The peoples voice.

[American Dream]

another day.....another Holocaust.....another Genocide..... another example of an Anti-Human Being crime...another crime against

And who started mentioning the Holocaust(s) in this thread? (and perseverated on it how many times so far?)

Isn't this just your way of supporting David Icke without "supporting" him?

A very clumsy magician's hand, it seems to me...

[seemslikeadream]

another day.....another Holocaust.....another Genocide..... another example of an Anti-Human Being crime...another crime against

And who started mentioning the Holocaust(s) in this thread? (and perseverated on it how many times so far?)

Isn't this just your way of supporting David Icke without "supporting" him?

A very clumsy magician's hand, it seems to me...

This isn't about Icke it's about you...and your obsession

[American Dream]

another day.....another Holocaust.....another Genocide..... another example of an Anti-Human Being crime...another crime against

And who started mentioning the Holocaust(s) in this thread? (and perseverated on it how many times so far?)

Isn't this just your way of supporting David Icke without "supporting" him?

A very clumsy magician's hand, it seems to me...

This isn't about Icke it's about you...and your obsession

So you just won't say what your position is with regards to Icke?

Are you critical of him at all?

Don't you think he's kinda bad news?

[seemslikeadream]

no where near the bad news that is Winston Churchill..why do you elevate Icke ?

[Wombaticus Rex]

no where near the bad news that is Winston Churchill..why do you elevate Icke ?

Let's see:

William Churchill is

1) Dead

2) Not trying to raise money for a news website

3) Not the subject of this thread

[seemslikeadream]

no where near the bad news that is Winston Churchill..why do you elevate Icke ?

Let's see:

William Churchill is

1) Dead

2) Not trying to raise money for a news website

3) Not the subject of this thread

AD and I are discussing Holocaust deniers ...he thinks Icke is the worst and that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth... Winston Churchill completely omitted from the text of his Nobel Prize-winning, 6-volume treatise The Second World War any mention the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which he deliberately starved to death 6-7 million Indians.


I was just pointing that fact out to AD...

and he did make a bunch of money from that book

Holocaust ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant holocaust denial because at least the latter admits the possibility of public discussion, History ignored yields history repeated. Genocide ignored yields genocide repeated.

[American Dream]

AD and I are discussing Holocaust deniers ...he thinks Icke is the worst and that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth... Winston Churchill completely omitted from the text of his Nobel Prize-winning, 6-volume treatise The Second World War any mention the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which he deliberately starved to death 6-7 million Indians.


I was just pointing that fact out to AD...

That is so ridiculous that I really have to question what is going on inside your brain...You have perseverated endlessly on "holoicaust deniers" and I never said anything about whether Icke is the worst or not- that's really not the point. It seems that the point is that you're scared to death to actually own your position with regards to Icke.

What is it?

[seemslikeadream]

[quote="seemslikeadream » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:27 pm

AD and I are discussing Holocaust deniers ...he thinks Icke is the worst and that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth... Winston Churchill completely omitted from the text of his Nobel Prize-winning, 6-volume treatise The Second World War any mention the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which he deliberately starved to death 6-7 million Indians.


I was just pointing that fact out to AD...

That is so ridiculous that I really have to question what is going on inside your brain...[b]You[/b] have perseverated endlessly on "holoicaust deniers" and I never said anything about whether Icke is the worst or not- that's really not the point. It seems that the point is that you're scared to death to actually own your position with regards to Icke.

What is it?[/quote]


You are obsessed with Icke....you've never mentioned one other denier of any other holocaust

[American Dream]

[quote="seemslikeadream » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:27 pm

AD and I are discussing Holocaust deniers ...he thinks Icke is the worst and that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth... Winston Churchill completely omitted from the text of his Nobel Prize-winning, 6-volume treatise The Second World War any mention the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which he deliberately starved to death 6-7 million Indians.


I was just pointing that fact out to AD...

That is so ridiculous that I really have to question what is going on inside your brain...[b]You[/b] have perseverated endlessly on "holoicaust deniers" and I never said anything about whether Icke is the worst or not- that's really not the point. It seems that the point is that you're scared to death to actually own your position with regards to Icke.

What is it?

You are obsessed with Icke....you've never mentioned one other denier of any other holocaust

This also is so ridiculous as to be beyond words- of course I also could provide a laundry list of concepts you never mentioned, humanitarian crises you didn't mention- after all history is long and the world is big...

To do so would "prove" little- and basically be a big dodge.

So, I guess you're never going to own up to your position regarding Icke?

Then I'm done with you...

[Wombaticus Rex]

AD and I are discussing Holocaust deniers ...he thinks Icke is the worst and that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth...

Interesting, thoughout this thread I've seen AD focused on Icke as an untrustworthy source who is a discredit to actual victims he claims to speak for. I don't entirely agree, but I entirely don't think that equates to what you're saying here.

I'm especially troubled by the fact you're stating AD "thinks...that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth" because I don't see how you could think that, where you have gotten that from, and what evidence you could have based it on.

I have seen AD recently document to you that he's discussed indigenous holocausts & genocides, at clinically detailed length, in his ongoing Data Dump folio The Economic Aspects of Love. I have also seen you let that pass without comment.

[seemslikeadream]

AD and I are discussing Holocaust deniers ...he thinks Icke is the worst and that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth...

Interesting, thoughout this thread I've seen AD focused on Icke as an untrustworthy source who is a discredit to actual victims he claims to speak for. I don't entirely agree, but I entirely don't think that equates to what you're saying here.

I'm especially troubled by the fact you're stating AD "thinks...that there are no holocausts deniers on the face of the earth" because I don't see how you could think that, where you have gotten that from, and what evidence you could have based it on.

