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

Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

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

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby highflyertoo » 17 Aug 2009, 13:12

ciscop wrote:yep
and homeopaths swear they are doctors and what they do is science..

is just water


They do use scientific equipment when performing a Polygraph Test ( Lie Detector Test ).

Are you ciscop now in ''quick reverse/challenging'' by questioning Scientific Methods for recording brain impulses ?
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57






Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby brett » 17 Aug 2009, 13:59

ciscop wrote:skepticism basis is science and facts
believer´s side is just based on faith and anecdotal evidence
the main problem is that believers jump to supernatural explanations a lot of the time while skeptics wont until faced with real hard evidence.
also i think is funny that you brett acuse skeptics of not questioning if we are wrong, when you do it too, when you were provided with a psychological fact about what could have happened you also stayed with your own story.
i wonder if you have really checked about the ghost story, im pretty sure you accepted the story that guy told you as real without questioning, without looking for evidence THAT DID HAPPEN, your simple psychological case becomes a supernatural experience only after you heard about this story but you didnt checked for real if that did happen right?.. you accept so easily a guy telling you a rumour... amazing.

by the way..
have you heard of joe nickell?, he is a skeptic investigator with many books
he has stayed in a lot of haunted places all over the world
and he has not reported anything paranormal or supernatural at all
if you are a ghost believer, pretty sure you will see some kind of shadow and you will believe it was ghost and thats it, if you are a skeptic.. you will se a shadow and nothing more. go and watch those ghost hunters and paranormal state.. quite funny how suggestion works.. people just running around with cameras like some kind of blairwitch project getting scared of shadows ¨and feelings of being cold¨...

also i think this very thread is asking the wrong question
lie detectors are not reliable,
this is like asking... will randi accepted to be cursed by a voodoo wizard??.. OF COURSE! nothing will happen
you are using woo to ask a stupid question
learn your facts highflyer
and by the way, jref is not an atheist association



god you just wont leave it alone will you csicop - you have convinced yourself that I have some sort of psychological problem and that THAT and only THAT is the answer to one of my experiences - ( or all of them as the case may be ) - you don't know me - so HOW can you make such a diagnosis ??

yes i did check out the story as far as possible , as I STATED in my posts - records of events that happened over 100 years ago in remote parts of this county are either sketchy or non existent - and you obviously know little of the peculiarities of English society - in that things used to get covered up by those with money and influence , just as they do today - - many of the then ruling elite and landowners had the proverbial skeleton in their closet - from royalty downwards - and the ordinary folk knew it was "unwise " to probe too deeply - however the basic facts of the owner of the place at the time etc check out ( we have some quite helpful local records offices which i use as required )

and YES i have heard of Joe nickell - i have a copy of his book "Adventures in Paranormal Investigation' sitting right here on ONE of my bookshelves ( i am looking at it right now funnily enough ) and that is just one of MANY books written by both skeptics , believers , scientists , and others that i possess , you see I read a wide range of opinion csicop not just "woo " stuff as you call it - and actually Joe does good work in my opinion - as he exposes places that claim to be haunted when they are not

you see csicop - you - like a lot of others have totally the WRONG idea about me - i dislike BS from the believers as much as from the skeptics - what i seek is the truth - just unlike you - i am prepared to accept that the truth may not be what any of us expect ;) - and IF you knew me you would also know that i am about as popular as a bad smell amongst the paranormal community round here BECAUSE i have demanded in the past and still do that they DO proper research into cases - you know BASIC HISTORICAL FACT type research - that they DONT take the word of every wannabe psychic that turns up - that they actually LOOK at WHY a place could even BE supposedly haunted ( eg was it supposedly haunted BEFORE most haunted / ghost hunters /paranormal state et al ever came along - I don't watch any of that crap BTW other than for "entertainment " value :lol: :lol: ) etc etc - and my rational approach has made me many enemies AND got me chucked out of 2 groups for being too "negative " in their words - now does that sound like the mark of a committed woo ???

so before you judge ME - try finding out the FACTS buddy - they may just surprise you ;)

my apologies for taking this off thread again - but this needed answering
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby JonDonnis » 17 Aug 2009, 14:45

highflyertoo wrote:
JonDonnis wrote:To answer the question.
Yes Randi would take a lie detector test and yes he would pass it very easily.

And this is the problem with believers, they do not examine what they say they just say it.

Lie Detectors are easy to beat, anyone can do so, you just tense your sphincter muscles (your bum hole)

Us Skeptics investigate everything, we dont take things at face value.

You talk about the JREF Million Dollar challenge being unpassable, and so on.
Yet if there was anything dodgy it would be the SKEPTICS who would expose it, and Randi knows this, and that is why the challenge is 100% fair.

When Randi has made mistakes (And he has done) it is always the skeptics who point it out, and Randi always humbly apologises.

Maybe people on here and the creators of this site should try and learn about skepticism before attacking it out of ignorance.


Are you this Jon Donnis ? http://www.ghostconnections.com/Jon%20Donnis.htm

Seeing you are a speaker for Randi now ?? Could you arrange for Randi to take the Lie Detector Test soon, as Randi is not getting any younger.



Yes that is me, no i am not a speaker for Randi, and DID YOU READ MY POST?
Taking a lie detector test is pointless, it would prove nothing as Randi could easily pass even if he was lying.

I see i am gonna have my work cut out for me here
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby JonDonnis » 17 Aug 2009, 14:58

brett wrote:er neither do those of us believers who have brains and use them !!


Unfortunately the vast majority of believers dont use their brains do they, thats why they believe in magical claims, and invisible friends

tell me then WHY skeptics never do longitudinal studies of places claiming to be haunted and charging admission to the gullible ??


Why should they?
If peopel are so gullible to pay to go and sit in the dark and think they are Yvette Fielding or Derek Acorah, let them.
As a skeptic we cant be responsible for stupidity.

and if found to be so expose them as the frauds they are ( they would be doing us all a service )


Well I do my best to do just that.
As well as BadPsychics I also run www.badghosts.co.uk where we expose ghost groups and exactly what you describe.
Unfortunately there is no money in exposing such things, so we do everything on our own time without getting paid, so sorry if we dont do it full time and investigate every single group out there.

In the UK my "Bad" network is probably the main group that expose the likes of psychics and paranormal groups.

why we don't have skeptics ready to come to investigations when requested to provide balance ??


You are pigeon holing all skeptics as if we are one unit, we are not.
I would be happy to provide skeptics to go on your investigations, you only need to ask, keep in mind geographical issues though.
Join my forum and ask.

why on the whole you never question ( or at least publicly question ) the big name skeptics Randi et al ,( oh sorry , i forgot they are infallible )


But we do, when Randi makes a mistake, he will have hundreds of emails in his inbox the next day ALL from skeptics pointing out his mistake.
Just a few days ago we took Richard Wisemans "Number one Ghost" photo, and we questioned his explanation, we came up with what we believe is a better explanation and we have published it.

As skeptics we are skeptical, just because someone like Randi says something does not mean we just accept it, we treat anyone making any claim the same.

Personally myself and my associates have questioned various things that so called big name skeptics have said.

We dont fear such people, infact they like it when we do question them as that is the whole point of skepticism

why when i challenge to even do 30 minutes of practical research on a subject on this site - they don't feel the need to and find excuses , why none of you ever ask the BIG question of "could we be wrong ??


I live for the day I am proved wrong, i do not fear being wrong, i embrace it.
As for 30 minutes of research, I completed a mediumship course top of the class without cheating, i have stood on stage infront of 50+ people and given readings. I am not a medium but i was challenged to try challenged to learn. Yet my education in this subject left me understanding what was happening.

I am not some armchair skeptic, I have been on many investigations, had hundreds of readings, stood in many so called haunted locations.

Whether it be Spinalonga Island off Crete, or the condemned cell in Bodmin Gaol in England, i been there.

i have made some sweeping generalisations here - to demonstrate how easy it is to do so - just like your statement !! - some of us on the "believers" side ALSO question everything and accept nothing at face value - that's what makes us researchers - OK i AGREE there are many that don't and are guilty of taking things at face value - but they are "play at it " ghost hunters in the main - SO PLEASE DONT make sweeping generalisations - and tar us ALL with the same brush !! :x


Fair enough point, and I apologise if i generalized all believers, i know that some are better than others, some are more open minded,.

actually i just thought when you say "Us skeptics " you do mean ALL skeptics and not just those in the US ?? - as if you do you must be different from our home grown brand


I meant us skeptics, as in all skeptics, not US Skeptics.
I am UK based, i did spot how that looked when i typed it but hoped people would follow.
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 17 Aug 2009, 16:12

well.. how very inconvenient that there are no records for what you said
i would like to point out that joe nickell seems to get the records somehow..
so the fact remains that you believed a rumour somebody told you
how very skeptical of you :D

somebody told me that if you leave a tooth below your pillow you will get 5 dollars from the tooth mice (we dont have toothfairy here)
but i didnt believe him.. because he was 5 years old and... i do enjoy using my brain
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: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby brett » 17 Aug 2009, 17:28

JonDonnis wrote:
brett wrote:er neither do those of us believers who have brains and use them !!


Unfortunately the vast majority of believers dont use their brains do they, thats why they believe in magical claims, and invisible friends

tell me then WHY skeptics never do longitudinal studies of places claiming to be haunted and charging admission to the gullible ??


Why should they?
If peopel are so gullible to pay to go and sit in the dark and think they are Yvette Fielding or Derek Acorah, let them.
As a skeptic we cant be responsible for stupidity.

and if found to be so expose them as the frauds they are ( they would be doing us all a service )


Well I do my best to do just that.
As well as BadPsychics I also run http://www.badghosts.co.uk where we expose ghost groups and exactly what you describe.
Unfortunately there is no money in exposing such things, so we do everything on our own time without getting paid, so sorry if we dont do it full time and investigate every single group out there.

In the UK my "Bad" network is probably the main group that expose the likes of psychics and paranormal groups.

why we don't have skeptics ready to come to investigations when requested to provide balance ??


You are pigeon holing all skeptics as if we are one unit, we are not.
I would be happy to provide skeptics to go on your investigations, you only need to ask, keep in mind geographical issues though.
Join my forum and ask.

why on the whole you never question ( or at least publicly question ) the big name skeptics Randi et al ,( oh sorry , i forgot they are infallible )


But we do, when Randi makes a mistake, he will have hundreds of emails in his inbox the next day ALL from skeptics pointing out his mistake.
Just a few days ago we took Richard Wisemans "Number one Ghost" photo, and we questioned his explanation, we came up with what we believe is a better explanation and we have published it.

As skeptics we are skeptical, just because someone like Randi says something does not mean we just accept it, we treat anyone making any claim the same.

Personally myself and my associates have questioned various things that so called big name skeptics have said.

We dont fear such people, infact they like it when we do question them as that is the whole point of skepticism

why when i challenge to even do 30 minutes of practical research on a subject on this site - they don't feel the need to and find excuses , why none of you ever ask the BIG question of "could we be wrong ??


I live for the day I am proved wrong, i do not fear being wrong, i embrace it.
As for 30 minutes of research, I completed a mediumship course top of the class without cheating, i have stood on stage infront of 50+ people and given readings. I am not a medium but i was challenged to try challenged to learn. Yet my education in this subject left me understanding what was happening.

I am not some armchair skeptic, I have been on many investigations, had hundreds of readings, stood in many so called haunted locations.

Whether it be Spinalonga Island off Crete, or the condemned cell in Bodmin Gaol in England, i been there.

i have made some sweeping generalisations here - to demonstrate how easy it is to do so - just like your statement !! - some of us on the "believers" side ALSO question everything and accept nothing at face value - that's what makes us researchers - OK i AGREE there are many that don't and are guilty of taking things at face value - but they are "play at it " ghost hunters in the main - SO PLEASE DONT make sweeping generalisations - and tar us ALL with the same brush !! :x


Fair enough point, and I apologise if i generalized all believers, i know that some are better than others, some are more open minded,.

actually i just thought when you say "Us skeptics " you do mean ALL skeptics and not just those in the US ?? - as if you do you must be different from our home grown brand


I meant us skeptics, as in all skeptics, not US Skeptics.
I am UK based, i did spot how that looked when i typed it but hoped people would follow.



ah right that Jon Dennis - yep have visited your sites - and applaud you for the work you do - pity that like a lot of things debunking THOSE who NEED debunking all comes down to money - i have a few down this way that need that :lol: - as i posted to csicop - you will see i am NOT your average "believer " - I too see all the BS and it annoys me - we will never get to the truth of if there is or is not through all the fog that surrounds the subject

thanks for your reply Jon :D
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby brett » 17 Aug 2009, 18:00

ciscop wrote:well.. how very inconvenient that there are no records for what you said
i would like to point out that joe nickell seems to get the records somehow..
so the fact remains that you believed a rumour somebody told you
how very skeptical of you :D

somebody told me that if you leave a tooth below your pillow you will get 5 dollars from the tooth mice (we dont have toothfairy here)
but i didnt believe him.. because he was 5 years old and... i do enjoy using my brain


you are taking the piss now csicop :x you obviously know NOTHING of how local records are looked after in the UK - and what is in them - Joe nickell - may well find what he is looking for - ( don't forget to access some records one has to PAY !! ) - i do the best i can with the resources available - which are not much - and i suspect Mr nickell has access to stuff i could never get simply because he has the wherewithal to do so - i am sure if I had made the money he has from his books - i too would be able to do a lot more detailed research - don't forget I am just one ordinary "Joe " who has an interest - it is not my full time career and neither do i write books - or make any money from what i do ;)

so your comment that it is "convenient " is at best being sarcastic and i RESEARCHED ( AGAIN AS BEST I WAS ABLE ) a rumour ?? - i prefer the term "local recollection of an event in the past " - don't forget i had the experience PRIOR to ever knowing the rumor and as always am just stating the facts as they affected me - but that's obviously not good enough for you - but i will continue to post my experiences as you are ( like me ) just one person on this site - and I leave each member or visitor to draw what ever conclusions they care to - for or against - ain't gonna loose any sleep over it that's for sure :lol:

and why should i be classed as either skeptic or believer ?? by you - i have my own experiences and beliefs ,and also my own doubts and questions - so prefer to label my self as someone who is neither total skeptic nor total believer - yea a "fence sitter " if you want - but that's being honest - i would LOVE to be 100% sure either way but none of us CAN be that - ( though a few claim so to be ) - but then i am not that stupid ;)

again i apologise for taking this off thread - but again it needs answering as it seems csicop has taken a "personal interest " in me and my "psychological " problems - its nice to know someone cares :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ( now THATS sarcasm ;) )

oh well it brightens an other wise dull day :roll:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby highflyertoo » 17 Aug 2009, 18:32

I differ from you JonDonnis as I believe Randi would fail a Lie Detector Test in relation to him obviously having a hidden agenda.
Yet if Randi passes the LDT, then ye, me and he can talk Turkey.
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby Eteponge » 18 Aug 2009, 00:15

JonDonnis wrote:As for 30 minutes of research, I completed a mediumship course top of the class without cheating, i have stood on stage infront of 50+ people and given readings. I am not a medium but i was challenged to try challenged to learn. Yet my education in this subject left me understanding what was happening.

What was this "Mediumship Course"? Who was it run by, what was the context, etc? Details! Was it one run by people who actually believed themselves to be Mediums? Or was it a Skeptical Course aimed to teach people how to be a "Medium"?
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 18 Aug 2009, 01:26

last time i derail (i still fail to see the topic´s purpose since lie detectors are woo, somebody already revealed how to cheat them... you have to put strenght in your esphinter and then release it)

and back to brett
i like your
local recollection of an event in the past

kudos for that brett :D
nice move
i like it
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: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby JonDonnis » 18 Aug 2009, 01:35

Eteponge wrote:
JonDonnis wrote:As for 30 minutes of research, I completed a mediumship course top of the class without cheating, i have stood on stage infront of 50+ people and given readings. I am not a medium but i was challenged to try challenged to learn. Yet my education in this subject left me understanding what was happening.

What was this "Mediumship Course"? Who was it run by, what was the context, etc? Details! Was it one run by people who actually believed themselves to be Mediums? Or was it a Skeptical Course aimed to teach people how to be a "Medium"?



It was run by a medium with a lineage that includes Gordon Higginson, Glynn Edwards, Ron Jordan to name a few.
It was a proper course run from a spiritualist centre.

I was the only skeptic there, and the run rule i was asked to adhere to which i did was to leave my skeptics hat at the front door, and not to cheat.
I did both.

The teacher still to this day believes I have psychic ability.

I have since published my diary of the course as part of a 7 page spread in The Skeptic magazine.
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby JonDonnis » 18 Aug 2009, 01:38

highflyertoo wrote:I differ from you JonDonnis as I believe Randi would fail a Lie Detector Test in relation to him obviously having a hidden agenda.
Yet if Randi passes the LDT, then ye, me and he can talk Turkey.


How many times do I have to say this, i dont believe Randi would pass i KNOW he would pass, not because he is telling the truth but because he knows the methods of how to pass.

A lie detector is NOT scientific, it is woo. It is easy to pass one if you know how, and I am 100% sure one of the worlds greatest magicians knows how to pass a simple lie detector test.
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby Eteponge » 18 Aug 2009, 03:14

JonDonnis wrote:
Eteponge wrote:
JonDonnis wrote:As for 30 minutes of research, I completed a mediumship course top of the class without cheating, i have stood on stage infront of 50+ people and given readings. I am not a medium but i was challenged to try challenged to learn. Yet my education in this subject left me understanding what was happening.

What was this "Mediumship Course"? Who was it run by, what was the context, etc? Details! Was it one run by people who actually believed themselves to be Mediums? Or was it a Skeptical Course aimed to teach people how to be a "Medium"?



It was run by a medium with a lineage that includes Gordon Higginson, Glynn Edwards, Ron Jordan to name a few.
It was a proper course run from a spiritualist centre.

I was the only skeptic there, and the run rule i was asked to adhere to which i did was to leave my skeptics hat at the front door, and not to cheat.
I did both.

The teacher still to this day believes I have psychic ability.

I have since published my diary of the course as part of a 7 page spread in The Skeptic magazine.

Ah, thanks for the info. I thought it was something like that. While I am very open to the potential of people having psychic abilities, and am intrigued by several such individuals (whom I personally find very convincing given all the data), I find "Spiritualist Centers" to "Teach Psychic Ability" and the sort more of a fluff bunny / new age novelty thing, although the practitioners obviously take it very seriously. I don't consider such a course as a global comparison to all people who purport to have any such gifts.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby Azrael » 18 Aug 2009, 04:15

While I am very open to the potential of people having psychic abilities, and am intrigued by several such individuals (whom I personally find very convincing given all the data),


I'd be interested to hear of such people.

Highflyertoo you are getting as delusional and obsessed as The Professor regards Randi. If you think the MDC is bogus or a sham or any other derogatory name go prove your abilities elsewhere. Ring CNN tell them you can make a statue move and invite them to watch.

You are a lunatic-again like Koenig-Randi this Randi that,lie detectors rigged rules,stunt blah blahblah. If you have a paranormal ability there are better ways to prove it then James Randi. The fact you or anyone else can prove it speaks volumes.
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: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby Eteponge » 18 Aug 2009, 06:08

Azrael wrote:
While I am very open to the potential of people having psychic abilities, and am intrigued by several such individuals (whom I personally find very convincing given all the data),


I'd be interested to hear of such people.

As of current, I need to gather more solid data, and more solid sources. What I have gathered so far is highly interesting, but unless I get something more solid, is not really going to convince a hardened skeptic.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest