View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JREF Blackmail Tapes

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby ciscop » 29 Jul 2009, 16:45

hahahaha am i stupid?
no retard-riley

is easy to know you wont get paid
i also doubt those mails are real is too easy to change what an email says and publish it online
if they were
go and sue randi for those 3 thousand or that million
EXPOSE HIM FOR REAL
GO FOR IT
DO THOSE HAVE VALIDITY IN COURT? i dont know maybe they do!!
go for it!!
but no.. you wont expose randi for real, you wont go to a court and sue him..

you wont do it
it is just hot air
you are a coward and a retard
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04






Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby skeprogue » 29 Jul 2009, 16:51

The Professor wrote:"Verbatim" ... Please show where I used that word ..... OR ARE YOU LYING !!!!!!!! As always.
You are a liar!
If not .. Prove it!


< sigh >

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=155&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50#p749

The Professor wrote:Here, verbatim, is part of that excerpt from the official record of that trial:


Seriously, do you even read what you post?
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby rileyg » 29 Jul 2009, 17:16

ciscop wrote:hahahaha am i stupid?
no retard-riley

is easy to know you wont get paid
i also doubt those mails are real is too easy to change what an email says and publish it online
if they were
go and sue randi for those 3 thousand or that million
EXPOSE HIM FOR REAL
GO FOR IT
DO THOSE HAVE VALIDITY IN COURT? i dont know maybe they do!!
go for it!!
but no.. you wont expose randi for real, you wont go to a court and sue him..

you wont do it
it is just hot air
you are a coward and a retard


Read Randi's own hotlines and swift plus sci.skeptic
you are just a rank troll...
rileyg
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 11:36
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Azrael » 29 Jul 2009, 17:50

skeprogue wrote:
The Professor wrote:"Verbatim" ... Please show where I used that word ..... OR ARE YOU LYING !!!!!!!! As always.
You are a liar!
If not .. Prove it!


< sigh >

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=155&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50#p749

The Professor wrote:Here, verbatim, is part of that excerpt from the official record of that trial:


Seriously, do you even read what you post?


HAHAHAHA. Oh I wish I could nominate posts on here. :lol:
I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person
Azrael
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 02:32

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Jim-Callahan » 29 Jul 2009, 21:31

desertgal wrote:
The Professor wrote:Did you listen to the evidence?

Yes.
I'd love your opinion on the so called Blackmail tapes.

Why?


Why?

Well that is the topic at hand.

Are you one of the followers that think it is fine and a treat that Randi should be given a pass on?

Do you not find it strange so many defend the guy even though it is being made pretty clear he lied about the tapes?

Possibly can you let me know why his followers condone such behavioure?
Is it because he has done so much good?

Just a few things that I am wondering about the Randi followers.

Best Wishes,

Jim

H.o.A-X
Jim-Callahan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 04:16

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Frank Lee » 29 Jul 2009, 21:54

Jim-Callahan wrote:Why?

Well that is the topic at hand.

Are you one of the followers that think it is fine and a treat that Randi should be given a pass on?


I'm not a 'follower' but if the legal system has given him a pass on something from 30 years ago I'm okay with it. I can see how a bitter person wallowing in their own failure and looking for somebody to blame it on might want to dig this up though. Won't make a bit of difference out here in the world though.

Do you not find it strange so many defend the guy even though it is being made pretty clear he lied about the tapes?


I don't find it strange that people would defend someone who is trying to do some good in the world when muck-racking losers who aren't doing anybody any good bring up an incident from the past in a vain attempt to discredit him.

Possibly can you let me know why his followers condone such behavioure?
Is it because he has done so much good?


Partially. And partly because there is something about petty, vindictive mud slinging that makes some people want to rise in defense of the person being unfairly attacked.

Just a few things that I am wondering about the Randi followers.

Best Wishes,

Jim

H.o.A-X


Hope this helps you understand, if not about others, maybe about yourself.

Frank Lee
Frank Lee
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 01:23

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby desertgal » 29 Jul 2009, 22:33

Jim-Callahan wrote:Why?

Well that is the topic at hand.


No, I meant why would Koenig say he would love to hear my opinion or anyone else's? He's only interested in his own.