I have seen AD recently document to you that he's discussed indigenous holocausts & genocides, at clinically detailed length, in his ongoing Data Dump folio The Economic Aspects of Love. I have also seen you let that pass without comment.

no he has not documented any such thing...and he has never discussed at all the denying of any other holocaust whatsoever

it's the denying thing we are talking about



RI search American Dream holocaust denier - 3 pages no other holocaust denying of any other race of people

search.php?keywords=holocaust+denier&terms=all&author=american+dream&fid%5B%5D=8&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

[Wombaticus Rex]

Having read that over, that seems like a compendium of you holding AD accountable for the fact "Holocaust Denier" is, in contemporary usage, solely reserved for white/arab supremacists denying the Shoah. Most of the instances that show up in those results are AD quoting from other sources, and a large number of them seem to stem from you having this same argument with him.

I don't think your assumption that AD is responsible for this is correct. Perhaps this might be a semantic thing, since we're referring to him as AD, which is one L away from the real culprits.

[seemslikeadream]

Having read that over, that seems like a compendium of you holding AD accountable for the fact "Holocaust Denier" is, in contemporary usage, solely reserved for white/arab supremacists denying the Shoah. Most of the instances that show up in those results are AD quoting from other sources, and a large number of them seem to stem from you having this same argument with him.

I don't think your assumption that AD is responsible for this is correct. Perhaps this might be a semantic thing, since we're referring to him as AD, which is one L away from the real culprits.

Let's just cut to the chase .....as a mod please clarify if David Icke and his videos can be posted here or is one supposed to be scared away because of AD's posting some crap from some 'blogger' muertos who doesn't even exist any more.

My question is, and has not been answered

Who the hell is muertos and why should I care? Is that you Randi?

and.... the magic word, oh that magic word....how much clout does it have around here? I know it had plenty at DU....just the mention/ accusation could throw ya off the site tout suite


link from 'muertos' ....this should tell it all

James Randi - a Conjurer Attempts to Debunk Research on Animals

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

AN OPEN LETTER TO JAMES RANDI REGARDING HIS “ONE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE.”


BY JENNIFER DZIURA

- - - -
Dear James Randi,

I am writing to you in regard to your offer of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate, under proper conditions of scientific trial, paranormal abilities. I deeply admire your policy of holding those who claim to possess supernatural powers to the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry and rational thought by working with these claimants to develop a preliminary, and then a formal, test of those abilities.

The warning, posted so ominously (and, dare I say, smugly) on your website, that “no one has ever passed the preliminary tests” only deepens my conviction to be the first.

Delightfully, I have not only a love for the scientific method but also a demonstrable paranormal skill! I have the ability to control men’s minds with my vagina.

To test the claim that I can control men’s minds with my vagina, I propose the following experiment:

A statistically significant even number of volunteers will be recruited to participate in the test. Volunteers should be male, heterosexual, and unknown to me, and should have at least $5 on their person. Each volunteer will be assigned to a group: “vagina” or “no vagina.”

In every trial, the volunteer will be seated within a short walking distance of a hamburger stand. Volunteers in the “vagina” group will also be seated within a short walking distance of my vagina. Volunteers in the “no vagina” group will have a leaden wall placed between them and my vagina. To ensure that the “no vagina” group is not motivated by even the suggestion of my vagina, I will not be seen by them, and my voice will be conveyed only through a voice-altering device that masks my gender.

For each trial, I will ask the volunteer if he will buy me a hamburger.

I predict that volunteers in visual proximity of my vagina will be at least 50 percent more likely to comply than those separated from my vagina by a leaden barrier.

I think you will agree that mind control of any kind is certainly a paranormal phenomenon, and that this proposal represents a fair test of my ability to control men’s minds with my vagina.

As anecdotal evidence—which I am aware is not sufficient for your challenge but seems apropos in an introductory note such as this—I have previously obtained a number of hamburgers in this manner.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Dziura

P.S. With fries!

The Problem with James RandiAnd his foundation on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and supernatural
by Skylaire Alfvegren
Back to... Examining Skeptics

Dogmatists of any stripe are fundamentally wounded, whether they're Islamic terrorists, Christian abortion-clinic bombers or magicians with an axe to grind.

Picture this: A little boy with an imagination and a sense of wonder begins futzing with a deck of cards, sleight of hand ... as that boy delves deeper into magic, it's revealed to be nothing more than a world of smoke and mirrors, of "cons" and "marks." Stage magicians, like lawyers and secret agents, make a living from deception, so perhaps they assume everyone else does, as well. From that perspective, the connection between stage magic and skepticism makes sense.

What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)? What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance? These are questions that beg to be asked of the skeptical movement, which convenes in Las Vegas this weekend for The Amazing Meeting, a benefit for the James Randi Educational Foundation. (The conference takes place at the Stardust and features Murray Gell-Mann, Nadine Strossen, the Mythbusters, Penn & Teller, Mac King, Jamy Ian Swiss, Phil Plait, Julia Sweeney, and Michael Shermer.) After all, while it's true that opportunists profit from the murky worlds of the paranormal and the unknown, and that some people will believe anything, it's also true that scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.

Well, as iconoclastic writer Charles Fort once noted, "Witchcraft always has a hard time, until it becomes established and changes its name."

But let's not generalize. Let's examine the contributions made by Randi, the skeptical movement's leading figure, to science and objective thought.

Randi can be eloquent and is quite the showman; he is also wildly intelligent—he got a MacArthur genius grant in 1986. But according to his detractors, Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy. He's hell-bent on tearing apart anyone he deems a kook, including distinguished scientists and Nobel Prize-winners. This is amusing, as Randi has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although he did once write an astrology column for a Canadian tabloid and host a paranormal-themed radio show).

In 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.

Why? Josephson was interested in the possible connections between quantum physics and consciousness. Randi also has a penchant for lawsuits—he once tried to sue a writer known for covering the UFO beat, simply because he printed some unflattering but verifiable information about the magician. Randi left the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) because of all the litigation against him.

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target. In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities. He defamed two eminent scientists, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, calling them "incompetent." At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy."

