Looking for documentation of the Randi "sex tape" sting.

[Jontg]

Currently debating one of those Randi-as-Fundamentalist morons, and he's trying to derail the discussion with the sex tape smear--like they all seem to do right out of the gate now that Mr. Randi is out of the closet. I need a link to the documentation that proves Mr. Randi's reasons for creating that tape.

[Fnord]

Your "need" begs the question of whether or not such a recording exists.

Whose side are you on, anyway?

[Cavemonster]

What's wonderful about skepticism is that it isn't a cult of personality. It really doesn't matter if Randi rapes puppies nightly. Both skepticism and the MDC still stand.

Does relativity fail if it turns out Einstein had a fetish for leather?

No. The truth is the truth, and personal attacks have nothing to do with it.

[Jontg]

True... technically, I haven't even been shown the tape yet. But Randi himself admitted to making it, albeit for altruistic purposes and at the direction of law enforcement officials. If I don't see some concrete proof of this--above and beyond the simple fact that he hasn't been lynched and burned at the stake simultaneously--then my opponent will continue to derail and smear a man I greatly admire, and I admit I myself won't be able to shake some suspicions on my part. Again, it's a given that the tape exists--what I don't know is what it contains and where I can find proof that Mr. Randi's been set up.

[rjh01]

Deny everything. Demand proof of everything from the person who you are debating with. If he cannot produce the tape it does not exist! If you are lucky he will only have second hand information and be unable to provide anything.

Who are you debating with? The professor?

[learner]

Innocent until proven guilty... is good
Guilty until proven innocent... is bad

As rjh01 rightly says, you are in the position to demand proof.

[Slimething]

There's no law or obligation forcing you to communicate with that type of person. You won't instill intelligence in anyone over the internet. As the saying goes: "Don't wrestle with pigs. You only get dirty and the pig enjoys it."

Tell the guy he must be wrong as he can't put up any evidence for any of his claims and say buh-bye. Move on to more deserving company. :cool:

[jimtron]

Here's what I would say: put up or shut up. Being a skeptic means having an open mind (even if it means hearing something awful about someone you revere) but demanding evidence to back up claims. If you've got real evidence (not just hearsay and slander), let's see it. If not, you're making a very nasty, baseless claim about someone.

ETA: This might help?
http://www.randi.org/hotline/1996/0085.html

[Darat]

Currently debating one of those Randi-as-Fundamentalist morons, and he's trying to derail the discussion with the sex tape smear--like they all seem to do right out of the gate now that Mr. Randi is out of the closet. I need a link to the documentation that proves Mr. Randi's reasons for creating that tape.

I'm pretty sure Randi wrote in some detail about this on randi.org so have a search on there. I found this SWIFT article that mentions it towards the bottom: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/525-a-champion-grubbie-speaks-out.html

[arthwollipot]

Uh... what? What sex tape smear?

[JihadJane]

He rapes puppies nightly?

[Cainkane1]

If what went on in this alledged tape wasn't illegal then who cares whether the tpae was made or not? If the alledged tape contained illegal activity Mr. randi would have been prosecuted. The tape if it exists is none of any ones business.

[TSR]

He rapes puppies nightly?

.
Don't be silly.

The live feed clearly shows kitties.


Soft fluffy kitties.



But they are all asking for it....
.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

.
Don't be silly.

The live feed clearly shows kitties.


Soft fluffy kitties.



But they are all asking for it....
.

It's those damn mini-skirts I tell ya! :covereyes

[Jontg]

Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does, and it would be disingenuous of me to demand my opponent prove what I am already fairly sure is true. What I need is proof that the tape was made for the Rumson PD. I know it wasn't illegal--my opponent has already played the fact that it wasn't at the time for all the sleaze he can conjure up--and I know it has no bearing on anybody's rightness or wrongness. Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex. I mean, there has to be documentation, case files, court records of the tape being used to convict somebody, anything--right? Please, I'm not one of those just-looking-for-the-truth trolls, I genuinely am just looking for the truth, for the sake of my own peace of mind.

[godless dave]

Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does,


I'm not so sure of that. Randi "admits" that he recorded some harassing phone calls. That's not a sex tape.


Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex.