Are you one of the followers that think it is fine and a treat that Randi should be given a pass on?


No. I already said here that, if Randi was guilty of pederasty in the case(s) involving these tapes(s), then he should have been brought to account in a court of law. He wasn't. Neither the alleged victim(s) or the police filed charges. The records have been expunged. The statute of limitations has expired. Sounds like he already got a pass years ago, if he was guilty of anything. Kind of late to be bitching about it now. There are plenty of bad things in the world that are happening NOW to get heated up about-to me, an alleged decades old case that can't be legally resurrected isn't one of them.

Do you not find it strange so many defend the guy even though it is being made pretty clear he lied about the tapes?


No. I've also met people who think OJ Simpson didn't kill his ex wife and her friend, and I witnessed the "Ted groupies" at both Bundy trials in Florida, among other examples. There are people who have defended far worse behavior.

I also haven't seen ALL the evidence that proves Randi lied. But, if you think he did, then take it up with the justice system.

Possibly can you let me know why his followers condone such behavioure?


Beats me. People are puzzling. For example, you condone conning people, and I don't get that either. But, each to their own.

Is it because he has done so much good?


Why not? People condone bad behavior for more bizarre reasons than that. I mean, it is possible that Michael Jackson was a pederast, too, but lots of folks are willing to overlook that because he entertained them. The "Ted groupies" didn't believe that Bundy could have committed so many murders because he was good looking and "seemed like such a nice guy". Go figure.
desertgal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 18:59

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Azrael » 29 Jul 2009, 23:14

I love this:

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/inde ... _(magician)_(deleted_10_Aug_2008_at_05:09)

Not even Wikipedia cares about Jim Callahan! Now that's good to see. :lol:
I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person
Azrael
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 02:32

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Starbuck » 30 Jul 2009, 04:21

These are the tapes that were played during the Eldon Byrd trial in May of 1993. In that trial, Randi had publicly accused Byrd of being a pedophile. Byrd took him to court for libel. Byrd's attorney produced these tapes and submitted them as character evidence against Randi. Randi lost the case, but avoided ever paying the settlement by claiming destitution.

Randi has claimed repeatedly that the tapes were played at his OWN lawer's insistence:

It was not Byrd’s lawyer who “fought back by playing the jury the tape recordings of what appeared to be Randi in conversation with ... boys ... calling his number for sex.” It was my lawyer who insisted on playing that tape, which had been made by me at the instruction of the investigating police to trap (successfully!) kids who were plaguing me with those calls...


A STATEMENT - April, 1999.

Furthermore, when the would-be parapsychologist Eldon Byrd sued me in Baltimore a few years ago, his lawyer brought up the famous tape recording as evidence against my character. My own lawyer, at my insistence, asked that the entire tape be played for the courtroom and jury, so that the true nature of the record would be understood, instead of being misrepresented as it usually was.


The transcript of the trial, however, tells a different story...

MS. LANK: Your Honor, I believe that even Mr. Winelander has
characterized the tape as suggesting Mr. Randi is a child molester.
Even Mr. Winelander takes that position.

COURT: Mr. Winelander was forbidden to say anything about this tape
other than to quote Mr. Randi's words. Mr. Winelander abided by that
instruction.

MS. LANK: Your Honor, I am not --

COURT: If anything, Mr. Winelander read Mr. Randi's words, which
you all have in front of us, unless you are telling me that Mr.
Winelander said something other than to read Mr. Randi's words.
He didn't. He didn't do that.

MS. HARRISON: Your Honor, in the document that accompanied the
tape, it has been partially reduced, the bottom paragraph, where Your
Honor has interpreted is as accusing Randi of blackmail.

COURT: What are you talking about? Which?

MS. LANK: The document I just gave you, Your Honor.

MS. HARRISON: The document with the picture on it, Your Honor.

COURT: The document that you have given me says what it says. I
don't understand where we are going with it.

MS. HARRISON: The people who sent out the blackmail tape intended
for it to be interpreted as Randi being a child molester. Listen
to this tape carefully. It is obviously what the blackmailer
intended for someone to interpret from it.

