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 Frank Lee » 15 Sep 2009, 00:04

quantumparanormal wrote:
Frank Lee wrote:The JREF posts the statement from Goldman Sachs which holds the one million+ dollars in an account. Here's the most recent one (pdf):

http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf


Unfortunately, it's not notarized.

Frank Lee wrote:But that may not qualify as evidence to you, so what would?


Your type of response is, unfortunately, so common around here. Either you guys are not carefully reading what I write, my writing is illegible, and/or your emotions disallow you from objectively thinking about what I'm saying. Here's what I said would "qualify as evidence" for me:

QP wrote:Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, a notarized bank statement showing the latest account balance (let's say, past 6 months), specifically showing a million or more dollars.


Given my answer, I'm not sure why you would say, "But that may not qualify as evidence to you, so what would?"

Frank Lee wrote:Would you have to see the million dollars in cash in a vault with James Randi sitting among the bills like Scrooge McDuke while the president of Goldman Sachs and the Pope swear on a stack of bibles that the money belongs to the JREF?


This is just more exaggeration, another common attribute around here, and it proves nothing but the writer's emotional immaturity.

I would not like to "see the million dollars in cash in a vault with James Randi sitting among the bills like Scrooge McDuke while the president of Goldman Sachs and the Pope swear on a stack of bibles that the money belongs to the JREF." I never even suggested that's what I'd "have to see," so, again, I'm not sure why you'd think so. I think emotions are to blame.

Again, here's what I'd like to see; read it carefully, and DO NOT let your emotions and presumptions get the better of you while you read it:

QP wrote:Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, a notarized bank statement showing the latest account balance (let's say, past 6 months), specifically showing a million or more dollars.


You've set up a condition by which you would be convinced (a notarized bank statement) that is unlikely to be delivered to you and which you have doubtless not sought or care to seek. Since no one is likely to hand you a notarized statement of the JREF MDC account from Goldman Sachs, you will never believe that the MDC is 'legit'. You've made my point for me. You've made a comfortable place for your belief and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.

Frank Lee
Last edited by Frank Lee on 15 Sep 2009, 00:15, edited 1 time in total.
Frank Lee
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 01:23






Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 15 Sep 2009, 00:12

Frank Lee wrote:You've set up a condition by which you would be convinced (a notarized bank statement) that is unlikely to be delivered to you and which you have doubtless not sought or care to seek. Since no one is likely to hand you a notarized statement of the JREF MDC account from Goldman Sachs you will never believe that the MDC is 'legit'. You've made my point for me. You've made a comfortable place for your belief and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.

Frank Lee


In essence, what you're saying is that a notarized bank statement is unlikely to be obtained, an assumption that's not warranted given that to notarize a document costs around $10-$15 and is easy to obtain, as there are many notaries public throughout the country (most banks will notarize a document). All he'd have to do is take that document to a notary public, show his ID and other information that proves he "owns" the account on that statement, sign the document, then pay a very small fee, and once the notary public is convinced the documents observed are legit, it's done--simple. If the notary public isn't convinced about the account balance and requires more evidence, Randi can have Goldman Sachs notarize it. Once notarized, the statement could be converted to PDF and posted on the web for all to see. This would be an extremely easy thing for Randi to accomplish. Is it unlikely? Well, ask Randi that. If he doesn't want it done, then so be it.

Why should I "care to seek" this notarized statement? You asked what would qualify as evidence for me, and I told you. Does that mean I want to seek it? Absolutely not. It does not matter to me whether or not the MDC is in fact legit. I actually assume it's legit, but I can't be sure without further evidence. Again, you've presumed my stance on the issue, something many here tend to to. You have proven my point that many on this forum presume, assume, and let their emotions cloud their rational, objective reasoning faculties. You want so badly to believe that I do not want to believe or accept the MDC is legit that you've placed me in this anti-Randi "bubble" and have manufactured this notion that a notarized bank statement is "unlikely to be delivered," something that's so untrue given the lack of information to conclude such unlikeliness. You've made a comfortable place for your belief about me and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.

Many examples of people having their banks notarize their various bank statements: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS314&q=%2Bnotarized+%2Bbank+%2Bstatement&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 15 Sep 2009, 00:47, edited 1 time in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 15 Sep 2009, 00:42

quantumparanormal wrote:
Frank Lee wrote:You've set up a condition by which you would be convinced (a notarized bank statement) that is unlikely to be delivered to you and which you have doubtless not sought or care to seek. Since no one is likely to hand you a notarized statement of the JREF MDC account from Goldman Sachs you will never believe that the MDC is 'legit'. You've made my point for me. You've made a comfortable place for your belief and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.

Frank Lee


In essence, what you're saying is that a notarized bank statement is unlikely to be obtained, an assumption that's not warranted given that to notarize a document costs around $10-$15 and is easy to obtain, as there are many notaries public throughout the country (most banks will notarize a document). All he'd have to do is take that document to a notary public, show his ID and other information that proves he "owns" the account on that statement, sign the document, then pay a very small fee, and once the notary public is convinced the documents observed are legit, it's done--simple. If the notary public isn't convinced about the account balance and requires more evidence, Randi can have Goldman Sachs notarize it. Once notarized, the statement could be converted to PDF and posted on the web for all to see. This would be an extremely easy thing for Randi to accomplish. Is it unlikely? Well, ask Randi that. If he doesn't want it done, then so be it.

Why should I "care to seek" this notarized statement? You asked what would qualify as evidence for me, and I told you. Does that mean I want to seek it? Absolutely not. It does not matter to me whether or not the MDC is in fact legit. I actually assume it's legit, but I can't be sure without further evidence. Again, you've presumed my stance on the issue, something many here tend to to. You have proven my point that many on this forum presume, assume, and let their emotions cloud their rational, objective reasoning faculties. You want so badly to believe that I do not want to believe or accept the MDC is legit that you've placed me in this anti-Randi "bubble" and have manufactured this notion that a notarized bank statement is "unlikely to be delivered," something that's so untrue. You've made a comfortable place for your belief about me and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.

Many examples of people having their banks notarize their various bank statements: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS314&q=%2Bnotarized+%2Bbank+%2Bstatement&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1


wow
its so horrendous to find a true pseudo skeptic like you lil mickey

can radin be all wrong?
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 Frank Lee » 15 Sep 2009, 01:01

In essence, what you're saying is that a notarized bank statement is unlikely to be obtained, an assumption that's not warranted given that to notarize a document costs around $10-$15 and is easy to obtain, as there are many notaries public throughout the country.


No, I'm saying that it is unlikely that you have sought or care to seek the notarized bank statement.

This would be an extremely easy thing for Randi to accomplish. Why should I "care to seek" this notarized statement? You asked what would qualify as evidence for me, and I told you. Does that mean I want to seek it? Absolutely not. It does not matter to me whether or not the MDC is legit. I actually assume it's legit, but I can't be sure without further evidence.


So if you have no desire to be "sure" why did you say, "I'm not denying the money is there or that the MDC is valid. I have no bias or prejudice that will incline me to dismiss outright the possibility of this evidence existing or not existing, but I'd like to see it so that I can prove it to myself either way, which is why I asked."

Earlier you wrote, "I was asking how you could know, empirically, that the MDC is valid. Do you have physical evidence that shows he has the money in a bank account?" Later you wrote, "Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, a notarized bank statement showing the latest account balance (let's say, past 6 months), specifically showing a million or more dollars. That would take care of the enough-money claim and would satisfy me. Perhaps this evidence already exists?"

Would a notarized bank statement prove, empirically, that the money is in the bank account?

Again, you've presumed my stance on the issue, something many here tend to to.


There aren't many here.

You have proven my point that many on this forum presume, assume, and let their emotions cloud their rational, objective reasoning faculties.


You may be over-estimating your ability to analyze others based on postings to an internet forum.

You've made a comfortable place for your belief about me and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.


That was a good line wasn't it? Feel free to re-use it again anytime.

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

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 15 Sep 2009, 01:54

Frank Lee wrote:So if you have no desire to be "sure" why did you say, "I'm not denying the money is there or that the MDC is valid. I have no bias or prejudice that will incline me to dismiss outright the possibility of this evidence existing or not existing, but I'd like to see it so that I can prove it to myself either way, which is why I asked."


Again, a critical look at the semantics involved will reveal the truth. I have no desire to be sure of the MDC's legitimacy. However, for me to be convinced of its legitimacy, I'd need more evidence.

Again, I was responding to your initial question:

Frank Lee wrote:You guys would have to define your terms before continuing. What would constitute proof that the MDC is "legit"?


And again, for me, a notarized bank statement--simple. This, however, doesn't mean I have a "desire" to seek "proof" of its legitimacy, but if I am to accept it as fact that it's legitimate, "I'd like to see it [the notarized statement] so that I can prove it to myself." You are concatenating two aspects of what's been said: 1) My qualification of proof and 2) my desire to seek such proof. In other words, if you would like to convince me the MDC is legit, "I'd like to see it [the qualifying evidence] so that I can prove it to myself either way,[/b] which is why I asked," but I have no desire to seek the evidence myself.

Frank Lee wrote:Earlier you wrote, "I was asking how you could know, empirically, that the MDC is valid. Do you have physical evidence that shows he has the money in a bank account?" Later you wrote, "Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, a notarized bank statement showing the latest account balance (let's say, past 6 months), specifically showing a million or more dollars. That would take care of the enough-money claim and would satisfy me. Perhaps this evidence already exists?"

Would a notarized bank statement prove, empirically, that the money is in the bank account?


Again, for me, yes, that's all I'd need to see. I already assume it's there, but if I am to believe it's a fact, I'd need to see this statement.

Frank Lee wrote:
Again, you've presumed my stance on the issue, something many here tend to to.


There aren't many here.


"Many" as a proportion of those who tend to presume to those who do not is apparent. Let p = the presumptuous and r = the realists. The ratio/proportion of p:r is most likely large from what I've noticed so far. I did not mean "many" as in the total aggregation of forum posters/visitors regardless of their presumptuous status.

Frank Lee wrote:
You have proven my point that many on this forum presume, assume, and let their emotions cloud their rational, objective reasoning faculties.


You may be over-estimating your ability to analyze others based on postings to an internet forum.


Well, since people express their thinking (as well as, very often, their emotions) via posts on this forum, and I can read critically and objectively, it's not difficult to assess their beliefs, attitudes, personalities and worldviews accordingly. Of course, I cannot know everything about a person via the posts here alone, but after a while, it's very apparent who you're dealing with.

Frank Lee wrote:
You've made a comfortable place for your belief about me and put up a wall that won't allow your comfort to be disturbed.


That was a good line wasn't it? Feel free to re-use it again anytime.

Frank Lee


It sure was and is relevant to whom I can expect to deal with on these forums. ;)
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 15 Sep 2009, 01:59

frank
why would you lose time with this pseudo skeptic?
lil mickey already made out his mind
he wont believe mdc is legit because he keeps moving the goal posts
just read winston´s definition of pseudo skeptic (ok, we better not)

he cant even answer the simple question
CAN RADIN BE ALL WRONG?
he is the true meaning of pseudo skeptic

see him jump!
go mickey, go mickey!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
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 quantumparanormal » 15 Sep 2009, 02:16

Frank, You see what I mean by the prominence of presumptuous and nonobjective thought being apparent in this forum? Read the post right above mine, this one. There are many more similar examples throughout this forum.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 15 Sep 2009, 03:13

quantumparanormal wrote:Frank, You see what I mean by the prominence of presumptuous and nonobjective thought being apparent in this forum? Read the post right above mine, this one. There are many more similar examples throughout this forum.


common mickey
can radin be all wrong?

i guess you cant answer it
so keep jumping :D :D :D
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 Frank Lee » 15 Sep 2009, 04:22

Mike, at the risk of being presumptuous, as this post will presume a few things in order to save time...

This is how I understand your position.You assume that the JREF has the million in an account, but you have doubts that your assumption is correct. This would seem to imply that you believe that the statement from Goldman Sachs documenting the account, which the JREF regularly posts on its website, is false. However, if someone were to have a copy of the Goldman Sachs statement notarized and placed in your hands, this would constitute proof to you that the funds were in the account.

So help me understand how a notarized statement would be proof to you. Wouldn't this mean that the Notary Public who did the notarization would have to know that the money was there? The Goldman Sachs rep who swore that it was a true bank statement might be lying about it. After all, they've done nothing to stop the JREF theoretically posting a false statement with the Goldman Sachs name on it for years.

My point is, you asked for evidence that the money was there, even allowing that such evidence, might indeed, be there. I showed you the only evidence that the JREF will provide. So I guess you'll just have to go on believing that your assumption may be wrong.

On a personal note, this has fallen into the, the-more-I-talk-about-it-the-less-it-seems-to-matter category.

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

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby highflyertoo » 15 Sep 2009, 04:42

So how much interest does the Bonds make ? $ 80,OOO per year . Now times that over a twenty year period = A Big Stack of Money.

Why should Randi be allow to spend the interest? It's not his money.

And why would Randi want to part with his Gold Mine? Randi adopted the Prize Money for himself at the very beginning.

Randi's quest to find the paranormal? Bollocks.
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 ciscop » 15 Sep 2009, 06:52

highflyertoo wrote:So how much interest does the Bonds make ? $ 80,OOO per year . Now times that over a twenty year period = A Big Stack of Money.

Why should Randi be allow to spend the interest? It's not his money.

And why would Randi want to part with his Gold Mine? Randi adopted the Prize Money for himself at the very beginning.

Randi's quest to find the paranormal? Bollocks.



IT IS HIS MONEY
IT WAS DONATED TO HIS FOUNDATION FOR THE MDC, he gets to keep it to keep runing the foundation
are you entitled to decide where money goes when you donate to the red cross?
and believers keep missing the point, if JREF MDC finds the person with paranormal abilities, dont you think thats a huge amount in book realeses, dvd sales, tv appearances and many more stuff?.. a million is nothing compare to what they will gain losing that money to a REAL SUPERNATURAL talent.

a million dollar is pocket change when they get the person with paranormal abilities... i hope they will.. but right now.. with christian nuts like highflyer and mediocre magicians like koenig.. i think they have their money safe.

but whatever john.. i hope you can fight that statue and please post it on youtube
i am a huge fan of your mind and your work
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 quantumparanormal » 15 Sep 2009, 06:53

Frank Lee wrote:You assume that the JREF has the million in an account, but you have doubts that your assumption is correct. This would seem to imply that you believe that the statement from Goldman Sachs documenting the account, which the JREF regularly posts on its website, is false.


My assumption the MDC is legit also applies to the Goldman Sachs document you've provided here (in PDF form). However, that's an assumption I've taken for granted. For me to be totally convinced it's the "real deal," it would have to be notarized, but I still assume it is.

Frank Lee wrote:However, if someone were to have a copy of the Goldman Sachs statement notarized and placed in your hands, this would constitute proof to you that the funds were in the account.


Now that's a good example of either exaggeration or presumption. When did I ever say I'd need it to be placed into my hands? Again, here's in what form I'd accept the document:

QP wrote:Once notarized, the statement could be converted to PDF and posted on the web for all to see.


So, given that's what I said, I'm not sure where you got the idea I'd need "it to be placed into my hands." I understand it's still possible for fraud to be involved, but since an actual notrary public's name is attached to the signed document, it's not difficult to ascertain the validity of such a document, to an extent anyway. However, I'll take it on faith that any document furnished would most likely not be fraudulent.

Frank Lee wrote:So help me understand how a notarized statement would be proof to you.


For the same reason why millions of others accept notarized documents as "proof:" you have an independent, 3rd party asserting and attesting to the validity of the document(s) provided. Could the notary public and/or PDF be fraudulent, sure, although highly unlikely? Regardless, you asked what would constitute proof for me, and I told you. It's really that simple.

Frank Lee wrote:Wouldn't this mean that the Notary Public who did the notarization would have to know that the money was there? The Goldman Sachs rep who swore that it was a true bank statement might be lying about it. After all, they've done nothing to stop the JREF theoretically posting a false statement with the Goldman Sachs name on it for years.


Perhaps you don't understand how notaries public work. If Goldman Sachs were to notarize the document, they'd have to provide the document to a notary public, whatever documentation the notary public required in order to assess the validity of such a document would have to be furnished by Goldman Sachs, then signatures would be signed. A notary public will not just take your word for it. You need to provide a notary public sufficient evidence to prove the document is stating the "truth."

Frank Lee wrote:My point is, you asked for evidence that the money was there, even allowing that such evidence, might indeed, be there. I showed you the only evidence that the JREF will provide. So I guess you'll just have to go on believing that your assumption may be wrong.


Assuming the MDC is legit is good enough for me. So many people assume so many things, so why should this be a problem for you? Do you have some will, some factor, some need that urges or motivates you to convince me of the MDC's definitive, factual legitimacy?

Frank Lee wrote:On a personal note, this has fallen into the, the-more-I-talk-about-it-the-less-it-seems-to-matter category.

Frank Lee


Well, that's for you to decide. I'm simply answering your question as to what constitutes as "proof" for me, so I answered. Whether or not it "matters" is up to each person to decide. It doesn't "matter" to me whether the MDC is legit or not, as I've mentioned before. My main interest is empirical research, not so much acquiring definitive "proof" of the MDC's legitimacy, so it, therefore, doesn't matter that much to me anyway.

Personally, I think the whole MDC-is-fake claim is nonsense, but that's a personal bias I have about this issue, and I admit that.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby Frank Lee » 15 Sep 2009, 07:29

Mike G. wrote; "Perhaps you don't understand how notaries public work. If Goldman Sachs were to notarize the document, they'd have to provide the document to a notary public, whatever documentation the notary public required in order to assess the validity of such a document would have to be furnished by Goldman Sachs, then signatures would be signed. A notary public will not just take your word for it. You need to provide a notary public sufficient evidence to prove the document is stating the 'truth.'"

I don't know the procedure for notarizing a bank statement, so I'm just guessing that it involves a bank representative(s) swearing an oath before the Notary Public that the supplied documentation is a factual representation. (As opposed to taking the Notary down to the vault and letting him or her touch the bundles of cash with the JREF's name on them, which is ridiculous and wouldn't 'prove' anything anyway.). If I'm correct, this begs the question I already asked (and you ignored). Why would you deem a notarized bank statement from Goldman Sachs to be trustworthy proof if you allow for the possibility that Goldman Sachs has permitted the JREF to continually post supposedly false account statements in their name for years?

And actually, since you don't hold the position that the MDC is illegitimate, we're apparently on the same side of that issue. This is a semantics misunderstanding isn't it?

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

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 15 Sep 2009, 08:54

Frank Lee wrote:Why would you deem a notarized bank statement from Goldman Sachs to be trustworthy proof if you allow for the possibility that Goldman Sachs has permitted the JREF to continually post supposedly false account statements in their name for years?


My assumption is that Randi obtains the account statements, converts them to PDFs, then posts them on his website (or has someone do this for him). Certainly, it's from his website where you provided me his latest statement: http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf. It's a possibility that the documents could be doctored/fake, although highly unlikely (why would Randi risk such a thing?). I already assume they are legit, but to be certain, a notary public would suffice.

Additionally, I have no knowledge of Goldman Sachs "permitting the JREF to continually post" these statements on their website. Are clients of Goldman Sachs required to request permission in order for those clients to be able to post their bank statements online? I'm assuming that if I posted my bank account statements online, I would not be in trouble with my bank, nor would I require their permission beforehand, but I admit I'm "green" in this regard, as I don't know for sure what the typical bank rules are regarding posting one's bank account information for all to see on the web. I know it's a stupid thing to do (due to identity theft being so prominent these days), but against the rules, requiring permission from the bank? I'm going to guess not.

Do I allow for "the possibility that Goldman Sachs has permitted the JREF to continually post supposedly false account statements in their name for years?" Well, being that so many banks have defrauded so many people in the last few years, I wouldn't put it past them, but do I believe that's the case? Not at all. It's most likely unlikely that Goldman Sachs would be the source of any fraud, but that's an assumption I take for granted. However, you seem to be missing my requirement for proof: a notarized bank statement. A Goldman Sachs logo placed on an account statement does not prove the document's validity, correct? Additionally, does the Goldman Sachs logo on the document imply the JREF has received permission from Goldman Sachs to post these account statements online for all to see? I'm going to guess not. Does there exist a document stating Goldman Sachs has granted the JREF permission to post these account statements online for all to see? I'm guessing not. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter, as those things don't qualify, for me, as evidence of concrete proof the documents are legit.

Again, regarding "why a notary public," unless the posted document has a signature from a 3rd, independent party attesting to its validity, it can be deemed invalid accordingly (and a Goldman Sachs logo per se is not "proof" of the document's validity), especially with document-altering software such as Photoshop (i.e, one can alter the document easily). It's not so easy to create a fake document when using a notary public, however, as one could always use the notary public (not the online-posted PDF) per se to ascertain the document's validity (if one suspected the online-posted document were fake). This is why we use notaries public. I'm not quite sure why this isn't "getting through."

Frank Lee wrote:And actually, since you don't hold the position that the MDC is illegitimate, we're apparently on the same side of that issue. This is a semantics misunderstanding isn't it?


We do hold the same position regarding the MDC's legitimacy, but we disagree on what my source of proof should be in order for me to to be convinced for sure it's legitimate. I believe you believe I should accept the online-posted Goldman Sachs account statements JREF posts as definitive proof the MDC is legit. While I have no reason to doubt the online-posted PDFs are not fraudulent, for me, it's still not definitive, concrete, ironclad evidence. The online PDF statements are enough for me to assume the MDC is legit. Let's just put it this way, there's a very, very small likelihood, in my opinion, the PDFs represent false statements. Therefore, my assumption that the MDC is legit is, for me anyway, well warranted.

Does it "matter" either way? No way! :)
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 15 Sep 2009, 10:18

highflyertoo wrote:Bollocks.


You must be either British or Australian.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests