to run
> > accross...Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm, The Dali Lamma, Uri
> > Geller..ect..ect...).
> >
> > William R. James
>
> Well, fools did send their funds to those hypocrits except to my
> knowledge, Billy Graham, the Dali Lama and my friend Uri Geller.
>
> So what you are stating is that your friends are crooks while mine
> aren't?
>
> Earl Curley
> psy...@globalserve.net
> http://www.webdesign.ca/

No Earl,
NONE of the FRAUDS I mentioned above are my friends. I have NO respect
for anyone who defrauds the ignorant under the pretense of the
nonexisting supernatural.

William R. James

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97

to

|My understanding of Science is that the MOST LIKELY theory will be
| > accepted - NOT the SIMPLEST.

In fact, the razor says just that: the most likely explanation will
generally be the simplest! It's a tried and tested rule-of-thumb that
doesn't help here, unfortunately, because there are two opposing sets of
notions, not just one set containing a number of possible solutions: if a
"paranormal" event is achieved by trickery the magician will use the
simplest version of the tricks that will achieve it. If a "paranormal"
event is achieved by paranormal powers, nature will make them the "simplest
powers". Here's a question for you: would the razor suggest, then, that
paranormal powers, if they exist, will be a version of a force we already
know about rather than something completely new?

|Carl Popper? He stated
| > (quite correctly) that NOTHING can be PROVEN - things can only be
DISPROVEN.

Put a bit differently (and more helpfully in paranormal cases) he said that
an issue is scientific (ie can be dealt with by science) only if it can be
falsified. This is why science can't help us decide whether spinach is nice
or whether your mother-in-law is as handsome a woman as she claims. (There
are a number of philosophers of science who've disputed and modified this,
particularly Dr K in the 1960's. But Popper's book was so startling at the
time that this view (about which he wrote a whole tome) has stuck.)

| In order to count as evidence for

| psychic phenominon, the trick must not be able to be duplicated....

Would it were that straightforward!

Blue Resonant Human

unread,

Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97

to

slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:

>maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be so
>ultimately confident when he finds someone who wants to keep this
>testing private, but when he comes about someone who is very confident,
>and wants to make his tests public so john q. public can find out what
>happens exactly he chickens out? perhaps there is more than meet the eye
>than randi and his tests? if i were to do tests such as this i would be
>more than willing to actually show i was for real and take a challenge
>in public , in private, whatever=85

Hmmm....that's odd....I thought whatever = 93.

Love is the law, love under Maitreya(tm).

-Brother Blue, B:.B:., 33°, XI°, 10°=1°, OT-VIII, 93/93
http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html
"The Voice of Sanity from the Edge of the Abyss"

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97

to

[Note: I've snipped a great deal out of this message which was so
complicated that I don't know who wrote what's below, but I want to reply
to it!]

| PSI functioning, like these other world shattering discoveries,
| requires only a small adjustment in our *UNDERSTANDING* of the
| universe. Newtonian physics will still be with us for a long time
| even though we know that is flat out WRONG, it's still accurate
| enough for non-relativistic speeds and classical scales.
| That's how physics works.

We certainly do NOT know that Newtonian mechanics (Classical Mechanics) is
"flat wrong".

What we do know is:

1 Newtonian mechancis needs a tiny amount of adjusting to take account of
Relativity Theory (eg the inverse square rule on every occasion converts to
2.00000262, or something close!);

2 Quantum mechanics is at odds, as a description of the universe, with
Newtonian mechanics. Some physicists say that's becasue Quantum mechanics
is, somehow, crucially flawed. But, in one hundred years, no-one yet has
worked out how.

3 Relativity Theory, paradoxically perhaps, is compatible with Newtonian
mechanics (see above) but is not compativle at all (so far as we know) with
Quantum mechanics.

4 There is no surprise in QM and NM being at odds: they are saying such
very different things. The surprise is that both are arithmetically sound
(save for adjustments of the kind above) and both are backed by good
empirical data and evidence. (And both have very clever scientists arguing
their cases for them!)

And,

1 Is the gap between NM and QM similar in some way to the gap between
normal and paranormal?

2 If the scientists can't sort our their arses, what chance do
paranormalists and sceptics have??!!

Ray Cochener

unread,

Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97

to

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
>
> |My understanding of Science is that the MOST LIKELY theory will be
> | > accepted - NOT the SIMPLEST.
>

> In fact, the razor says just that: the most likely explanation will
> generally be the simplest! It's a tried and tested rule-of-thumb that
> doesn't help here, unfortunately, because there are two opposing sets of
> notions, not just one set containing a number of possible solutions: if a
> "paranormal" event is achieved by trickery the magician will use the
> simplest version of the tricks that will achieve it. If a "paranormal"
> event is achieved by paranormal powers, nature will make them the "simplest
> powers". Here's a question for you: would the razor suggest, then, that
> paranormal powers, if they exist, will be a version of a force we already
> know about rather than something completely new?

Guy's, Occam's Razor is a law of science, not a law of nature- many
times more complex models have won out over simpler models, but Occam's
razor presents the criteria for such a victory- necessity. Expirimental
evidence has to indicate that the simpler model is flawed. Occam's razor
says nothing about nature, just the way science approaches the subject.

William Barwell

unread,

Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97

to

In article <332ACF...@psicounsel.com>,

Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:

>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> In article <332A0E...@psicounsel.com>,

>> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:

>> >ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>YOU SAY:
>
> You have missed the boat, here. Randi issued a challenge, Ed Dames
> replied and accepted, offering to discuss details ON THE AIR, as
> both of them have been invited to the ART BELL RADIO SHOW.
>

> Dames CLAIMED he had accepted it.
> But did he?
> The challenge is clear as to how it is to be done.
> You contact Randi in writing.
> If he did not follow the official challenge instructions,
> he did not actually accept the challenge.
>

> What Dames and Bell did was showboating.
> This is not how Randi does things.
> His challenge is quite specific.
>

> There is a reason for doing things this way.
> To prevent the very sort of games Bell and Dames
> are playing, which can go on for a small
> piece of forever if Randi let's em start.
>

>> Pope Charles
>> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>> Slack!
>
>MY REPLY:
>

>According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent
>to Randi. See my other recent posts.
>

Was it the pro forma notarized acceptance as per Randi's instructions?
If so good.

Now, Randi is under no obligation to go on a radio program for teh further
steps. He has his methods and it is done in writing usually for obvious
reasons.

To slag Randi because he does not care to play the Dames and Bell game
isn't kosher. He obviously did not want to take this on radio and make a
media extravaganza of a serious challenge in which other people's money is
riding.

We do it his way, because it's his challenge.
His money and others. There is a right way and a wrong way
to do these things and after 25 years of doing this, the man knows his
business. If Randi refuses to go on radio, that is that.

This is not just a game.

If Dames and Bell wanna do something on radio, let Bell set up
a locked room with some simple word on a piece of cardboard pinned to the
wall and let Dames show he can read it.

Simple test.
If supposedly remote viewing is easy and anybody can be taught to do it
as you have claimed, why wait on Randi for your media circus?

Show us!

If Dames wants to strut his stuff and show the world he can
OOBE out and read what is pinned to teh wall of a well lit.
locked room, Randi isn't stopping Dames and Bell from
inviting a few local magicians to set up a cheatproof
test and then do the deed.
He and Bell can grandstand to their hearts content while Randi and Dames
go through Randi's strict and well known procedures.

Why wait on Randi?

Take Randi's test on his terms and hold their own media circus without
him.

Dames can have his cake and eat it too.
If he can actually do it and isn't playing games.

It is that simple.

Here's a good test.
Give Dames a locked combination lock.
The combination is in the locked room on the wall
guarded by local eagle-eyed magicians camped out around the area
so no cheating may occur.

Can he do it? Can he read three short numbers and open a lock?
17-24-31.

Or does he do the "it's sort of round and medium sized"
viewings which gives lots of room for creative interpretation
and weasel word magic games?

Randi will handle his challenge his way, let Dames
show us his stuff without any more guff if that is what
he wants to do. Anything else is just a game.

But apparently games is what Bell and Dames are into.
I am not impressed.

Daniel Wilson

unread,

Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97

to

Ray Cochener <silv...@feist.com> said:

> First science is interested in discovery of new laws, with
> restrictions: the first of these is that if a known phenominon can
> account for the way something was accomplished, then it is not
> considered evidence for something new. In order to count as evidence
> for psychic phenominon, the trick must not be able to be duplicated
> by legardimain.
> It may be acomplished by psi or not, but to count as evidence,
> it must meet conditions that a stage magician cannot duplicate.

This position (which is shared by Prof Richard Dawkins) is essentially
ridiculous, isn't it, though ? If a magician can do it, science doesn't
need to enquire ?

I don't want to labour the point, but we seem to have some fairly simple
chaps reading these messages:

1 Magicians do not normally reveal how their tricks are done.
2 Randi has not revealed how his tricks are done.
3 The magician used by Dawkins on TV did not reveal how his tricks
were done.
4 Some magicians use paranormal powers (I have met one, and used
them on him in return to his great surprise).

Before magicians are the slightest use to science, therefore, the
possibility that they are not using paranormal powers for their
tricks has to be eliminated. Even if the magician proves to you how
something was done in a conventional way, you only have his or her word
for it that it was in fact done that way. It is no guarantee that it was
done that way if paranormal procedures were easier. The long and the
short of it is, science is in bad trouble if it seriously thinks it can
rely on using magicians as proof or disproof of anything.

Randi does not pretend to be a scientist. So he can make a great noise
about the paranormal and stir people up, and that's part of his living.
But Dawkins should know better.

Dan Wilson

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

|Occam's razor says nothing about nature, just the way science approaches
the subject.

Are we to suppose then that science isn't interested in natural laws?! The
whole usefulness of rule-of-thumbs like this is that they have been proven
a good guide to how the universe is put together: whether designed by God
or nature, there are recurring themes.

Ray Cochener

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
>

You seem to be missing a very basic point here: Occams razor is a point
regarding the scientific *method*. The law of Gravity, for example, is a
scientific law that describes nature.
Quantum mechanics is probably the most complax way nature could have
gone about making atoms, certainly more complex than earlier models, but
what Occam's Razor indicates is a need for the simple to be rejected *by
human science*, not nature, before more complex models are explored.

William Barwell

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

In article <332ACF...@psicounsel.com>,
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>

****************** Deleted ******************

>
>
>MY REPLY:
>
>According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent
>to Randi. See my other recent posts.
>

No mention here of what was in that letter.
So this sentence is meaningless.
If Dames sent off his notarized statement as per Randi's instructions,
fine. Randi will do this like he has done other challenges, carefully, in
writing, his way.

Now, why won't Dames and Bell do their own test along the sinple lines I
have mentioned in several posts?

If Dames is so successful,let him prove it, it would be a piece of cake to
settle his abilities, on the air with Art and then take Randi's challnge
his way.
When he and Randi bang out a test, he can do it on Art's show
also.
Ain't nothing stopping him from proving himself publically
if he really wanted to.

So, why doesn't he and Bell do this?

Anybody wanna put this to Bell for comment?

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

I confess, you've lost me completely Ray.

Blue Resonant Human

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

ya...@my.org (Art's Parts) wrote:

>My suggestion is that Dames put up the keys to (and assets of)
>PsiTech. That should be worth, oh, $100 or so. But then Dames would
>have something tangible to lose and could legitimately negociate the
>terms of the challenge with Randi.

>One could argue that Dame's credibility is at stake, but how much
>credibility does a guy have who claims a comet is bringing with it a
>cosmic present containing "plant pathogens".

Even still, there are *far* larger issues at play here than you note.
Once again I am compelled to extract this applicable snippet from
Schnabel's seminal [largely historical] book on the subject. In case
these few points eluded anyone last time they read the excerpt, here's
a suggestion for what to read between the lines:

1) Dr. Harold E. Puthoff's (with *serious* NSA, CIA, DIA, etc.
connections and influence) direct quote that certain milint types
"wanted to push buttons and drop bombs on the basis of his (et al)
[RV] information." Pretty fucking scary, once the profundity of that
quote really settles in.

2) If the Omniscient and Ineffable Edward Dames could be so easily
fooled by his trickster brethren in the flesh, how much more could he
(et al) be fooled by unimaginably clever discarnates who've been
practicing their deceptive arts for millenia? Don't take no rocket
scientist to figger THAT one out, mi amigos.

3) ASIDE from the bizarre "Hale-Bopp Plant Pathogens" and ludicrously
absurd "TWA800 Caused by a Busted Fuel Pump" <rolling eyes> "RVs,"
what other forms of tactical disinformatsia are we being fed via the
conduit of the "retired" Ed-Meister and his Holy Milint Brethren?

4) Back again to the exceptionally disturbing Puthoff quote (from #1
above), how might this relate to Tyson's "Enochian Apocalypse"
scenario as noted in the Gnosis article found at:

http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/libers/enoch-ap.htm

SO....bearing all of the above in mind, give this snippet another
look-psee:

::: Ed Dames -- Remote Viewer :::

"There were times when they wanted to push buttons and drop
bombs on the basis of our information."
-Dr. Hal Puthoff
[former manager of the remote-viewing program]

Ed Dames was, if anything, proud of his status as a troublemaker
within the unit, a maverick who dared venture into unknown
realms. But he was also developing another kind of reputation --
a reputation for becoming too involved in his monitoring of RV
sessions, for pushing the viewer, however unconsciously, towards
whatever target description he, Ed Dames, happened to favor.
Occasionally Dames knew in advance of the session what the
target was, but even when he was "blind" at first, he tended to
develop strong opinions as the session went on. A few of the
viewers began to see him as a significant source of Aol.

There was one episode, in late 1987, which some regarded as a
good illustration of this problem. The branch chief at the time
was a genial lieutenant colonel named Bill Xenakis, who had
taken over after Bill Ray left, earlier in 1987, and would run
the unit until Fern Gauvin took over in 1988. Xenakis called in
Dames and explained that an ops-type target had just come in.
He told Dames only that the target was a possible event.

Dames set up the target in the usual fashion. Xenakis had given
him two four-digit random numbers to use as coordinates, and now
he wrote them on the outside of an envelope. Then he wrote
"possible event" and the coordinates on a slip of paper, sealed
it inside the envelope, and went over to the CRV room to start
running viewers against the target: Riley, Smith, Buchanan, and
"Gabrielle Peters" [a pseudonym -B:.B:.].

Dames soon noticed that the viewers' descriptions of the target
were remarkably consistent. Their impressions all seemed to
involve some kind of unusual aerial vehicle. It had a large
payload -- box-like objects of various sizes -- and the colors
red and white featured prominently. The pilot was obese, and
the vehicle seemed to be open-topped, with sled-like runners
underneath. It was going to come across the northern U.S.
border sometime a few weeks in the future. It was going to
come down over Canada, down from the Arctic pole.

Some of the data generated by the viewers were very strange, but
Dames decided it was probably analytical overlay. For instance,
Paul Smith said for some reason that there were livestock
associated with the target. Riley drew the vehicle with eight
strange objects out in front of it. It didn't matter; it was
obvious to Dames what was going on here: Some kind of terrorist
attack was being planned. The target was apparently an ultra-
light plane or a specially modified helicopter, loaded with an
atomic bomb -- or bombs -- and designed to fly under U.S. and
Canadian radar surveillance. Stage Four data, designed to pull
out intentions and purposes associated with the target, suggested
that the device was meant to fly into the United States somehow,
surreptitiously, by night. Dames guessed that a Middle East
country was involved, maybe Syria or Iran or Libya.

Dames was in the CRV room with Riley when he decided it was time
to act. He told Riley he was going to run over to 4554, the
nearest INSCOM building, and get access to a secure phone so he
could alert his friends elsewhere in the intelligence community.
To Riley, he seemed to be worried that Xenakis and others at
DIA would suppress the data as unreliable if he tried to go
through their channels. A terrorist nuclear attack on the
United States ... This was big.

Xenakis, meanwhile, was watching the session from the control
room, trying not to allow his laughter to be heard across the
hall in the CRV room. When Dames came out into the front room
of the ops building, on his way to find a secure phone, Xenakis
and everyone else were waiting for him, wearing big grins.

It had been Mel Riley's prank, a measure of revenge for all
the brain-bending bilocations he'd had to endure on advanced
training targets. The prank was that the target's identity had
been known to the viewers all along. It was not a terrorist
attack; it was Santa Claus and his sleigh. Each viewer had
simply gone through the usual structure of a CRV session,
describing Santa's raw attributes, and even making rough
sketches of the sleigh and reindeer, but never actually naming
the target. The idea had been to see what interpretations Dames
would make, when presented with such unusual material. Xenakis
had agreed to go along, and Dames, it seemed, had fallen right
into it.

When he realized that he'd been fooled, Dames goodnaturedly
laughed it off. But as time wore on, and the unit's problems
worsened, Dames seemed to laugh less often. By the middle of
1988, his three-year tour in Sun Streak, which had started in
early 1986, was nearing an end. He now realized he didn't
intend to stay for a second tour.

Excerpt from:

_Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Secret Spies_
1997 by Jim Schnabel, Dell, ISBN 0-440-22306-7, p. 364-366

- - - - -

Another fine post by:

Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D.

Ray Cochener

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
>

> I confess, you've lost me completely Ray.

I'm sorry, where did I lose you?

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

Ray Cochener <silv...@feist.com> wrote in article
<33357F...@feist.com>...

You've lost me because you seem to think I'm disputing with you whether
Ockham's razor is about the method of science. I'm not: I agree. I'm saying
that the method in this case (ie that we should prefer the theory which
uses in its explanation the smallest number of unknown agents/variables, as
in the good example you gave) is simply a reflection of how we believe
nature (the universe) most often works. The razor does not, as it were,
have an independent life of its own. I think that William of Ockham was
saying something very profound (especially for 1350) about the basic
ground-rules of nature when he devised a rule-of-thumb for jobbing
scientists which is worth remembering 300 years on. (However, I should say
that plenty would disagree with me. It's been a contentious issue in
science for some time whether the whole appeal of the razor is just
aesthetic. As one famous scientist once said "much like sacrificing your
queen in chess in order to mate with a knight"!)

William Barwell

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

In article <5gerb4$k...@netaxs.com>, Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:
>:
>: According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent

>: to Randi. See my other recent posts.
>

>Oh, so then they should have a nice reciept to prove that, right?
>
It's not the receipt that matters, it is the contents
of the letter.

Randi has his rules.
A notarized acceptance is step one.
I have no idea of the contents of Dames letter.

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:

<long, rambling whinge deleted>

> Now, I don't USUALLY post to Usenet, but have a bit of time lately. It
>TAKES some of my time to get past all the SCEPTICS in these groups! Can you
>please stick to your OWN NG?! These groups are for the PRODUCTIVE discussion
>of paranormal phenomena (i.e. discussions between LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE), and NOT
>for flame wars, and antagonists.

Then get this crap out of afa-b. We have more than our share of
crackpots already.

> And DON'T complain about "freedom of speech". That's what the OTHER NG's
>are for. These NG's are for OUR freedom of speech (Try just walking into your
>local government gathering and excercising your "freedom of speech". See where
>THAT gets you. Everyone had their OWN forum for THEIR views, and should STICK
>to it! You sceptics remind me of CHRISTIANS. It's not ENOUGH to believe what
>you do - you have to FORCE it on everyone ELSE as WELL!! WE know what we
>believe, and we're just happy with THAT!).

What THE hell is it with you WOO-woo whackos, anyway? Why DO you find
it NECESSARY to CAPITALIZE so many words, seemingly at RANDOM?

William Barwell

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

In article <Pine.GSO.3.93.97032...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Jim Davis wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>

>> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>>

>> >>From: ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis)
>>
>> >Now, it is no longer a "challenge" *from* RANDI, but a challenge from
>> >Art Bell and Ed Dames TO RANDI, to put *THE* money where his big mouth
>> >is.

****************** Deleted ******************

>
>
>> When are you going to get off this challenge kick. Let me explain it
>> to you. Randi, puts up the money, and in doing so names the terms.
>
> Let me explain it to YOU. Randi makes a challenge, and makes the terms. He
>SUBSEQUENTLY offers a cash reward for anyone who MEETS it. That's his
>perogative, but totally unneccessary. I'm sure there are people who would want
>to take his challenge even if there WASN'T any money involved. It's just
>showmanship on his part.
>

No, he does not make ALL the terms.

But there is a firm way to kick of the proceedings.
Some people would play games for years if he let 'em.
So he doesn't. The challenger sends in a notarized statement
officially accpeting teh challenge. So there is no mistake.
No games.

Then teh claimant must officially state waht he or she does
that is fantasical and wonderful, and it has to be meaningful..
No "I can bend spoons but only in a totally dark room with nobody within
ten feet of me". Obviously.

The claims must be plainly stated, and obvious failure or success
obvious and inarguable.

But Randi prefers not to make a take it or leave it
test, but to as far as possible, make the claimant state their abilities,
limits and design a reasonable test they are confortable with.
He may prod and make suggestions, but he does not 'dictate terms'.