COURT: I will give you the bottom line on this if you want it.

MS. LANK: Yes, Your Honor.

COURT: Here is the bottom line on this thing. We have in this case a
question of credibility of two people, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Randi.
Credibility is very important in this case. I am not letting this
thing go off on a wild excursion.
However, what Mr. Randi said about this tape that I have, and I
have now listened to, is frozen in amber because it is on a tape and
also, he made some statements in court about this. What his statements
were in court, the record will reflect. I can characterize them as
saying in effect the tape was made by him because he was receiving
harassing phone calls.
The statement that he made in the speech is essentially kids on
holidays started to call up. He complained to the telephone company.
I am paraphrasing the speech. Please, I am not interpreting the
statement. I am saying what he did. He wanted the number traced
because the person is constantly calling him. You hear kids in the
background call him up and use pretty heavy obscenities on the phone.
They put a check on the line. They found out who it was, etcetera.
That is his public version with regard to what this tape is.
The accusation is that Mr. Byrd and others acting in concert
with him took some tape that they got from the police and, what is
the word, manipulated it. The testimony is the manipulation was to
cut out intermediate conversations that must have been on the tape.

Ms. Lank, is your contention that the original tape that went to the
police was a cassette or was it reel-to-reel? What is your contention?

MS. LANK: I think Mr. Randi would testify that the tape that went to
the police in the '60s was a small reel-to-reel.

COURT: Okay. That is fine. I have listened to this tape. What this tape
is, is a bunch of conversations in which Mr. Randi does use sexually
explicit language, as did some of the callers.
If this tape is interpreted as Mr. Randi says it is,
that he testifies it is, well, then I don't see that there is any
prejudice in the jury hearing it because his version is I made this
tape and I led people to believe in order to get them with regard to
the harassing phone calls.
If his version is accepted. I trust this jury, just as I trust
them not to evaluate Mr. Byrd on irrelevancy, such as his sexual
proclivities, I trust them to understand that Mr. Randi is using
that kind of language for the person he says. If his version is true,
then so be it.
On the other hand, I don't think I can accept at face value your
version or your spin on the statement. I have listened to it. There is
another side to it.
I am not making any findings on this, but I will note, I will note
that in this tape there are conversations that one could argue aren't
of the character that you say.
There is a conversation to which an obscene caller runs out of time
on a long-distance number and Mr. Randi says I'll call you back, give
me your telephone number. He gets the number and calls back and continues
the conversation. One can debate there that is a call of the character
that you put on it. That is fine. There are other such calls.
With regard to interspersed telephone calls, one could say it would
be that Mr. Randi, when making the tape, had his tape on every time the
phone rang and turned it off when identified something as not being an
obscene call. That is one possible interpretation.
It could also be interpreted as if it were a law enforcement party
who was minimizing conversations when they identified that I didn't
relate to something. I don't know, but I don't think these people are
required to take your view of this thing. Your view of this tape and
the language used is perfectly benign.
I trust the jury, if they believe your view, to disregard anybody
who uses evil language to have people stop making harassing phone calls.
On the other hand, if it isn't what you say it is then that is
relevant too because in this speech in which Mr. Byrd is attacked, their
representation of this tape, they have this tape. They have those
representations. They are entitled to weigh those and to determine
whether or not this shows reliability, knowing falsity, etcetera with
regard to accusations against Mr. Byrd.
I trust the jury. The objection is overruled. The tape is coming in
evidence. I will give an instruction.
I don't care and this jury doesn't care whether or not Mr. Randi
engages in the activity referred to on this tape. That is irrelevant.
What is relevant is how it relates to what he said, whether what he
said was false about Mr. Byrd and credibility. That is it.

MS. LANK: Your Honor, may I respond?

COURT: No. You may make a record. I just -- you can make a record.
Mr. Winelander, you can either have this tape or the United States
government 11:30 to bring in tape-recording equipment. It can be
played to the jury.
Starbuck
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 30 Jul 2009, 03:49

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby desertgal » 30 Jul 2009, 05:13

Starbuck wrote:These are the tapes that were played during the Eldon Byrd trial in May of 1993. In that trial, Randi had publicly accused Byrd of being a pedophile.