Do you have any reason to suspect he was?

[Vic Vega]

... the man I seek to emulate in all things...


All things? Does that make you are happy or unhappy that he's come out?

[godless dave]

Yeah, it's really not healthy to try to emulate someone else in all things. Be your own person. It's fine to be inspired by someone else or to admire someone else, but don't try to be just like them. Hero-worship is unhealthy.

[Vortigern99]

This might help?
http://www.randi.org/hotline/1996/0085.html

Just in case these mysterious "people" would like to be saved a trip,
I'll tell them now that the "tape" is not one of "solicitation," but
was prepared by me (and not as a wire-tap, as Mr. Curley has chosen to
believe) to trap some bad guys. It worked, and the bad guys were
identified, charged, and convicted. I will bring along a COMPLETE
file of the newspaper files alluded to (not from Rumson, which had no
newspaper back then, but from Asbury Park) including the articles that
supported my allegations against the Middletown police, and the record
of the conviction of those who I trapped by means of the "tape."

[bolding mine]

What else do you need to know?

[Fnord]

Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does, and it would be disingenuous of me to demand my opponent prove what I am already fairly sure is true.
Can you provide a link to the alleged admission? It is not ingenuous to ask for proof of claim -- it is stupid not to.
What I need is proof that the tape was made for the Rumson PD.
What you need first if proof of the tape itself. Subpoena the Rumson PD for the alleged artifact.
I know it wasn't illegal--my opponent has already played the fact that it wasn't at the time for all the sleaze he can conjure up--and I know it has no bearing on anybody's rightness or wrongness.
So what's the point? If nothing's wrong, then why try to "fix" it?
Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex.
First, you can not prove that something did not happen. May as well try to prove that G-d does not exist.

Second, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. That person is your alleged opponent.

Third, if your alleged opponent was merely trying to make you doubt Mr. Randi, then he has already won the conflict.

Fourth, you are asking a bunch of website members to provide evidence that something did not happen -- why not contact Mr. Randi instead? I'm sure that his lawyers would especially love to hear from you regarding any attempt to defame Mr. Randi.
I mean, there has to be documentation, case files, court records of the tape being used to convict somebody, anything--right?[
Subpoena the Rumson police for the evidence. Of course, you'll first have to convince a judge that you have the need-to-know, and that might take some doing. For that you will need a good lawyer, rather than a bunch of website forum members, to do your dirty work for you.
Please, I'm not one of those just-looking-for-the-truth trolls, I genuinely am just looking for the truth, for the sake of my own peace of mind.
Evidence, please? Your story seems improbable, and full of holes.

I've been approached a few times by investigative reporters who claimed that they only wanted to "uncover the truth" about my company's operations in order to "defend" us against some nasty rumors that we had not heard of before. Previous to that, there was always someone who would want to do the same regarding operations inside whichever military base or on board whichever naval ship I happened to be assigned to at the time -- always claiming to be supportive in trying to suppress one or more previously unknown, yet nasty rumors form an anonymous source.

It turns out, without exception, that these people were fakes. They were looking for confirmation of something -- anything -- that they could report in a negative way reminiscent of the sleaziest kinds of tabloid journalism.

I strongly suggest that this smear campaign be brought fully to light. I further suggest that protecting the source of these rumors regarding an alleged sex-tape amounts to condoning their actions in smearing Mr. Randi's good name.

... something that I'm sure any professional "psychic" might do to divert attention away from his or her own scandalous behavior ... n'est-ce pas?

[likelystory]

Randi has always in the past posted video's on youtube about the alleged frauds he caught out such as Peter Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne,dowsers, pyschics , blah blah etc......... So why not produce the tapes that he claims he caught BAD GUYS?

Or are people only permitted to accept Randi's word on the matter? How Scientific is that ?.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Randi has always in the past posted video's on youtube about the alleged frauds he caught out such as Peter Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne,dowsers, pyschics , blah blah etc......... So why not produce the tapes that he claims he caught BAD GUYS?

Or are people only permitted to accept Randi's word on the matter? How Scientific is that ?.