Randi is probably best known for his infamous million-dollar challenge to "any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind" under what Randi refers to as "satisfactory observing conditions."

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication." If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely. His "challenge" is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist.

Compare this outlook to the philosophy adopted by followers of Charles Fort. Forteans (a term coined by screenwriter Ben Hecht, who, along with Theodore Dreiser, H.L. Mencken and Oliver Wendell Holmes, was a member of the original Fortean Society, formed upon Fort's death in 1932) entertain the notion that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

Some are scientists, some are street musicians. They are neither gullible nor pompous, neither "true believers" in — nor coldly dismissive of—anything. And they have a sense of humor largely missing from Randi's crowd.

"In and of itself," says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition."

The universe is full of mystery, as well as charlatans. It is up to the individual to weigh evidence objectively. Just don't use your intuition to do so, or you could be the skeptics' next target.

This article appeared in Lasvegasweekly.com, 26th January 2006

Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 18th, 2009

You all know James Randi. He's the world famous Psychic Investigator whose rigorous scepticism has been the undoing of many a fraudulent spoonbender, dodgy faith-healer and ouija-board-wobbling spiritualist.
Randi is the expert magician and escape artist who is offering $1 million in his Paranormal Challenge "to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." No one has yet come close to claiming it because that's the kind of fellow Randi is: an utterly fearless seeker-after-truth; the kind of guy who, if you cut him in half – the result of a stage trick going wrong maybe – you'd find the word "Sceptic" right through his middle. Except, of course, being as he's American it would be spelt Skeptic.
Sadly, it seems that there's one form of scepticism that not even the great James Randi can be permitted. And that is scepticism towards the existence of Al Gore's mythical creation ManBearPig, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Randi discovered this to his cost when he tried posting on the subject at his James Randi Educational Foundation website. And it's not as though he was outing himself as a full-on "denier". All Randi was trying to do was express a note of caution about the notion of "consensus" within the world of science.
He wrote:
An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the scientific community. Why do I find this "unfortunate"? Because the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by academics who are often more driven by "politically correct" survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it's reassuring that they're listening to academics at all — but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations are.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a group of thousands of scientists in 194 countries around the world, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — has issued several comprehensive reports in which they indicate that they have become convinced that "global warming" is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it, and that Man is the chief cause of it. They say that there is a consensus of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels, but a growing number of prominent scientists disagree. Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs, have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man is not necessarily the chief cause of warming, that the phenomenon may not exist at all, and that, in any case, warming would not be disastrous.
Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature. It's often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears — based on all available data — to describe a limited aspect about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus — in my opinion — removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.
History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the truth through continued research. Science recovers from such situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds.
Just the kind of rational, questioning, thoughtful approach we've come to expect from James Randi.
But the eco-fascists among his readership weren't having it one bit. Here are some of the comments which swiftly appeared below his heretical post:
"It would be hard to imagine Randi siding with one of the many similar petition projects against evolution instead of accepting the consensus of biologists."
"The thing is, Climate Scientists aren't publicly attacking anyone. Rather, they are under pernicious attack themselves. The East Anglia CRU have had their lives and reputations assaulted by people who were not prepared to spend the few seconds it would take to check the facts."
"What disturbs me is the phrase, "Warming will not be disastrous". Tell that to the millions in Pakistan, India, and South America whose river sources will die with the glaciers from which they spring. Tell that to the thousands of parents whose children will die of malaria, dengue fever, and the other tropical scourges whose ranges are increasing as the climate warms."
"Objections to Randi's position have been duly noted here and elsewhere, and they are not new — and neither is Randi's cynicism disguised as skepticism. The logical fallacies are numerous in his post, and easy to identify, should someone wish to play a game of AWG-denial Bingo."
"I was also saddened by Randi siding with the GW denialists. He seems to have fallen for a number of logical fallacies, and apparently prefers self-deception and ignorance when it comes to this issue. Very, very sad."
and this one from an especially self-righteous fellow called John Huntingdon:
"I was at my computer today considering where to put my year-end charitable donations. I had solicitations from at least four skeptical
organizations, and was struggling to decide where to put my money. And so, I took a break and checked my Google reader, and saw PZ Myers'
posting on your foray into climate science. After reading your post in full, I removed the JREF from my donation list."
Actually, when you read through all the comments, you discover that there at least as many in Randi's favour as there are against him; and also, that much of the nasty stuff is the handiwork of a small group of (not desperately well-informed) eco-zealots, among them a horrid little tic named Arthur.
All the same it was too much for Randi. The poor fellow felt compelled to issue a semi-apology in a post headlined "I Am Not Denying Anything."
Somehow, my AGW commentary was seriously misunderstood by some. Part of the reason for that is probably due to the fact that I took a much longer, 5,000-word piece, and cut it down to about 1,400 words to better fit Swift's needs. Along the way, some clarity was lost. For that, I apologize.
Rather bizarrely, Randi ends his light grovel by quoting a journalist named James Hrynshyn (who he?) who, he says, "was kind enough to call our office yesterday to discuss the evidence for and against AGW." What this Hrynshyn character apparently told him was:
"While we are both amateurs, I think it behooves us to give in to those who have devoted their professional lives to understanding this complex subject. And what they have to say can be boiled down to this: the world is warming and humankind is responsible for at least half of that rise in global average temperatures."
Randi's response to this piece of bullying?
"Accepted."
To which I can only say:
"Shame."
UPDATE: Just found the site of this James Houyhnhm. Check out the photograph. At one point, he actually has the gall to suggest that Randi's lapse may be the result of illness: "Could it be that the fact he is currently suffering through chemotherapy for intestinal cancer explain the lapse?"
Then he reports proudly on how he bullied an old man into submission:
I wondered if perhaps Randi, who is very good at finding simple explanations for chicanery masquerading as magic, is just too skeptical of anything that requires a post-graduate degree to understand. I pressed for a reason why those of us who are basically amateurs shouldn't grant those who have devoted their lives to understanding the subject a little respect and take them at their word when they say we're responsible for at least half of the observed warming. I am please to report that he replied that, yes, perhaps he has more thinking to do.
Ugh!

Exposing the Unfair Truth About the James Randi $1,000,000 Psychic Challenge
The $1,000,000 Psychic Challenge May Put You at Risk


Psychic, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Nov 27, 2006 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
MORE:James AndersonCelebritiesPsychic Ability
FlagPost a comment
James Randi and the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundationg) is offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate their psychic ability under a controlled challenge. May we add that he has a long Application for Status of Claimant on his website at: http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html . If you read line 7of this application form, he clearly states that "When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize." By reading this, you are agreeing that if you get hurt or injured in any way, shape or form, then you cannot sue or hold James Randi or the JREF liable. I would not want to put my life on the line for any amount of money.
I also found that Jame Randi's statement at the end of the form was rather harsh. It states, "Please be advised that several applicants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved many applicants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution. This advice is offered only so that the applicant might be spared these problems.
- James Randi"

I believe that demonstration of any gift, whether it be an educational school taught gift or a psychic gift should not involve any type of embarrassement or putting down of any human being. I understand that the prize is a million bucks, but anyone in their right mind would not want to be bombarded with such cruel nature.

On the JREF website, it also states on line 4.2 that this test: "isn't going to be like taking a test. This is going to be like going to court." A million dollars is at stake here and you are expected to put your name and reputation on the line here and everything that you are both physical and mental. This is like putting your life in someone elses hands by a signed contract. Something is wrong with this $1,000,000 game.

Another unfair rule of this challenge is that the JREF has the say so of what they consider to be obnoxious behavior. Please read on the same listed website page above on line 6.2, "Who determines whether my behavior is unacceptable? Is there is mediator or impartial judge that makes such decisions? Can I appeal if I am deemed too obnoxious to deal with?

NO. The JREF alone determines when an applicant's behavior is unacceptable. There is no Appeal Process, and there is no mediator. The JREF will always issue repeated warnings before taking any decisive action, and they will always strive to give the applicant all reasonable leeway in maintaining Applicant status.

It is not the goal of the JREF to reject claims. Quite the contrary. It will be done only when absolutely necessary, and only after having made all best efforts to avoid it."

Wait a minute here. According to this rule, you have no say so in your own behavior. Only the JREF can determine whether or not they deem your behavior as unacceptable. I would never enter into any psychic challenge under a rule like this because anyone can say that any behavior is unacceptable. For some, passing gas is an unacceptable behavior. So far I see that the JREF is in complete control of this so called challenge and it is not just a challenge, it is more like putting your whole life on the line to include any unexpected injury.

The JREF also calls on celebrity psychics to take this tough test with its own rules set only by the JREF. If these celebrity psychics take this $1,000,000 challenge, then they are signing their life away literally. I do not see how a challenge can ask you to put bodily injury on the line here. If you read the contract, it clearly states that you cannot sue James Randi or the JREF under any situation. This is very unfair and anyone would be a fool to agree to such terms. He is constantly calling out to these psychics on tv and on his website on line 4. He clearly states, "The people who do apply are probably honestly convinced of their abilities, and have no fear of discovery. Where are James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, George Anderson, John Edward, and the rest of the current "big names"? And why hasn't Uri Geller, the professional spoon-bender (remember him from the 70s?) snapped up this easy cash? One can only wonder." According to this contract and his "rules" of the challenge, I can see why no celebrity psychic would take this unfair challenge. I do not see this challenge as a fair challenge because it leaves any person vulnerable to any given situation when walking into a room. Anyone can say what they want outside of the written contract, but anyone knows that a written contract is what it is and it doesn't matter what he said, she said says.

If this challenge was given on a regular show with not all these rules and no liability statements, I can see it being more relaxing. I would personally be afraid to move into this challenge because I could be considered as misbehaving or kicked out of the test for any reason. I do not know about you, but I prefer to be more relaxed when taking a challenge. Anyone that knows anything about challenges can tell you that taking any exam under stress is not good. This test will really scare you because if you make one wrong move, you can be banned from the test itself.

On the front of the Randi.org website, he clearly places psychic Sylvia Browne's picture on the bottom of the screen with a counter stating that this is how long she has not yet taken the challenge since she said that she would take it on the Larry King show on September 3, 2001. I did watch that Larry King Live show and James Randi did not read his contract on the Larry King show or inform them of his "rules" and all. He simply makes it sound that she wont take some sort of psychic challenge. After reading this contract, I can clearly see why she has not taken this challenge yet. I find this test to be to one sided and the applicant has absolutely no rights. Is this the military or a psychic challenge?

The Magician Who Could Not Make Homeopathy Disappear
Monday, November 21, 2011 by: Dana Ullman

(NaturalNews) A campaign of disinformation on homeopathic medicine has been very active in United Kingdom and in the United States, and my previous article at this website provided some detail about this effort.

Perhaps the leading opponent to homeopathy in the United States is the magician James Randi. Magicians use various tricks to make things disappear, and Mr. Randi is working hard at making homeopathy disappear... however, to be a successful magician one must learn to fool and deceive people, and Mr. Randi is performing his tricks to try to make homeopathy disappear. Thankfully, he has not been successful.

This short article is not meant to be exhaustive on Randi's disinformation campaign against homeopathy but providing some overview of who he is and what he has said and done will hopefully shed light on the nature of his information and how trustworthy he may or may not be.

Please know that this review and critique of Mr. Randi is not an ad hominem attack on him. I have a great amount of respect for Mr. Randi as an entertainer and magician, and I'm sure that he is a quite lovely person to his friends, but whether he is nice or lovely or entertaining or competent is not the point of this article. Instead, this article reviews his actions, his priorities, and the causes that he has supported, all of which are reasonable and appropriate areas for critique and are not personal attacks on who he is.

James Randi, Magician Extraordinaire and Master of Deception

James Randi is a first-class magician who appeared many times on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and who, more recently, has become famous for supposed "debunking" of various paranormal phenomena and "pseudoscience." However, one must remember that in order to become an accomplished magician, James Randi became expert in having people look at one hand while he was creating "magic" (or clever deception) with the other.

Randi receives a lot of press because of his $1 million "challenge" to anyone who claims to provide hard evidence for homeopathic medicine or other "paranormal" phenomena. Although few serious researchers have taken Randi and his "prize" seriously, I participated in an experiment with which Randi was connected in 2003, and this experience taught me much about him. I should first say that I had no expressed desire to win his prize, and even if this experiment had a positive result, I would not have received any monetary award.

Mark Golden, a producer for John Stossel and ABC's 20/20 program, asked me to participate in a merging of "reality television" and "science." He asked if there was a laboratory experiment that could be conducted to prove that homeopathic medicines had biological activity (or not)....and to add a little more tv drama to it, Golden told me a successful result could lead to winning $1 million to a homeopathic organization from James Randi. I told him that there were several such experiments, but one study was particularly noteworthy because it was conducted by Professor Madeleine Ennis, a former skeptic of homeopathy who was a professor of biochemistry at Queens College in Belfast, Ireland. Further, I told this producer that three other universities had replicated her experiment (Belon, Cumps, Ennis, 1999; Belon, Cumps, Ennis, 2004).

I agreed to participate in the experiment if Professor Ennis conducted the study or served as a consultant to the study to assure that it was correctly conducted. The producer agreed. I was therefore flown to New York to be interviewed, and a month later the study was to be conducted. Professor Ennis is a highly respected researcher, and she told the producer and me that she had no interest in conducting a "TV science experiment," but she would review the protocol of the researcher they chose to use.

When Professor Ennis was ultimately sent the protocol, she was shocked at what she received. This protocol was NOT her experiment (Ennis, 2004). In fact, it was clearly a study that was a set-up to dis-prove homeopathy. Ennis noted that certain chemicals used in the experiment were known to kill the specific types of cells that the experiment would be counting. Further, she listed egregious problems with this study (Ennis, 2004) and asserted that the "researcher" who created this new study had seemingly never previously conducted and published a study in his life. Actually, the researcher who created this study and who was to conduct it was a lab technician without a graduate degree and without any previous publication history.

Professor Ennis and I also learned that this same researcher had conducted the same faulty experiment for the BBC which sought to discredit homeopathy (BBC, 2002). The narrator of this BBC program explicitly asserted that this TV experiment was a "replication" of Professor Ennis' previous study, though this assertion was sheer fabrication.

I then contacted 20/20's producer, Mark Golden, to alert him of this problem, and he simply told me that he promised to "consult" with Professor Ennis, but he was not obligated to do what she (or I) wanted. Although I had assumed that working with a producer at 20/20 would assure high ethical and journalistic standards, I began to wonder if my assumptions were correct. As it turned out, I also neglected to realize the impact of working with a team connected to John Stossel, a reporter who was previously caught fabricating a "study" on organic foods that incorrectly asserted that there was no difference between organic and conventional foods (Dowie, 2001).

In Stossel's commentary on homeopathy, he had the audacity to assert that the "university scientists who reviewed the test protocols and said they were 'technically sound' and 'meticulously conducted.'" (Stossel, 2003) Although Stossel acknowledged on air that I objected to the study BEFORE it was started, he neglected to mention that the expert who his producer agreed to consult with this study had equally strenuous concerns.

It is more than a tad ironic that John Stossel frequently used and even popularized the term "junk science" on 20/20, and I began to wonder if he was engaging in it himself.

Prior to actually conducting this research, the researcher wrote me saying, "Without agreement by all participants on the manner of how things were done, the outcome of the experimentation is indeed virtually meaningless." And yet, he and the 20/20 team continued to conduct this junk science experiment with an outcome that indeed was meaningless.

It is further confusing that neither James Randi or any of his many followers had ever commented about the quality of this study, even though they are known to ridicule virtually any and every study that has had a positive result from a homeopathic medicine. It certainly makes sense for a magician to want to expose frauds and charlatans. And yet, if Randi was truly serious about exposing frauds and charlatans, it is quite curious that he has chosen to go after alternative medicine rather than Big Pharma and Big Medicine when there are many more egregious frauds that occur regularly and with much greater impact on society.

It is inappropriate to say that Randi (or anyone) should not expose any type of fraud, but it is reasonable to ask: is there a "method" to decision to focus on one rather than the other? Even though Randi prides himself on uncovering frauds and hoaxes, he seems to turn a blind eye when he himself may be involved in what could be deemed a fraud or hoax.

As for Randi's $1 million "prize," one can and should look at the rules for this award that specifically give the James Randi Educational Fund (JREF) a clever way to avoid paying anything. Rule #4 asserts, "At any time prior to the Formal Test, the JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and unbiased test". As it turns out, a more recent effort to test homeopathy with a protocol agreed upon by Randi and famous Greek homeopath, George Vithoulkas, was delayed so long by Randi that it led to the impossibility to the trial (Vithoulkas.com). In Randi's defense, he does not wish to comment on the past or what he said or agreed to previously.

James Randi is not just a homeopathic and alternative medicine skeptic; he is also a climate change denier. A large number of his followers have had a seriously difficult time accepting his stance, and yet, these followers defend him by asserting that he is not really a "scientist" and cannot be expected to understand these complex issues (Pigliucci, 2009). These followers argue that Randi is competent enough to declare with certainty that many homeopathic and alternative treatments are "bunk," and yet, like cult members, his followers ignore the fact that he is neither a scientist nor a physician and cannot be expected to understand the complex issues of the healing process.

Because it seems that James Randi has serious concerns about fraud and deception in medicine and science, it is remarkably surprising that he has been silent on the considerable fraud regularly committed by conventional medical and "scientific" researchers and by Big Pharma companies. However, Randi is a great magician, and he is a recognized expert at misdirection.

Because it seems that James Randi has serious concerns about fraud and deception in medicine and science, it is remarkably surprising that he has been silent on the considerable fraud regularly committed by conventional medical and "scientific" researchers and by Big Pharma companies. However, Randi is a great magician, and he is a recognized expert at misdirection.

The advantage of Randi's climate change position is that he stands with and by Big Oil and Big Corp. To quote the Church Lady, "How convenient."

James Randi himself seems to have become a victim (or an accomplice) to a deception in his personal life. Randi's long-time companion, Jose Luis Alvarez, was arrested in early September, 2011, for identity thief (Franceschina and Burstein, 2011). This news story carries the additional irony that a master of fraud detection has himself been deceived (my personal condolences and my recognition that any person can be deceived). However, in this case, the man posing as Jose Luis Alvarez had, with Randi's help and advocacy, once pretended to be a "medium" in Australia as a test of the "new age" community there. Randi and "Alvarez" got significant media coverage for this hoax. The old adage that people teach what they themselves need to learn seems to have special meaning here.

Medical Fundamentalism: An Unscientific Attitude

Brian Josephson, PhD, won a Nobel Prize in 1973 and is presently professor emeritus at Cambridge University. Josephson asserts that many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief;" that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" (Josephson, 1997).

Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."

In the new interview in Science (December 24, 2010), Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, also expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste's results (showing effects from homeopathic doses), but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don't understand it."

Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience, he replied adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

Luther Burbank, the botanist and agricultural scientist, perhaps said it best:

"I have never known a clergyman or a professor who could be more narrow, bigoted, and intolerant than some scientists, or pseudo-scientists... Intolerance is a closed mind. Bigotry is an exaltation of authorities. Narrowness is ignorance unwilling to be taught. And one of the outstanding truths I have learned in my University (of Nature) is that the moment you reach a final conclusion on anything, set that conclusion up as a fact to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away, and refuse to listen to any new evidence, you have reached an intellectual dead-centre, and nothing will start the engine again short of a charge of dynamite... Ossified knowledge is a dead-weight to the world, and it does not matter in what realm of man's intellectual activities it is found... Any obstinate clinging to outworn doctrines, whether of religion or politics or morality or of science, are equally damning and equally damnable." (Buhner, 2004, p. 21)

If the subject of this article intrigues you, British chemist and homeopath Lionel Milgrom has written an excellent and detailed analysis of the myths that medical fundamentalists spread on homeopathy (and specific individuals who are the worst offenders) (Milgrom, 2010).

Thomas Kuhn, the great physicist and philosopher of science and author of the seminal "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," asserted that "paradigm shifts" seem only outrageous or revolutionary to those people who have invested themselves in the old paradigm...but to all others, the paradigm shift is a natural evolutionary development to virtually everyone else. The deniers of homeopathy are simply "too invested" personally and professionally in the old medical and scientific paradigm, while the rest of us consider the maturation of medicine and science as long overdue.

It has been said that dinosaurs tend to yell and scream the loudest before their fall...and it seems that we are all witnessing evolution at work.

JAMES RANDI—SKEPTICISM'S GREAT ACHILLES

I have long felt that the skeptical community has a James Randi Problem.

At one time or another, seemingly every professional skeptic offers thanks and praise to Randi, lauds his Million Dollar Challenge and/or joins his self-named foundation (JREF). They applaud him for forty years spent debunking all things paranormal, line up in droves to attend his annual Amazing Meeting—“a celebration of critical thinking and skepticism sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation”—and they rarely, if ever, engage in any critical thinking about Randi himself.

Thus far, they seem unmoved even by the specter of “Jose Luis Alvarez.”

I put the name in quotes because Randi, a Plantation, Florida resident, has lived and worked with “Alvarez” for roughly 20 years, even traveling the world together to debunk psychics and stage mediums. But the feds, this last September, arrested “Alvarez” and charged him with stealing another man’s identity—obtaining passports and getting paid under the name of the real Jose Luis Alvarez, a teacher’s aide in the Bronx.

So, who is the man who has been living in Randi's home and working with him for 20 years? According to the Sun Sentinel, Alvarez is actually Deyvi Pena, who came to the United States from Venezuela in the mid-80s on a student visa to study at the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale. And now? The questions about Pena extend from his identity to his age to how the feds have come to accuse him of stealing the name, date of birth and social security number of a New York man, back in 1987, in order to travel internationally with Randi. And it is this relationship—the long partnership between Alvarez/Pena and Randi—that should now concern the skeptical community.

In short, what did Randi know and when did he know it?

The answer would seem to matter—a lot.

The identity Randi puts forward for public consumption is truth seeker. His professional role, at least on the surface, is to unmask hoaxers and charlatans—not live with them, or abet them. But as I write in Fringe-ology, Randi strikes me as proving, at best, a highly problematic spokesman for a movement purportedly engaged in truth telling. In fact, I would argue, the now 83-year old Randi, a one-time stage magician and long-time skeptic, has always been too consumed with the prospect of claiming total victory to be bothered overly much by more nuanced truths. But let’s back up a step.

Judging by what has been written about the case thus far, those who know Randi’s partner, who we’ll call Pena/Avarez, like him. They describe him as having arrived in America, in the mid-80s, with serious ambition to further his art. He has since had gallery showings in New York and San Francisco of what the Sun-Sentinel describes as “colorful, modernist” paintings. Operating under his allegedly assumed name, he gave a lecture, in 2011, at the University of California in Berkeley, billed in fantastic terms and garbled syntax: “Utilizing the concept in theoretical astrophysics of parallel universes and space as a continuum membrane with no beginning or end, Alvarez will place his cast of characters as a stand-in for the strong human desire for knowledge and transformation and his continued visual inquiry into the realms of the fantastic and the philosophical."

Pena/Alvarez remains best known, however, for his late-80s work with Randi. He took the stage as “Carlos,” a supposed mystic channeling the spirit of an ancient seer, while Randi oversaw production of what proved to be an elaborate hoax. The idea was to educate people by fooling them: Get audience members and the media to believe in “Carlos” the psychic, then tell them the truth: They had been fooled.

See? Randi argued. All you have to do to convince people you’re a psychic is proclaim yourself one—and act the part.

But the problems with any Randi-led narrative begin immediately. For starters, the media saw right through Carlos. So when Randi goes around saying how easy it is to fool people, using Carlos as an example, he is propagating a myth. The Carlos hoax largely backfired—as these pieces from the Grail and The Skeptic (click The Second Coming, "Skepticism," here) neatly attest. And of course, the layers of mythmaking where “Carlos” is concerned now seem endless. In fact, the false “Carlos” narrative hides Randi’s actual inability to hoax the media. And “Carlos” himself was less person than Chinese box, hiding “Alvarez,” who allegedly hid Pena.

Identity theft is a serious federal offense.

Randi’s partner, who renewed the “Alvarez” passport as recently as 2008, faces a sentence of up to 10 years. His attorneys have notified the court they intend to plead guilty. And while a plea agreement would likely land him a far shorter sentence, he could also face deportation if he is here illegally.

At first blush, there are good reasons to root for someone like Pena: I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who feels they might find a better life for themselves in the United States. And while I’ve never been in that position, I believe I understand how the desire to take part in all America offers could lead someone to take tremendous risks and even break the law.

The problems with extending too much sympathy to Pena/Alvarez is that the real Jose Luis Alvarez has faced myriad inconveniences, indignities and hardships in the years that someone else has been using his identity. According to the complaint filed against Alvarez/Pena, the real Alvarez was not surprised someone had stolen his identity. He had spent years enduring hassles with the IRS and credit card companies.

As the Sun-Sentinel reports: “Alvarez, a teacher's aide from the Bronx, said he has suspected for several years that someone had stolen his identity — … that he's been dunned by the IRS for taxes he didn't owe on income in Florida, that his bank account has periodically been frozen and that he had difficulty renewing his driver's license. He's had to repeatedly prove he is who he says he is, brandishing his New York driver's license and a birth certificate, as well as his employment record.”

Recently, when the real Alvarez tried to obtain a passport to travel to his sister’s wedding in Jamaica, his application was pegged as potentially fraudulent—because, after all, someone else had already been traveling the world with a passport bearing all the same information. Sadly, the real Jose Luis Alvarez was not able to work the matter out in time to attend his sister’s wedding at all.

Events like family weddings don’t reoccur. And if Pena/Alvarez is guilty as charged, he stole that event from the real Jose Luis Alvarez and severely compromised his quality of life for many years. Worse, according to the affidavit of the special agent in the case, when Pena/Alvarez was questioned, he allegedly tried to do still more harm to his victim. Pena/Alvarez told the agent “he was aware that an individual was using his personal information in New York City.”

Certainly, then, if Randi did know the man he lived with was living under someone else’s name, this is a sad aspect of his legacy. But thus far he has remained mostly mum on the subject—a real change of pace for the usually irrepressible, irascible and outspoken skeptic. “I’ve been advised silence is the way to go,” he told the Sun-Sentinel.

Even worse for the reputation of the great Truth Teller, when the Sun-Sentinel asked him what he thought of their conclusion that “Alvarez” is really Pena, he didn’t take the traditional, and dignified way out, and simply say “I have no comment.” Instead, he offered this meek obfuscation: “Well, if that’s who you think he is.”

There is, however, a trail of facts that critical thinkers might pursue in order to come to their own conclusions. The Sun-Sentinel has done a diligent job of pursuing the story, and their coverage offers up a timeline that figures to grow clearer as legal proceedings continue.

1984 — Deyvi Pena moves from Venezuela to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida under a student visa. His listed age is 22.

1986 — Randi wins a MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant, for $272,000 and hires Pena as an assistant. Pena starts appearing around town with Randi and is known to associates as Deyvi or David. In 1986 a Toronto Star reporter shadowed Randi at La Guardia airport, while researching a profile, and wrote: “A few feet behind him, David Pena, a young man of about 20, struggles with three large suitcases.”

1987—Pena allegedly becomes Jose Luis Alvarez, applying for a U.S. passport using the name, date of birth and social security number of a man living in the Bronx, New York. The newspaper cites one person who knew Pena/Alvarez around that time saying he needed a new identity and did not have legal identification.

So, Pena allegedly becomes Alvarez—and performs on and off as “Carlos.” A quick look at the JREF site shows Alvarez is mentioned there 9 times—though nothing (outside the message boards) I could find in connection with the legal charges he faces and nothing on Pena. Is it possible that Pena/Alvarez was confiding his situation to a friend, but not Randi, the man he worked for and ultimately lived with?

There are some telling details. Pena would now be 50, and Alvarez’s listed age is 43, a seven year difference. And intriguingly, the Sun Sentinel found, when Alvarez first performed as “Carlos” Randi billed him as 19 years old—the same age as the New York man whose identity was allegedly stolen by Randi’s partner. Further, in this video, recorded in 2009, Randi says, around the 2:40 second mark, that one worry they had before they put Pena/Alvarez on stage as “Carlos” is that his “Bronx” accent might creep through.

Really?

The real Jose Luis Alvarez is from the Bronx. But the man by Randi’s side, who had allegedly adopted that identity, was from Venezuela.

Had Pena/Avarez somehow known, from the moment he met Randi, that he would one day adopt the identity of a man from the Bronx, and fooled the incredible skeptic by adopting a Bronx accent? Or was Randi just continuing to perpetuate Pena/Alvarez’s cover? Does he himself not know the difference between Venezuelan and Bronx accents? We await the answer. And at this stage, answers are finally forthcoming: Alvarez/Pena has admitted in court that his real name is Deyvi Pena. A court hearing is set for March 14, and Pena's defense attorneys has claimed the whole truth will be revealed, which she bills as a “compelling story”. But clearly, in the meantime, this whole episode looks awfully bad for Randi—and I expect it will look bad for many in the skeptical community when all is said and done.

Why?

Because, if the last months are any indication, the skeptical community will largely ignore or rationalize the story as they have done thus far.

Just recently, in fact, Richard Saunders, host of the Skeptic Zone, spent a half-hour fawning over Randi, the legend, without asking him a single question about the Alvarez kerfuffle.

Has Richard Wiseman weighed in, on his site? Nope.

Nothing at U.K. Skeptics.

Or Ben Radford.

I can find nothing from Michael Shermer on the topic, or Mike Hutchinson, and—well, this is what we humans tend to do on behalf of the people and beliefs we’ve come to revere. And in this case, too many of the people who drape themselves in the cloak of “Critical Thinking” have willingly, I would argue, pulled the wool over their own eyes when it comes to James Randi.

The JREF message board is a case in point. They deserve props, I suppose, for leaving this long thread in place for people to monitor developments in the case and discuss it. But JREF’s president D.J. Grothe strikes a sour note in his post on the subject: “We at the James Randi Educational Foundation are shocked by the sudden arrest of James Randi's beloved longtime partner, Jose Alvarez,” he writes. “Many of us have known Jose for years, both as a friend and as an ally to our cause who has traveled around the world to promote skepticism and critical thinking. Our thoughts are with Jose and Randi in this difficult time, and we hope they will be quickly reunited.”

Is that what it comes down to? Which side we’re on?

Is it not somehow troubling that an organization built on rooting out fraud had, in its midst, a man allegedly committing fraud at a federal level? And there is nothing from Grothe on the seriousness of the charge? Nothing about waiting for the process to play out before reminding us of “Jose’s” accomplishments?

We all search for something to believe in. And while those who chose James Randi believe themselves to be above the rabble who get taken in by street-side fortunetellers, I believe they simply fell for a hoax of another kind. In Fringe-ology, I write at length about what I consider the most irrational moments in Randi’s rationalist career. So I won’t get into them here. But Randi is a fount not so much of critical thinking but critical gaffes: Rupert Sheldrake, Zev Pressman, Arthur C. Clarke, Gary Schwartz (and Loyd Auerbach), Dennis Rawlins and Dennis Stillings have all, at one time or another, fallen into the gap between Randi and reason.

And Randi himself clearly enjoys his own shapeshifting. On the Skeptic Zone podcast, he talks at length about the title of the forthcoming documentary about his life. It's called An Honest Liar, and the conceit is that, as a magician, Randi's job is to deceive and misdirect and create illusions.

All I can say is that, after the Jose Luis Alvarez case shakes out, there might be a great jumping off point for a second documentary.

On the Skeptic Zone podcast, he talks at length about the title of the forthcoming documentary about his life. It's called An Honest Liar, and the conceit is that, as a magician, Randi's job is to deceive and misdirect and create illusions.

oh but it's just fine for Randi to make the big bucks...

[American Dream]

Now let's think- where's the good evidence: that shape-shifting celebrity reptoid blood-suckers actually rule us through a monolithic world conspiracy of which all other conspiracies are a part- as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion described with essential accuracy for us...Helpful people telling the truth about mind control- people like Cathy O'Brien, Mark Phillips and Arizona Wilder have worked with this mighty Messiah to tell us the Truth! Oh and if anyone doubts this then their sense of reality has just been manipulated by the Conspiracy's matrix of false reality, being broadcast from an inter-dimensional portal/spacecraft broadcasting from the Moon!


Um, so where was the evidence for all this again???

.

[slimmouse]

Now let's think- where's the good evidence: that shape-shifting celebrity reptoid blood-suckers actually rule us through a monolithic world conspiracy of which all other conspiracies are a part- as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion described with essential accuracy for us...Helpful people telling the truth about mind control- people like Cathy O'Brien, Mark Phillips and Arizona Wilder have worked with this mighty Messiah to tell us the Truth! Oh and if anyone doubts this then their sense of reality has just been manipulated by the Conspiracy's matrix of false reality, being broadcast from an inter-dimensional portal/spacecraft broadcasting from the Moon!


Um, so where was the evidence for all this again???

.

In my opinion AD, you might be able to take solace from the fact that if any media outlet is capable of proving one way or another that we are ruled by the Archontic forces spoken of throughout worldwide cultures, for thousands of years across the globe, then the peoples voice has as good a shot as any at assisting in this.

You see, in order to achieve such quantifiable proof against the people he speaks of, we would need DNA samples et cetera.

Which means the people that Icke is claiming are kinda demonically possessed, would probably have to be arrested for the serial genocidalists that most of them actually are in our own present dimension. Because thats what the vast majority of these people are (albeit by proxy), when we cut to the chase. You know, the kind of people who order mankind to butcher one another, create artificial shortages of food and energy for their minions, and generally keep us all in a state of every increasing technocratic, physical, sprirtual and emotional servitude.

One of the big problems with this is of course the mainstream media, which essentially fronts for the same people.

Imagine a TV station that was deternined to see those parasitic forces on humanity brought to justice, by broadcasting stuff that the "archontically possessed"didnt want to hear?

That might be a good idea, huh?

Anyone not into archontic forces in their various forms however, might wish to satisfy their curiousity as to where Ickes thinking is right now, by looking for a copy of the speech that he gave to the Bilderberg fringe today.

Oh and finally AD, it appears you and Icke do at least have one thing in common. Like most rational minds he's a big Finklestein fan too.