Wrong. Byrd WAS a self-admitted pedophile. He sued Randi for libel because Randi had claimed that Byrd was a convicted pedophile. (I suppose it's okay to be an admitted pedophile as long as no one mis-states that you have been convicted of the crime?)

Randi lost the case, but avoided ever paying the settlement by claiming destitution.


Wrong. The judge declined to levy any penalties.

Randi has claimed repeatedly that the tapes were played at his OWN lawer's insistence.


Wrong. Randi's lawyer initially attempted to keep excerpts of the tape from being played for the jury, as requested by Byrd's lawyer. When the judge refused the motion, Randi's lawyer, at Randi's instruction, requested that the entire tape be played, not just parts of it, so that the jury could not take the contents out of context.
desertgal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 18:59

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Azrael » 30 Jul 2009, 05:39

Here is the information about Randi taking Curley to court in connection with libel on subject of same allegations.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/curley2.htm

Great being a skeptic/Proof is all it takes.
I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person
Azrael
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 02:32

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Jim-Callahan » 30 Jul 2009, 08:46

John you have any pictures of you and the MR.Memeber Randi together?
Jim-Callahan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 04:16

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 30 Jul 2009, 11:41

Starbuck wrote:These are the tapes that were played during the Eldon Byrd trial in May of 1993. In that trial, Randi had publicly accused Byrd of being a pedophile. Byrd took him to court for libel. Byrd's attorney produced these tapes and submitted them as character evidence against Randi. Randi lost the case, but avoided ever paying the settlement by claiming destitution.

Randi has claimed repeatedly that the tapes were played at his OWN lawer's insistence:

It was not Byrd’s lawyer who “fought back by playing the jury the tape recordings of what appeared to be Randi in conversation with ... boys ... calling his number for sex.” It was my lawyer who insisted on playing that tape, which had been made by me at the instruction of the investigating police to trap (successfully!) kids who were plaguing me with those calls...


A STATEMENT - April, 1999.

Furthermore, when the would-be parapsychologist Eldon Byrd sued me in Baltimore a few years ago, his lawyer brought up the famous tape recording as evidence against my character. My own lawyer, at my insistence, asked that the entire tape be played for the courtroom and jury, so that the true nature of the record would be understood, instead of being misrepresented as it usually was.


The transcript of the trial, however, tells a different story...

MS. LANK: Your Honor, I believe that even Mr. Winelander has
characterized the tape as suggesting Mr. Randi is a child molester.
Even Mr. Winelander takes that position.

COURT: Mr. Winelander was forbidden to say anything about this tape
other than to quote Mr. Randi's words. Mr. Winelander abided by that
instruction.

MS. LANK: Your Honor, I am not --

COURT: If anything, Mr. Winelander read Mr. Randi's words, which
you all have in front of us, unless you are telling me that Mr.
Winelander said something other than to read Mr. Randi's words.
He didn't. He didn't do that.

MS. HARRISON: Your Honor, in the document that accompanied the
tape, it has been partially reduced, the bottom paragraph, where Your
Honor has interpreted is as accusing Randi of blackmail.

COURT: What are you talking about? Which?

MS. LANK: The document I just gave you, Your Honor.

MS. HARRISON: The document with the picture on it, Your Honor.

COURT: The document that you have given me says what it says. I
don't understand where we are going with it.

MS. HARRISON: The people who sent out the blackmail tape intended
for it to be interpreted as Randi being a child molester. Listen
to this tape carefully. It is obviously what the blackmailer
intended for someone to interpret from it.

COURT: I will give you the bottom line on this if you want it.

MS. LANK: Yes, Your Honor.

COURT: Here is the bottom line on this thing. We have in this case a
question of credibility of two people, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Randi.
Credibility is very important in this case. I am not letting this
thing go off on a wild excursion.
However, what Mr. Randi said about this tape that I have, and I
have now listened to, is frozen in amber because it is on a tape and
also, he made some statements in court about this. What his statements
were in court, the record will reflect. I can characterize them as
saying in effect the tape was made by him because he was receiving
harassing phone calls.
The statement that he made in the speech is essentially kids on
holidays started to call up. He complained to the telephone company.
I am paraphrasing the speech. Please, I am not interpreting the
statement. I am saying what he did. He wanted the number traced
because the person is constantly calling him. You hear kids in the
background call him up and use pretty heavy obscenities on the phone.
They put a check on the line. They found out who it was, etcetera.
That is his public version with regard to what this tape is.
The accusation is that Mr. Byrd and others acting in concert
with him took some tape that they got from the police and, what is
the word, manipulated it. The testimony is the manipulation was to
cut out intermediate conversations that must have been on the tape.

Ms. Lank, is your contention that the original tape that went to the
police was a cassette or was it reel-to-reel? What is your contention?

MS. LANK: I think Mr. Randi would testify that the tape that went to
the police in the '60s was a small reel-to-reel.

COURT: Okay. That is fine. I have listened to this tape. What this tape
is, is a bunch of conversations in which Mr. Randi does use sexually
explicit language, as did some of the callers.
If this tape is interpreted as Mr. Randi says it is,
that he testifies it is, well, then I don't see that there is any
prejudice in the jury hearing it because his version is I made this
tape and I led people to believe in order to get them with regard to
the harassing phone calls.
If his version is accepted. I trust this jury, just as I trust
them not to evaluate Mr. Byrd on irrelevancy, such as his sexual
proclivities, I trust them to understand that Mr. Randi is using
that kind of language for the person he says. If his version is true,
then so be it.
On the other hand, I don't think I can accept at face value your
version or your spin on the statement. I have listened to it. There is
another side to it.
I am not making any findings on this, but I will note, I will note
that in this tape there are conversations that one could argue aren't
of the character that you say.
There is a conversation to which an obscene caller runs out of time
on a long-distance number and Mr. Randi says I'll call you back, give
me your telephone number. He gets the number and calls back and continues
the conversation. One can debate there that is a call of the character
that you put on it. That is fine. There are other such calls.
With regard to interspersed telephone calls, one could say it would
be that Mr. Randi, when making the tape, had his tape on every time the
phone rang and turned it off when identified something as not being an
obscene call. That is one possible interpretation.
It could also be interpreted as if it were a law enforcement party
who was minimizing conversations when they identified that I didn't
relate to something. I don't know, but I don't think these people are
required to take your view of this thing. Your view of this tape and
the language used is perfectly benign.
I trust the jury, if they believe your view, to disregard anybody
who uses evil language to have people stop making harassing phone calls.
On the other hand, if it isn't what you say it is then that is
relevant too because in this speech in which Mr. Byrd is attacked, their
representation of this tape, they have this tape. They have those
representations. They are entitled to weigh those and to determine
whether or not this shows reliability, knowing falsity, etcetera with
regard to accusations against Mr. Byrd.
I trust the jury. The objection is overruled. The tape is coming in
evidence. I will give an instruction.
I don't care and this jury doesn't care whether or not Mr. Randi
engages in the activity referred to on this tape. That is irrelevant.
What is relevant is how it relates to what he said, whether what he
said was false about Mr. Byrd and credibility. That is it.

MS. LANK: Your Honor, may I respond?

COURT: No. You may make a record. I just -- you can make a record.
Mr. Winelander, you can either have this tape or the United States
government 11:30 to bring in tape-recording equipment. It can be
played to the jury.


This is amazing evidence. It proves that Randi lied!
Nothing like good old solid evidence to back up the tapes.
The Cold Case PedoFiles are heating up!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 30 Jul 2009, 21:31

I will be providing additional evidence that supports what people are saying about these tapes and their authenticity.
I think there is enough evidence to warrant another thread, so as not to take attention away from this one.
I'll also post more analytical evidence that others have heard on the secret recordings themselves.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Jim-Callahan » 31 Jul 2009, 00:05

Azrael wrote:I love this:

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/inde ... _(magician)_(deleted_10_Aug_2008_at_05:09)

Not even Wikipedia cares about Jim Callahan! Now that's good to see. :lol:


And I do wonder who was behind having my Wikipedia entry deleted? ;)

You guys are easy.

Have a good day,

Jim

H.o.A-X
Jim-Callahan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 04:16

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest