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 » 31 Jul 2009, 00:33

Jim-Callahan wrote:
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


You know who else is easy?
the american public that vote YOU OFF on the first batch of contestants
ooouh! burn!

wake up and smell my coffe beans
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 Azrael » 31 Jul 2009, 03:30

Jim-Callahan wrote:John you have any pictures of you and the MR.Memeber Randi together?


Perhaps if you could phrase that in a language such as English I could assist you.

Seems your little spat with Criss Angel wasnt enough to get you the fame you so crave. From Wikipedia:
The only notability for this person stems from an incident between him and Criss Angel, and thus I believe that WP:BLP1E firmly applies. RFerreira (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Yeah, this is fodder for WP:BLP1E. I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person. Trusilver 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


I love the last quote.May have it as a sig.
Last edited by Azrael on 31 Jul 2009, 06:10, edited 1 time in total.
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 ciscop » 31 Jul 2009, 03:45

Azrael wrote:
Jim-Callahan wrote:John you have any pictures of you and the MR.Memeber Randi together?


Perhaps if you could phrase that in a language such as English I could assist you.

Seems your littl espat with Criss Angel wasnt enough to get you the fame you so crave. From Wikipedia:
The only notability for this person stems from an incident between him and Criss Angel, and thus I believe that WP:BLP1E firmly applies. RFerreira (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Yeah, this is fodder for WP:BLP1E. I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person. Trusilver 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


I love the last quote.May have it as a sig.


hahaha best post ever
that was funny
poor guy, he is getting a beating
welcome back to the forums jimmy
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 Jim-Callahan » 31 Jul 2009, 07:33

Are you guys playing dumb or are you really purging information that does not support your world vuiw.

The proof is pretty plain to see but I can understand playing around a bit to get a reaction. ;)

I really do think it may be the latter and that is quite interesting possibly verging on exciting.

-Jim
Last edited by Jim-Callahan on 31 Jul 2009, 09:23, edited 2 times in total.
Jim-Callahan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 04:16

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Azrael » 31 Jul 2009, 07:49

Jim-Callahan wrote:Are you guys playing dumb or are you really purging information that does not support your world vuiw.

The proof is pretty plain to see but I can understand playing around a bit to get a reaction. ;)

I really do think it may be the latter and that is quite interesting possibly verging on exiting.

-Jim


"world vuiw? " What's one of those?
" Verging on exiting? " No ,I'm not going anywhere. Did you actually go to school?
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 Frank Lee » 31 Jul 2009, 07:51

Sounds like the vodka started flowing pretty early today.

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

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Jim-Callahan » 31 Jul 2009, 09:25

Azrael wrote:
Jim-Callahan wrote:Are you guys playing dumb or are you really purging information that does not support your world vuiw.

The proof is pretty plain to see but I can understand playing around a bit to get a reaction. ;)

I really do think it may be the latter and that is quite interesting possibly verging on exiting.

-Jim


"world vuiw? " What's one of those?
" Verging on exiting? " No ,I'm not going anywhere. Did you actually go to school?


Ok it has been corrected.

And it was a bit funny.

However you will be in the next few months.

But I guess you knew that.

Jim
Jim-Callahan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 04:16

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Frank Lee » 31 Jul 2009, 09:31

Jim-Callahan wrote:
Azrael wrote:
Jim-Callahan wrote:Are you guys playing dumb or are you really purging information that does not support your world vuiw.

The proof is pretty plain to see but I can understand playing around a bit to get a reaction. ;)

I really do think it may be the latter and that is quite interesting possibly verging on exiting.

-Jim


"world vuiw? " What's one of those?
" Verging on exiting? " No ,I'm not going anywhere. Did you actually go to school?


Ok it has been corrected.

And it was a bit funny.

However you will be in the next few months.

But I guess you knew that.

Jim



I hope I'm funny in the next few months, but with you predicting it, I now have serious doubts.

One of the most consistent things with you and 'The Professor' is how you are always saying SOMETHING is about to happen regarding whatever it is that you're on about at the time. But nothing ever does.

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

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby ciscop » 31 Jul 2009, 10:53

Frank Lee wrote:
I hope I'm funny in the next few months, but with you predicting it, I now have serious doubts.

One of the most consistent things with you and 'The Professor' is how you are always saying SOMETHING is about to happen regarding whatever it is that you're on about at the time. But nothing ever does.

Frank Lee


HAHAHAHAHAHA That was a funny post
sorry Frank you lost
im gonna give a hit for Jim or Raymond Hill a 1 for 1
well done JIM

and also.. there´s things happening all the time.. if you say.. something is going to happen.. and then theres katrina
it sounds like you predicted katrina... ¨i said something was going to happen¨.. lame..
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 The Professor » 31 Jul 2009, 12:28

Jim-Callahan wrote:Are you guys playing dumb or are you really purging information that does not support your world vuiw.

The proof is pretty plain to see but I can understand playing around a bit to get a reaction. ;)

I really do think it may be the latter and that is quite interesting possibly verging on exciting.

-Jim


Yes .. the side stepping by these members seems obvious. But back to the subject at hand.
What do you guy's think of tape number 6?
I'll let you go first, now that we are back on track.
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 Azrael » 31 Jul 2009, 16:43

The Professor wrote:
Jim-Callahan wrote:Are you guys playing dumb or are you really purging information that does not support your world vuiw.

The proof is pretty plain to see but I can understand playing around a bit to get a reaction. ;)

I really do think it may be the latter and that is quite interesting possibly verging on exciting.

-Jim


Yes .. the side stepping by these members seems obvious. But back to the subject at hand.
What do you guy's think of tape number 6?
I'll let you go first, now that we are back on track.



After numerous pages and only JIm and highflyertoo actually agreeing with you Id assume no-one cares. HAve you contatced Jeremiah Greer yet? I sent an email informing him you wanted to go on air accusing Randi of being a pedophile.Lets face it you wont, all you got is THIS message board!
Not much is it?


Serious question I'd liek answering from Dave or Jim. :Why do you not broadcast your"findings" on TV or radio.Youtube even? Thinking your being clever hinting at things on message boards is cowardly go the whole way or shut the f**k up.
I've nothing further to add to this topic. Two useless men with nothing much of a career, bitter at an old man who has.
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 Scepcop » 01 Aug 2009, 02:53

Hi all,
Most of you are probably not following the discussion on the "Suggestions and Ideas" board between me and Frank Lee. We are discussing The Professor and the Randi Sex Tapes, so I thought you should know about it since it's relevant to this thread. Here is what I just posted there to Frank Lee. If any of you can answer these questions below, feel free to do so, in case Frank Lee can't.

I believe that my statements, analyses and questions are fair, objective and logical. If I am wrong, feel free to provide valid reasons as to why I am wrong.

From the Suggestions and Ideas board in this forum:

Hi Frank,
Can you show me how the Professor's posts about the Randi sex tapes were a "character attack"? From what I remember, he simply posted the link to them and asked honest questions about them that no one would answer. There is nothing wrong with that, since the existence of the tapes is an objective fact and constitutes "hard evidence".

As to character attacks, well as long as he doesn't lie or make false statements of facts, opinions about another person's character are protected under Free Speech. Didn't you know that? Opinions on the internet are protected under Free Speech, as long as they are not overt lies and do not contain false facts.

Besides, it cuts both ways. The skeptics made many character attacks on The Professor too.

Yes I agree that libel and slander are wrong. But can you show me where he committed such?

You claim to be fair right? Let me ask you this then. In that NAMBLA thread that was locked, the skeptics started insinuating that The Professor was the head of it and even called for others to email Universal Studios to try to get him in trouble about it. Do they have any objective evidence that he is the head of NAMBLA? If not, then they could be committing libel, as well as jeopardizing The Professor's employment (he has a family to raise too). Thus they had the potential to cause damage to his personal life. Was that right in your view? Were the skeptics wrong to do that?

Another question for you. Randi admitted that he lied when he said that he did the same tests as Rupert Sheldrake and debunked them. Do you think it was right for Randi to lie? Is it ok for him to lie, since he is on your side? Are you able to call him out when he does wrong too?

Suppose it were 100 percent proven that Randi lied simply to try to refute someone he couldn't refute. Would that be wrong in your eyes?

Look I do not claim to be 100 percent fair and objective, but at least I am much MORE fair and objective than the average person. Agreed?

Look I understand your disgust at the sex tapes issue. But as long as he simply asks honest questions about them, I don't see why that is wrong or illegal. They exist, and bringing them up in and of itself is not libel or a false statement of fact. I'm just being technical about this.

Besides, I can see why he is pressing this issue. It is very understandable. He is using a very effective strategy that is even mentioned in Sun Tzu's "Ancient Art of War", which is to press your strength onto your opponent's weakness. These tapes are obviously an Achilles Heel on Randi, which he dreads and avoids like the plague, for obvious reasons. They have the ability to destroy his reputation, if the mainstream public found out about them and heard them. And that's what enemies and opponents do in battle or debate, they find the other side's weakness and exploit it, or press on it. If your objective is to win, then it's a very logical and effective strategy.

For instance, if we were playing tennis, and I discovered that you had a weak and unsteady backhand, I would exploit that and start hitting my best shot (my forehand) to your backhand to draw out more errors, and thus greatly increasing my chances of winning. It's a simple logical strategy - focusing your strength on your opponent's weakness.

In Randi and the Professor's case, Randi's weakness/achilles heel are those sex tapes, and the Professor's strength is that he is a showman and showmen are good at getting attention, so thus he is trying to draw attention to Randi's weakness. Thus, it is a logical strategic move, even if you don't like it. And a legal one too.

Comprendo?

Incidentally, I also use the same strategy in my treatises against pseudoskepticism and Christian fundamentalism. I find the points that they can't refute or explain away, and emphasize them, to score big points.

Now, if you are arguing that the sex tapes are a cut and dried case, then simply answer his questions about it, and then the case will be closed. But the skeptics are NOT answering his questions about it, so they act like they have something to hide.

As far as I know, these questions have not been answered fully:

1. Who taped these conversations and why? If Randi taped them, then who ordered him to do it? And why? If it was the police, where is the proof for this?
2. How did those tapes get into public hands?
3. Why was Randi expressing interest in getting blow jobs from those boys and giving blow jobs to them in the taped conversations, and also making arrangements to meet up with them?
4. Where is the evidence to back up Randi's claim that the police ordered him to have these conversations to trace boys who were blackmailing him?
5. Where is the evidence that these boys were blackmailing him? I didn't hear any indication in the conversations that Randi was being blackmailed.

Until those questions are adequately answered, people have a right to suspect that something is being hidden or covered up. Do they not?

Are you able to answer those questions?

There is nothing wrong with simply asking questions, right?

Have you even listened to the 7 audio files? If so, I'd like to get your objective analysis and opinion of them.

You also have to take into account that what Randi does naturally will make him a lot of enemies. He is not a uniter, he does not preach love, kindness and connectedness. He does not uplift other people either. Instead, he is an attacker and divider, who loves to see his opponents go down and thrives on it. So of course he is going to make a lot of enemies. Duh. What did you expect?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Azrael » 01 Aug 2009, 03:41

Why woul dhe want answers? What business is it of his? Yours or mine? I could start a topic saying "Why is Professors daughter in state care?" I doubt it would go down well. But its no business of mine why she is.

Dont mistake Koenigs posts for being innocent questions. He asked the same questions on JREF forum and was given answers-he just doesnt like the answers.

I cant be bothered breaking down each line of your post but this one I will.
Besides, I can see why he is pressing this issue. It is very understandable.


Yes because he is sore he got kicked off MDC challenge. But had he have presented the right protocol and not mouthed off on forums and virtually slandered anyone an everyone this would no thave happened. So he is trying to get back at Randi. He cant take failure.
Take teh YouTube videos about Dragoncon etc. He has been given answers many times yet he still wont listen. He only wants to hear people confirm his world view. The Randi tapes are a non issue. Its not on going its not relevant to anything no charges were brought. Dave just wants to smear.

In Randi and the Professor's case, Randi's weakness/achilles heel are those sex tapes, and the Professor's strength is that he is a showman and showmen are good at getting attention, so thus he is trying to draw attention to Randi's weakness. Thus, it is a logical strategic move, even if you don't like it. And a legal one too.


How are they Randi's weakness? Does he hide from it ,has he never mentioned it anywhere? No. He has already stated his side and again I state no charges were brought its a non issue. Koenig believes Randi is a pedophile as it suits his adgenda. yes he gets attention,but he doesnt talk any sense so its worthless attention. This forum is all he has now. MagicCafe wont allow the topic,he is banned from JREF(although topic is still open).

1. Who taped these conversations and why? If Randi taped them, then who ordered him to do it? And why? If it was the police, where is the proof for this?


is it relevant to anything? Were you or Prof personally involved Were your family? If "No " then none of your business.
2. How did those tapes get into public hands?


30 years ago who knows. Does it matter> Randi has enemies. Could be anyone.Even Jim.
3. Why was Randi expressing interest in getting blow jobs from those boys and giving blow jobs to them in the taped conversations, and also making arrangements to meet up with them?

Already stated why it was part of a police sting. Have you not read this already.
4. Where is the evidence to back up Randi's claim that the police ordered him to have these conversations to trace boys who were blackmailing him?
5. Where is the evidence that these boys were blackmailing him? I didn't hear any indication in the conversations that Randi was being blackmailed.
[/quote]
Dont know about you but If I made a tape offering sex to minors and the minors were arrested and charged -thus tapes were heard-were I not innocent Id have a lot of explaining to do!!

Again I ask what business is it of yours, mine or Dave Koenigs?
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 ciscop » 01 Aug 2009, 04:02

to be honest
i believe randi has more enemies than friends
believing in the paranormal goes way back to prehistoric ages
to have a guy telling you.. NO! it isnt real and then explaining why it isnt real
gets you enemies

how much people went at tam? if they were 900 they were too many
how many people go to see john edwards every week on his tour? more than 1 thousand

so saying all that..
that randi has more enemies than friends
if those tapes were real (i am not saying is not randi, it does sounds like it is) im sure randi would have been in jail
if those tapes were real somebody would have printed that on papers
i dont know the purporse of those tapes or where do they come from
but well..

if that is all paranormalist have it aint much

i really want somebody to take that million
it would be awesome to live in a world with esp or pk (those are my favorite).. but anything paraormal would be great
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 The Professor » 01 Aug 2009, 04:52

Funny that you try to piggyback your "sucky" little thread onto mine ...

John, does it bother you that you talk to yourself?

My daughter has never been is state care ... Everyone knows that ... So saying it proves what a liar you are ..

Simple as that!

Now back to the Blackmail Tapes (Don't you tire of this derailing this stuff John? perhaps you should leave my family alone/ Huh?)

The kid says the cops are watching him while randi assures the kid that it's safe to watch porno video's at his place.
How does that involve anything about phone calls?
Last edited by The Professor on 01 Aug 2009, 04:59, edited 1 time in total.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron