Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

[Frank Lee]

[quantumparanormal]

[ciscop]

[Frank Lee]

[quantumparanormal]

[ciscop]

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!

[quantumparanormal]

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.

[ciscop]

[Frank Lee]

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

[highflyertoo]

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.

[ciscop]

[quantumparanormal]

[Frank Lee]

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

[quantumparanormal]

[quantumparanormal]