Only when the challenger is comfortable with the test procdures and
the pass/fail judging procedures, is the test a go.
Randi has always bent over backward to make sure that only when
the claimant is satisfied is there a test.

He has been working this way for decades now.

But structure must be imposed on such challenges or
these things could drag on for years like certain
long lasting usenet flame wars.

He has standards and rules and they are there for a reason.

After all, in his business here, he will deal with a lot of fakes and
flakes. Obviously. The rules screen those kind out.
That is what they are designed to do.

William Barwell

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

In article <333444...@feist.com>,

Ray Cochener <silv...@feist.com> wrote:
>Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
>>

>> |My understanding of Science is that the MOST LIKELY theory will be
>> | > accepted - NOT the SIMPLEST.
>>

>> In fact, the razor says just that: the most likely explanation will
>> generally be the simplest!

Not really. What it actually says in it's original formulation is that
one should not mulitply entities in philosophical explanations.
That is, if you can explain phenomonon A by invoking
2 simple principles, a system that invokes a third added principle
or entity is unacceptable because that addition is simply superflous and
amounts to special pleading for added entities.

Part of the problem with simple explanations is that, they may not be
right or more commonly, may not be simple.

Just muttering cause God wants it that way is a simple answer to
everything. But not really as God is a complex situation that quickly
involve one in bizarre extended arguments of resounding speciousness
and complexity.

It was just these sort of arguments Ockham disliked.
Adding God into everything was superflous or no answer
as promised.
That made God a bit of a joke, which was a large part
of his objections to trying to use god as an explanation
for everything.

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

unread,

Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97

to

Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>
> DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:
>
> <long, rambling whinge deleted>
>

> > Now, I don't USUALLY post to Usenet, but have a bit of time lately. It
> >TAKES some of my time to get past all the SCEPTICS in these groups! Can you
> >please stick to your OWN NG?! These groups are for the PRODUCTIVE discussion
> >of paranormal phenomena (i.e. discussions between LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE), and NOT
> >for flame wars, and antagonists.
>

> Then get this crap out of afa-b. We have more than our share of
> crackpots already.
>

> > And DON'T complain about "freedom of speech". That's what the OTHER NG's
> >are for. These NG's are for OUR freedom of speech (Try just walking into your
> >local government gathering and excercising your "freedom of speech". See where
> >THAT gets you. Everyone had their OWN forum for THEIR views, and should STICK
> >to it! You sceptics remind me of CHRISTIANS. It's not ENOUGH to believe what
> >you do - you have to FORCE it on everyone ELSE as WELL!! WE know what we
> >believe, and we're just happy with THAT!).
>

> What THE hell is it with you WOO-woo whackos, anyway? Why DO you find
> it NECESSARY to CAPITALIZE so many words, seemingly at RANDOM?

Who knows? Maybe BRUCE got ANOTHER account so HE wouldn't feel LONELY.
Earl supposedly did this, but he vehemently denies it. The evidence
seems to suggest the accusation was TRUE.
Its probably somebody else though. BRUCE tends to use **STARS** along
with capitalization.

> --
> gl...@cyberhighway.net
> "afa-b's leading curmudgeon"

--
Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD +=+ Sir Dave of the Giants
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu +=+ Destroying Angel of Spam
http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998 +=+ afa-b Board of Directors
SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration +=+ Lifetime Member,
Officer #01-22112-324 +=+ Art Bell Internet Fan Club
Membership is FREE!

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

to

On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Ray Cochener wrote:

> Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
> >

The following is actually MY quote, though SOMEONE has deleted the
attribution.

> > |My understanding of Science is that the MOST LIKELY theory will be
> > | > accepted - NOT the SIMPLEST.
> >

> > In fact, the razor says just that: the most likely explanation will

> > generally be the simplest! It's a tried and tested rule-of-thumb that

THIS isn't what OTHER people were saying. They were saying that we should
reject paranormal explanations simply because SIMPLER ones are available. I
was saying you should accept the most LIKELY - be that the simplest
explanation or NOT.

> > doesn't help here, unfortunately, because there are two opposing sets of
> > notions, not just one set containing a number of possible solutions: if a
> > "paranormal" event is achieved by trickery the magician will use the
> > simplest version of the tricks that will achieve it. If a "paranormal"
> > event is achieved by paranormal powers, nature will make them the "simplest
> > powers". Here's a question for you: would the razor suggest, then, that
> > paranormal powers, if they exist, will be a version of a force we already
> > know about rather than something completely new?

Well, I don't know much about the Razor apart from what was posted the
other day. I hadn't even HEARD of it before.

As far as it being a "force we already know", it depends on what you mean
by "we". ;-) Psychics would argue that they know about the force. If you mean
(as you probably DO) is it a force already established in SCIENCE, well, I
don't know. The first obvious choice would be Electro-magnetic, but one would
GUESS that they've tried MEASURING this already (in psychic tests) and come up
with nothing, so that's probably not it.
Results of Kirlian photography can probably point you on the right
direction (which, to quote you, suggests "a version of a force we already
know").

BTW, if anyone still has an old B&W TV, try switching it off (after it's
been on a while) in the dark, and then putting your hand NEAR the screen. You
can SEE a "field". I don't know whether this is just EM, or something else,
but either way it's pretty damn NEAT! :-)

>
> Guy's, Occam's Razor is a law of science, not a law of nature- many
> times more complex models have won out over simpler models, but Occam's

Well, this is what *I* was saying.

> razor presents the criteria for such a victory- necessity. Expirimental
> evidence has to indicate that the simpler model is flawed. Occam's razor

The simpler model can't explain ALL paranormal phenomena - only SOME.

> says nothing about nature, just the way science approaches the subject.
>
>

DONALD - Down, but not out!

Matt Kriebel

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

to

William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:

: In article <5gerb4$k...@netaxs.com>, Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com> wrote:
: >Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:
: >:
: >: According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent
: >: to Randi. See my other recent posts.
: >
: >Oh, so then they should have a nice reciept to prove that, right?
: >
: It's not the receipt that matters, it is the contents
: of the letter.

Oh, it matters Charles, because Randi says he has no knowledge of the
letter (as of a few days ago, that is) and Dames insists that such a
letter was sent. It is a mark of a BS artist to make claims about
'accepting the cahllenge' when actually taking no real steps towards doing
so.

: Randi has his rules.

: A notarized acceptance is step one.
: I have no idea of the contents of Dames letter.

true, contents are important, but first it would be neat if Dames could
prove that anything was sent.

Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
The truth is out there... But the speculation is way, *way* out there...

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

to

William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote

| Not really. What it actually says in it's original formulation is that
| one should not mulitply entities in philosophical explanations.
| That is, if you can explain phenomonon A by invoking
| 2 simple principles, a system that invokes a third added principle
| or entity is unacceptable because that addition is simply superflous and
| amounts to special pleading for added entities.

You have taken Ockham the philospher monk view! I was putting the
consequence of the razor as it's used in science. So I stand by my original
description, I'm afraid!

| Just muttering cause God wants it that way is a simple answer to
| everything. But not really as God is a complex situation that quickly
| involve one in bizarre extended arguments of resounding speciousness
| and complexity.

I fully accept that this is a strong argument (though I don't personally
hold with it!) and I've said in another posting that there's a debate in
science about whether the appeal of the razor lies simply in some human
sense of the aesthetic (tidy and beautiful equations for instance) which we
cannot simply ascribe to the way the universe is put together (whether by
God or nature).

I go along with the group which feels (only that) that the principles of
judgement implicit in the razor have a deeper appeal which is more than
merely factual.

Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab)

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

to

"Daniel Wilson" <dw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote

| Randi does not pretend to be a scientist.

Errr, well......umm! See my indelicate postings on this delicate issue!

| But Dawkins should know better.

Umm, I agree Dan, but Dawkins loves to play the firebrand!

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

to

Blue Resonant Human wrote:
>

Was "RANDI" now Ed Dames-Santa Claus

<snip>

> Once again I am compelled to extract this applicable snippet from
> Schnabel's seminal [largely historical] book on the subject. In case
> these few points eluded anyone last time they read the excerpt, here's
> a suggestion for what to read between the lines:
>
> 1) Dr. Harold E. Puthoff's (with *serious* NSA, CIA, DIA, etc.
> connections and influence) direct quote that certain milint types
> "wanted to push buttons and drop bombs on the basis of his (et al)

> [RV] information." <snip>

Scary, yes.

> <snip> Edward Dames could be so easily

> fooled by his trickster brethren in the flesh, how much more could he
> (et al) be fooled by unimaginably clever discarnates who've been
> practicing their deceptive arts for millenia? Don't take no rocket
> scientist to figger THAT one out, mi amigos.

No, people probably do figure that, and also that he and others
could as easily be manipulated by alien races, who are far ahead
of the ability of Earth Creatures with consciousness manipulation.

> <snip> what <snip> forms of tactical disinformatsia are we

> being fed via the
> conduit of the "retired" Ed-Meister and his Holy Milint Brethren?

We don't know, and we should be careful to not accept everything
we hear from him.

<snip> [Ed Dames had a]

> reputation for becoming too involved in his monitoring of RV
> sessions, for pushing the viewer, however unconsciously, towards
> whatever target description he, Ed Dames, happened to favor.

Another reason to excercise care. However, I wonder if he
still does this.

> There was one episode, in late 1987, which some regarded as a
> good illustration of this problem.

> The pilot was obese, and
> the vehicle seemed to be open-topped, with sled-like runners
> underneath. It was going to come across the northern U.S.
> border sometime a few weeks in the future.

Yes, a joke, and it was Santa Claus!

> Dames guessed that a Middle East
> country was involved, maybe Syria or Iran or Libya.

<snip>

> It had been Mel Riley's prank, a measure of revenge for all
> the brain-bending bilocations he'd had to endure on advanced
> training targets.

> When he realized that he'd been fooled, Dames goodnaturedly

> laughed it off. But as time wore on, and the unit's problems
> worsened, Dames seemed to laugh less often.

> Excerpt from:

> _Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Secret Spies_
> 1997 by Jim Schnabel, Dell, ISBN 0-440-22306-7, p. 364-366

> Another fine post by:

> Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D.

And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

I've heard a rumor that there's considerable difference of opinion
between that of Lyn Buchanan and Ed Dames, so this should prove
to be very interesting.

--

E-mail: dan@p s i c o u n s e l.com
http://www.p s i c o u n s e l.com
click at (Scientific Study)
"Psychic Phenomena" & "Skeptics"

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97

to

Blue Resonant Human wrote:

was: RANDI

> Once again I am compelled to extract this applicable snippet from
> Schnabel's seminal [largely historical] book on the subject.

<snip> *REMOTE VIEWERS The Secret History of America's Psychic
Spies*

> 2) If the Omniscient and Ineffable Edward Dames could be so easily
> fooled by his trickster brethren in the flesh, how much more could he
> (et al) be fooled by unimaginably clever discarnates who've been
> practicing their deceptive arts for millenia?

... or malevolent aliens from outer space who want the Earth's
inhabitants to think they are here to do good.

This Tuesday evening, March 25, Lyn Buchanan, a remote viewer will be
on the Art Bell show. It's good to hear all sides of the
REMOTE VIEWING views.

> "There were times when they wanted to push buttons and drop
> bombs on the basis of our information."
> -Dr. Hal Puthoff
> [former manager of the remote-viewing program]

That's scary.

> It was going to come across the northern U.S.
> border sometime a few weeks in the future. It was going to
> come down over Canada, down from the Arctic pole.

<snipped for brevity>

And, unknown to Dames, it was Santa Claus.

> Riley drew the vehicle with eight
> strange objects out in front of it. It didn't matter; it was
> obvious to Dames what was going on here: Some kind of terrorist
> attack was being planned.

He never noticed the 8 objects were reindeer.

<snip>

> It had been Mel Riley's prank, a measure of revenge for all
> the brain-bending bilocations he'd had to endure on advanced
> training targets.

Yes, and it could be that Dames was not doing remote viewing
properly, with too much preconception involved.

Does he still do that? We don't know, really.

> When he realized that he'd been fooled, Dames goodnaturedly
> laughed it off. But as time wore on, and the unit's problems
> worsened, Dames seemed to laugh less often.

<snip>

> Excerpt from:
>
> _Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Secret Spies_
> 1997 by Jim Schnabel, Dell, ISBN 0-440-22306-7, p. 364-366
>
> - - - - -
>
> Another fine post by:
>
> Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D.

--

E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
http://www.psicounsel.com

Blue Resonant Human

unread,

Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97

to

At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:

<snips>

>And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
>Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
>Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

We could not agree more and DESPITE the fact that we maintain a great
deal of respect for Jim Schnabel's excellent book on RVing, we still
very much resent the smear job he did on Morehouse. It was Class-A
propaganda and he almost literally pulled out every single stop in an
attempt to vilify Mr. M. It is far easier to hate a perceived "enemy"
when that "enemy" is dehumanised and clothed with metaphorical maggots
by a master manipulator.

And Brother Jim is just such a master.

On the other side of that same two-edged sword, of course, is the
tactical art of making a very real enemy appear more friendly, much
the same as a pedophile who offers candy to a naive child.

Brother Jim is a master of this as well.

For those who've not forgotten how to defuse the incredible psychic
toxicty of this situation with the antidote of laughter, we suggest
you peruse Brother Jimbo's laughably absurd description of CIA's
infamous MK-ULTRA programme:

"For example, it emerged that in the 1950s and 1960s under a group of
about 200 projects collectively code-named MK-ULTRA, the CIA had tried
to devise -- and in some cases had used -- exotic assassination
weapons, including chemical toxins, biological agents, and even
radio-guided animals filled with bombs."

"Sit, PSY-OP, sit. Good dog, Psy-Op!" <wink>

In any event, after spending a few hours on the phone with Dave
Morehouse, we found him to be a fascinating individual who we felt
comfortable enough around to even invite over for dinner with our wife
and daughters. Despite the tactical smear campaigns of late and the
unwillingness of his friends to back him during his hour of need, he
struck us as an honourable man who suddenly found himself in the
middle of a very "separate" -- albeit just as REAL -- reality. Enough
to shake ANYone up a bit, we'd say.

And despite the failure of his predecessors (i.e. Dee 'n Kelley, Levi,
Mathers, Crowley, LaVey, etc.) to emerge from the very same
interstitial regions uncontaminated, this guy seemed to pull out of it
rather admirably, all things considered. We are looking forward to
the publication of some additional materials of his which promise to
shed much additional light on the aethers and the warfare therein, and
cause a more pointed examination of our hopelessly culture-bound
sci-fi mythos which perceives such phenomena as "martians flying
around in space ships."

That the personal evolution of his own consciousness led him *away*
from the unconscionable pieces of shit who comprise the bulk of the
military/intelligence community speaks volumes to us.

And that many of his contemporaries yet remain in that foul pit of
muck speaks volumes as well, no?

Love 'n light, etc.;

-Brother Blue, B:.B:.
An Sacerdotal Knight of National Security
http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97

to

dens...@spamblock.cts.com (Blue Resonant Human) wrote:

Was "Randi" now "Lyn Buchanan"

>At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:

><snips>

>>And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
>>Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
>>Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

It was an excellent program, with views from 3 sides, and
the discrepancy in the views of various REMOTE VIEWERS. It seems
that there was an agreement that the knowledge of remote viewing
should be in the hands of many people.

New Age ideas were discussed, a Remote Viewing of Christ, as well
as finding one's "soul mate" via remote viewing. Anyone into
metaphysics, or prophecy, would find this very interesting. See
http://www.artbell.com regarding guests.

>We could not agree more [not the above] and DESPITE the fact that

>we maintain a great
>deal of respect for Jim Schnabel's excellent book on RVing, we still

>very much resent the smear job he did on Morehouse. <snip>

Yes, and smear jobs are not even good KARMA. It shows that some
books have good material, but we cannot believe all that is
written in them.

> <snip> the

>tactical art of making a very real enemy appear more friendly, much
>the same as a pedophile who offers candy to a naive child.

>Brother Jim is a master of this as well.

>In any event, after spending a few hours on the phone with Dave

>Morehouse, we found him to be a fascinating individual who we felt
>comfortable enough around to even invite over for dinner with our wife

>and daughters. <snip>

It's good that you are open minded.

><snip> We are looking forward to

>the publication of some additional materials of his which promise to
>shed much additional light on the aethers and the warfare therein, and
>cause a more pointed examination of our hopelessly culture-bound
>sci-fi mythos which perceives such phenomena as "martians flying
>around in space ships."

Yes, I hope you note that publication on your WEB SITE. I've
placed a link to your site from my "Instant Links" page.

>That the personal evolution of his own consciousness led him *away*

>from the unconscionable pieces of s**t who comprise the bulk of the

>military/intelligence community speaks volumes to us.

Yes, what one gravitates toward's and away from certainly tells
us what they're about.

<snip>

>Love 'n light, etc.;

Love and light to you, also.

>-Brother Blue, B:.B:.
> An Sacerdotal Knight of National Security
> http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html

E-mail: dan@p s i c o u n s e l.com
http://www.p s i c o u n s e l.com

click at "Psychic Phenomena" or "Skeptics"
ART BELL CLUB URL: /artbellclub after "com"

BDK

unread,

Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97

to

Blue Resonant Human <dens...@spamblock.cts.com> wrote in article
<85930630...@optional.cts.com>...

> At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>
> <snips>

I went to your website, and for one thing the graphics you come to at
first, are
quite stunning.

> >And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
> >Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
> >Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

Yes, and we had Joe McMoneagle, Paul Smith, and Lyn Buchanan, all three.
Quite an interesting show. There was more on the subject of RANDI and
testing remote viewers.

> We could not agree more and DESPITE the fact that we maintain a great

> deal of respect for Jim Schnabel's excellent book on RVing, we still
> very much resent the smear job he did on Morehouse.

<snip>

Yes, smearing and lying about people is not a good idea for anyone to do.
Lousy
KARMA, for one thing.

>It was Class-A propaganda...<snip>

Yeah, lots of propaganda on USENET. If one clicks at "skeptics" at my
site, they can find out a lot about propaganda, with good examples. Page 2
is about alt.fan.art-bell.

>...<snip> "enemy" is dehumanised and clothed with metaphorical maggots
> by a master manipulator.

Really good metaphors, there.

> On the other side of that same two-edged sword, of course, is the

> tactical art of making a very real enemy appear more friendly, much
> the same as a pedophile who offers candy to a naive child.

Good simile, there. You are an excellent writer.

> In any event, after spending a few hours on the phone with Dave
> Morehouse, we found him to be a fascinating individual who we felt
> comfortable enough around to even invite over for dinner with our wife

> and daughters. Despite the tactical smear campaigns of late and the
> unwillingness of his friends to back him during his hour of need, he
> struck us as an honourable man who suddenly found himself in the
> middle of a very "separate" -- albeit just as REAL -- reality. Enough
> to shake ANYone up a bit, we'd say.

Sobering reality, and it's a good lesson for all of us, not to believe
smears.

><snip> We are looking forward to
> the publication of some additional materials of his which promise to
> shed much additional light on the aethers and the warfare therein, and
> cause a more pointed examination of our hopelessly culture-bound
> sci-fi mythos which perceives such phenomena as "martians flying
> around in space ships."

Well, I'll be looking forward to any news of such publications at your web
site.

> That the personal evolution of his own consciousness led him *away*
> from the unconscionable pieces of s**t who comprise the bulk of the
> military/intelligence community speaks volumes to us.

> And that many of his contemporaries yet remain in that foul pit of

> muck speaks volumes as well, no?

Yes

> Love 'n light, etc.;

> -Brother Blue, B:.B:.
> An Sacerdotal Knight of National Security
> http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html

Yes, love and light.

Dan

> --

Perception -- http://w w w. p s i c o u n s e l.com - Opening
-- -- then select
- Doors
Creation-- -- Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena - That
-- --
- Lead
Reality -- -- Psi Counsel, Inc. -
Home

*DOWNLOAD* "Development of Mental Energy." from SSOPP at
*COMP PROG* above WWW SITE. Test your psychic abilities.

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97

to

Blue Resonant Human wrote:

> At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:

> <snips>

> >And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
> >Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
> >Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

Yes, and we heard 3 of them. It was excellent material. It's always
good to hear the views from all sides.

I was especially interested in their views about Ed Dames' activity
as a remote viewer, and some of what concerns the subject of ET's
and the FUTURE OF THIS PLANET.

> we still
> very much resent the smear job he did on Morehouse.

From that book you've been quoting. Yes, smear jobs are bad KARMA,
for one thing.

> On the other side of that same two-edged sword, of course, is the
> tactical art of making a very real enemy appear more friendly, much
> the same as a pedophile who offers candy to a naive child.

Yes, good simile. You're a good writer. Reminds me, a bit, of the
propaganda and lies emitting from the degenerates of afa-b.

<snip>

> Love 'n light, etc.;

> -Brother Blue, B:.B:.
> An Sacerdotal Knight of National Security
> http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html

Yes, love and light to you.

--

Anthony Patterson

unread,

Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97

to

Ray Cochener wrote:
>
> Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
> >
> > |My understanding of Science is that the MOST LIKELY theory will be
> > | > accepted - NOT the SIMPLEST.
> >
> > In fact, the razor says just that: the most likely explanation will
> > generally be the simplest! It's a tried and tested rule-of-thumb that

> > doesn't help here, unfortunately, because there are two opposing sets of
> > notions, not just one set containing a number of possible solutions: if a
> > "paranormal" event is achieved by trickery the magician will use the
> > simplest version of the tricks that will achieve it. If a "paranormal"
> > event is achieved by paranormal powers, nature will make them the "simplest
> > powers". Here's a question for you: would the razor suggest, then, that
> > paranormal powers, if they exist, will be a version of a force we already
> > know about rather than something completely new?
>

> Guy's, Occam's Razor is a law of science, not a law of nature- many
> times more complex models have won out over simpler models, but Occam's

> razor presents the criteria for such a victory- necessity. Expirimental
> evidence has to indicate that the simpler model is flawed. Occam's razor

> says nothing about nature, just the way science approaches the subject.

"Do not multiply categories unnecessarily."
-William of Occam

The key word here is "necessarily." If necessary, multiplying categories
is entirely consistent with the Razor.

--
Tony Patterson
GMD/SS d++ s:+>- a C+(++) !U P? L? E@ W+ N++>- o-- !K w--- O+>+++ M- V? PS+++ PE+++
Y+>++ PGP->+++ t++ 5@ X* R* tv-- b++++>$ DI++>$ D+ G e++++ h---- r+++$ y++++>$
MHY/AL S++>++++ W- N+>++ PWM+ Ds/d-/r A+++$ a- C++ G- Q+>+++++ 666- Y+>+++

Bruce Daniel Kettler

unread,

Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97

to

dens...@spamblock.cts.com (Blue Resonant Human) wrote:

Was "Randi" now "Lyn Buchanan"

>At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:

><snips>

>>And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
>>Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
>>Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

It was an excellent program, with views from 3 sides, and

the discrepancy in the views of various REMOTE VIEWERS. It seems
that there was an agreement that the knowledge of remote viewing
should be in the hands of many people.

New Age ideas were discussed, a Remote Viewing of Christ, as well
as finding one's "soul mate" via remote viewing. Anyone into
metaphysics, or prophecy, would find this very interesting. See
http://www.artbell.com regarding guests.

>We could not agree more [not the above] and DESPITE the fact that
>we maintain a great

>deal of respect for Jim Schnabel's excellent book on RVing, we still
>very much resent the smear job he did on Morehouse. <snip>

Yes, and smear jobs are not even good KARMA. It shows that some
books have good material, but we cannot believe all that is
written in them.

> <snip> the

>tactical art of making a very real enemy appear more friendly, much
>the same as a pedophile who offers candy to a naive child.

>Brother Jim is a master of this as well.

>In any event, after spending a few hours on the phone with Dave

>Morehouse, we found him to be a fascinating individual who we felt
>comfortable enough around to even invite over for dinner with our wife

>and daughters. <snip>

It's good that you are open minded.

><snip> We are looking forward to

>the publication of some additional materials of his which promise to
>shed much additional light on the aethers and the warfare therein, and
>cause a more pointed examination of our hopelessly culture-bound
>sci-fi mythos which perceives such phenomena as "martians flying
>around in space ships."

Yes, I hope you note that publication on your WEB SITE. I've

placed a link to your site from my "Instant Links" page.

>That the personal evolution of his own consciousness led him *away*

>from the unconscionable pieces of s**t who comprise the bulk of the
>military/intelligence community speaks volumes to us.

Yes, what one gravitates toward's and away from certainly tells

us what they're about.

<snip>

>Love 'n light, etc.;

Love and light to you, also.

>-Brother Blue, B:.B:.

> An Sacerdotal Knight of National Security
> http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97

to

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:

> Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
> >=20
> > DONALD PEDDER <dpe...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wrote:
> >=20
> > <long, rambling whinge deleted>

Yeah. You WISH! The FACT of the matter is I presented an argument that y=
ou
couldn't dispute, so you deleted it and CLAIMED that it was a whinge. Bad l=
uck
for you people can go check in the archives.

> > > Now, I don't USUALLY post to Usenet, but have a bit of time lately=
=2E It
> > >TAKES some of my time to get past all the SCEPTICS in these groups! Ca=
n you
> > >please stick to your OWN NG?! These groups are for the PRODUCTIVE disc=
ussion
> > >of paranormal phenomena (i.e. discussions between LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE),=

and NOT
> > >for flame wars, and antagonists.

> >=20

> > Then get this crap out of afa-b. We have more than our share of
> > crackpots already.

Firstly, how do you know I'm NOT posting from said NG? Secondly, since
this whole thread INVOLVES Art Bell (and James Randi), surely it's the MOST
relevant NG listed for this thread.=20
Thirdly, and more to the point, there are two kinds of people in this
world. Those who talk and complain about things, and those that DO somethin=
g
about it. Given that you have NOT removed said NG from the list, we know wh=
ich
of those groups YOU belong to!

> > > And DON'T complain about "freedom of speech". That's what the OTHER=
NG's
> > >are for. These NG's are for OUR freedom of speech (Try just walking in=
to your
> > >local government gathering and excercising your "freedom of speech". S=
ee where
> > >THAT gets you. Everyone had their OWN forum for THEIR views, and shoul=
d STICK
> > >to it! You sceptics remind me of CHRISTIANS. It's not ENOUGH to believ=
e what
> > >you do - you have to FORCE it on everyone ELSE as WELL!! WE know what =

we
> > >believe, and we're just happy with THAT!).

> >=20

> > What THE hell is it with you WOO-woo whackos, anyway? Why DO you find
> > it NECESSARY to CAPITALIZE so many words, seemingly at RANDOM?

Well, if you can't see the USE of it, I suggest you put some time into
studying Human Communication. If it appears to be RANDOM to you, then you'r=
e
just highlighting your own IGNORANCE. Here's a tip - if you THINK about wha=
t
you're going to say before you open your mouth, then you're less likely to =
end
up with your FOOT in it.=20

> Who knows? Maybe BRUCE got ANOTHER account so HE wouldn't feel LONELY.
> Earl supposedly did this, but he vehemently denies it. The evidence

> seems to suggest the accusation was TRUE.=20

> Its probably somebody else though. BRUCE tends to use **STARS** along
> with capitalization.

They're ASTERISKS - not "stars".

> > --
> > gl...@cyberhighway.net
> > "afa-b's leading curmudgeon"

>=20
> --=20
> Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD +=3D+ Sir Dave of the Giants
> jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu +=3D+ Destroying Angel of Spam
> http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998 +=3D+ afa-b Board of Directors
> SKEP-TI-CULT=AE Administration +=3D+ Lifetime Member,=20
> Officer #01-22112-324 +=3D+ Art Bell Internet Fan Club
> Membership is FREE!
>=20
>=20

Dr.Postman

unread,

Mar 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/28/97

to

Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:

>Blue Resonant Human wrote:
>> At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>> <snips>
>> >And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
>> >Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
>> >Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.

>Yes, and we heard 3 of them. It was excellent material. It's always
>good to hear the views from all sides.

How many times and under how many subject lines are
you going to post this response to BRH? Do you really
believe that by posting them over and over again you
are going to feel less lonely and isolated? Poor fellow,
you seem to be getting desperate for attention.

--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
"fucking defender of the innocent"
Knight of the Potato Cannon,
Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
And a lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
"Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Want to email me? My address is: jami...@mindspring.com
--

William Barwell

unread,

Mar 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/28/97

to

In article <5h4nls$k...@netaxs.com>, Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>: In article <5gerb4$k...@netaxs.com>, Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>: >Bruce Daniel Kettler (d...@psicounsel.com) wrote:
>: >:
>: >: According to PSI TECH'S vice pres, a registered letter was sent
>: >: to Randi. See my other recent posts.
>: >
>: >Oh, so then they should have a nice reciept to prove that, right?
>: >
>: It's not the receipt that matters, it is the contents
>: of the letter.
>
>Oh, it matters Charles, because Randi says he has no knowledge of the
>letter (as of a few days ago, that is) and Dames insists that such a
>letter was sent. It is a mark of a BS artist to make claims about
>'accepting the cahllenge' when actually taking no real steps towards doing
>so.
>
>: Randi has his rules.
>: A notarized acceptance is step one.
>: I have no idea of the contents of Dames letter.
>
>true, contents are important, but first it would be neat if Dames could
>prove that anything was sent.

Bruce claims a 'registered letter' was sent. Whoopie. Note
what he does NOT say. That Dames has accepted Randi's challenge as per
Randi's written rules.
Now Bruce is simply parroting Dames, so I won't blame him for these
weasel words that seem to say something but really don't say the important
thing. That Dames had secided to follow Randi' srules, rather than
try to play games with this.

Of course, if Dames lies about that registered letter, then
one would wonder about anything else he said. Any word from Randi on this
as of late?

I do need to get on the Randi list.

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

Mar 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/28/97

to

I'm...@home.here (Dr.Postman) wrote:

>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:
>>Blue Resonant Human wrote:
>>> At 05:26 PM 3/24/97 -0700, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>>> <snips>
>>> >And, this Tuesday night, the 25th of March, REMOTE VIEWER Lyn
>>> >Buchanan will give us another view of REMOTE VIEWING on the
>>> >Art Bell program. I believe it's good to see this from all sides.
>>Yes, and we heard 3 of them. It was excellent material. It's always
>>good to hear the views from all sides.
>
>How many times and under how many subject lines are
>you going to post this response to BRH? Do you really
>believe that by posting them over and over again you
>are going to feel less lonely and isolated? Poor fellow,
>you seem to be getting desperate for attention.

Brucie is indulging in one of the more pathetic exhibitions of blatant
brown-nosing I've ever seen. It's disgusting. The tittie-pervert has
no shame whatsoever.

lisa frost

unread,

Mar 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/28/97

to

On 22 Mar 1997, Dr BolloXs DSc (Cantab) wrote:
> 2 Quantum mechanics is at odds, as a description of the universe, with
> Newtonian mechanics. Some physicists say that's becasue Quantum mechanics
> is, somehow, crucially flawed. But, in one hundred years, no-one yet has
> worked out how.

isn't part of the problem the red protons that show up from nowhere and
dont fit in?

>
> 3 Relativity Theory, paradoxically perhaps, is compatible with Newtonian
> mechanics (see above) but is not compativle at all (so far as we know) with
> Quantum mechanics.

perhaps there is an inversion theory missing here?

Mike November

unread,

Mar 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/29/97

to

Blue Resonant Human wrote:
>
> slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:
>
> >maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be
<snipped for brevity>--------------------------

> >than randi and his tests? if i were to do tests such as this i would be
> >more than willing to actually show i was for real and take a challenge
> >in public , in private, whatever=85
>

Because logically... if the guy is a fake and he's that confident...it's
because he's already researched all the ways you can come up with to
disprove him, and has a way around most or all of them. Any good
magician can perform a miracle that will take years to prove is a fake.
Many of Houdini's illusions --which he openly and clearly stated were
just that-- are still next to impossible to duplicate or defraud today.
So much so that many people even attribute him to having magic powers...
which would make the old boy furious if he were alive today.

I'd be more convinced by someone with powers that can't be replicated
100% of the time, than someone who can do it without trying.

Yeah, it's true that someone who's really got the stuff could and should
be able to do it 100% of the time... but for me... the best way to tell
if someone's legit is this: A) Are they making money off it? B) Are
they getting attention for it? If I had something unusual, I'd be far
less inclined to share it with others for fear of being treated as a
freak than the supposed shamans and homosuperions I see on TV.

(The secret to living a long life is to not be noticed. It's the duck
that quacks that gets shot.)

Just my 2cents.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
]\/[ike ]\[ovember's VR BBS
WWW.Firehole.com/November
* AND COMING in April *
WWW.Firehole.com/Area50
(Hey, Reality is what you make it, right??)

DONALD PEDDER

unread,

Mar 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/30/97

to

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Mike November wrote:

> Yeah, it's true that someone who's really got the stuff could and should
> be able to do it 100% of the time... but for me... the best way to tell

Geeeeez, you guys just don't GET it, DO you??

Let's take a hypothetical here. Let's say I decide to challenge that you
are "a Man". And *I* set the definition. Not only do you have to APPEAR to be
a Man, but you also have to have the ABILITY to satisfy ANY woman at ANY time
- COMPLETELY - for it's MY belief that if you CAN'T do this, then you AREN'T a
Man.
So, the terms are that you will have to present yourself to 100 women - at
times and places of MY choosing (the edge of a cliff at midnight if I like) -
and if they don't ALL "pass" you, then you will have failed in demonstrating
your "ability". I offer $1,000,000 if you succeed.

Are you CONFIDENT of getting 100%? You better be REAL sure, 'cos if you
DON'T, not ONLY do you not get the money, you will have been UNFAITHFUL to
your wife TOO, and THAT could stuff up your life. Is MONEY more important to
you than your marriage? More to the point, do you think MY definition of what
you should be able to do "if you're a Man" is fair? I didn't think so.

I doubt ANYONE can convince you guys - NOT because psychics don't EXIST,
but because you have your OWN screwed up definition of what a psychic can DO
"IF they exist".
I'll say this ONE MORE TIME (i.e. I am NOT gonna respond any FURTHER on
this) - it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to say what they can do. What THEIR psychic
ability is. And NOTE that it's an ABILITY. Where in life - not JUST with
abilities, but ANY where - do we see perfection?? NOWHERE, THAT'S where.
UNTIL such time as you people are prepared to admit that "no-one's perfect" -
INCLUDING psychics - then you shall never be able to be conviced of ANY kind
of claim for ANY kind of ability.

And even THEN, some people will STILL be just content to stay with their
wife. SOME people have more IMPORTANT things in their life than MONEY!

DONALD.