Have you stopped beating your cat yet? Please post proof. :rolleyes:

[Jontg]

Vortigern, the files Mr. Randi mentioned are exactly what I'm looking for--some kind of real-world records proving that he's the one telling the truth. If nobody here has thought to look for them, then fine--what do I need to do to get a look at them?
And Fnord, don't you dare give me that crap. If you don't know where I can find what I'm looking for, admit it and abandon the thread--but don't paint me as a muckraking troll with a bad cover story because I don't accept something on faith. I've been here longer than you have, for chrissakes!

[Red3]

Uh... what? What sex tape smear?

What he said. And what the hell is this about teenage boys? ANybody care to provide a recap? (No time to google - if it's even worth it)

[kerikiwi]

I've been here longer than you have

How do you figure that and how does it support or refute anything?

[godless dave]

Randi has always in the past posted video's on youtube about the alleged frauds he caught out such as Peter Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne,dowsers, pyschics , blah blah etc......... So why not produce the tapes that he claims he caught BAD GUYS?

He doesn't have the tape, because someone stole it from his house and later tried to blackmail him with it. And it's an audio tape (on reel-to-reel, cassettes weren't available in 1968), not a video.

[godless dave]

Vortigern, the files Mr. Randi mentioned are exactly what I'm looking for--some kind of real-world records proving that he's the one telling the truth. If nobody here has thought to look for them, then fine--what do I need to do to get a look at them?

This happened in 1968 and the person allegedly arrested for harassing phone calls was a minor. If the records haven't been expunged, they'd be sealed.


And Fnord, don't you dare give me that crap. If you don't know where I can find what I'm looking for, admit it and abandon the thread--but don't paint me as a muckraking troll with a bad cover story because I don't accept something on faith.

Seems to me you accepted the existence of a "sex tape" on faith.

[jimtron]

Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does, and it would be disingenuous of me to demand my opponent prove what I am already fairly sure is true. What I need is proof that the tape was made for the Rumson PD. I know it wasn't illegal--my opponent has already played the fact that it wasn't at the time for all the sleaze he can conjure up--and I know it has no bearing on anybody's rightness or wrongness. Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex. I mean, there has to be documentation, case files, court records of the tape being used to convict somebody, anything--right? Please, I'm not one of those just-looking-for-the-truth trolls, I genuinely am just looking for the truth, for the sake of my own peace of mind.

I don't know of any documentation other than what's been linked to on this thread. The point is there is no evidence of wrongdoing. You can't prove a negative. That's why earlier I said that Randi critics who mention this issue should put up or shut up. Got evidence that he was up to no good? Let's see it. If not, this is a waste of time. It's been through the legal system already.

[Sara Kessell]

What's wonderful about skepticism is that it isn't a cult of personality. It really doesn't matter if Randi rapes puppies nightly. Both skepticism and the MDC still stand.

Does relativity fail if it turns out Einstein had a fetish for leather?

No. The truth is the truth, and personal attacks have nothing to do with it.

You rock.

This is a point that ought to be stressed more often in skeptical circles.

[Fnord]

... And Fnord, don't you dare give me that crap.
What crap?
If you don't know where I can find what I'm looking for, admit it and abandon the thread
I have suggested where you can begin your search; in the most logical place, and by the most logical means. A court-issued subpoena would seem to be the most effective means of obtaining cooperation from law-enforcement for your "investigation".
--but don't paint me as a muckraking troll with a bad cover story...
If you are not muckraking, then why pursue a dead issue, especially one that has allegedly occurred so long ago that any statute of limitations will have expired by now? If your cover story is valid, then can you provide evidence?
... because I don't accept something on faith.
You accepted the existence of the alleged tape on faith alone. What is it that validates faith in your "opponent" over faith in a website full of skeptics?
I've been here longer than you have, for chrissakes!
However long you've been here is irrelevant. Appealing to Precedence must be some kind of fallacy.

[Wowbagger]

I heard that James Randi once impersonated a dentist, and that it was even recorded for a music video. My opponent admits that nothing was illegal at the time, but he still wants to call Randi out for being a hippocrate.

[blobru]

Vortigern, the files Mr. Randi mentioned are exactly what I'm looking for--some kind of real-world records proving that he's the one telling the truth. If nobody here has thought to look for them, then fine--what do I need to do to get a look at them? ...


If these tapes are as damning as his critics allege, as sceptics we might well ask why there were never any charges stemming from them. Files of the tapes have been around for years. Most jurisdictions waive statute-of-limitations in such abuse cases -- charges could still be brought, presumably. Yet... no charges, then, since, or now?

By far the likeliest explanation is that Randi did nothing wrong. The issue only resurfaces periodically because over a long career debunking frauds and cranks he's made a lot of enemies.

[Jontg]

As has been said (and linked to) repeatedly in this thread alone, I accept the existence of the tape because Randi admits on this very website that the tape exists. I threw out my join date because Fnord is acting like I'm just some random guy who popped up last night Looking For The Truth, when I've been a regular on this forum for six years--or was I just building a cover identity? I was trying to find evidence because I know it would be the goddamn atom bomb for Randi's enemies--something I could use, not just evasive-sounding bluster about how they can't prove anything and it has no bearing on his rightness or wrongness. Don't get me wrong, I know they're both true--but they're "soft" truths with no dramatic impact or stopping power. You can't use them to counter something with as much emotional punch as this--if you're going to get a debate back on the rails after somebody accuses a man of pederasty, you need a "hard" truth, something the audience can see or hear. As it is, I'm like a legal counsel in old Salem trying to defend a witch by asserting that the prosecution can't prove there's such a thing as God--I'm right, and it would be obvious if everyone were thinking straight, but nobody is going to listen to me until I dose somebody with Ergot, or hypnotize Abigail Williams, or something similarly dramatic. My best bet seems to be using the fact that, as Godless_Dave pointed out, nobody's likely to have any of the records, and more importantly if Mr. Randi was lying, odds are somebody would have noticed by now.

[Sean84]

So, why not tell us who you are arguing with and through what medium?

If you can provide a link to the argument in question that might do wonders to prove that you are not "muckraking".

[Paulhoff]

Jontg, I will be seeing Randi tomorrow, why don't you tell me all about when he said there was a tape. Please show me where that is on the internet.

Paul

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

[Jontg]

Seriously? O.o Thanks for taking the time to bother him... I was referring to his statements near the bottom of this (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/525-a-champion-grubbie-speaks-out.html) article. Again, thank you so much!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Has Google gone missing from some peoples' Universe? Give it a try. Filter out all the woo-sites and the truth is easy to find. :(

[Foolmewunz]

Jontg, I will be seeing Randi tomorrow, why don't you tell me all about when he said there was a tape. Please show me where that is on the internet.

Paul

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp


Paul, do be careful.... Here's a portion of the closing paragraphs of that SWIFT article....

... I took the opportunity of flooring a nasty chap who had made similar accusations about me, and had been boasting about it loudly. One shot, to the chops. He went down, and was carried out. VERY satisfying, I assure you. Want some, Mr. Kapnistos? I got some...

I won't do this again. I'm finished having to inform idiots of the facts about these Grubbies. If they want to listen to what my adversaries say, and choose to repeat it without checking - as any honorable "journalist" would do - they can become misinformed easily and happily. Fantasy is their territory, and I leave them to it...

I'd hate to think of you ruining your friendship if he decides to give you a smack in the chops :eye-poppi . (Seriiously - I always took that paragraph figuratively. Not so sure upon re-reading it. Did Randi actually rough someone up? Now Uri's stooges will be out there saying that The Amazing One admits to using violence to silence his opponents. :D )

[jimtron]

Think of all the charlatans Randi has debunked going back decades. If there was serious dirt out there don't you think one of them would have found it?

Folks are grasping at straws with this. Let us know when someone has evidence of wrongdoing. No one here is going to come up with a magic bullet that proves a negative.

[Lucian]

Paul, do be careful.... Here's a portion of the closing paragraphs of that SWIFT article....



I'd hate to think of you ruining your friendship if he decides to give you a smack in the chops :eye-poppi . (Seriiously - I always took that paragraph figuratively. Not so sure upon re-reading it. Did Randi actually rough someone up? Now Uri's stooges will be out there saying that The Amazing One admits to using violence to silence his opponents. :D )

How many people's chops can Randi reach? Was he standing on a chair? Unless his opponent was tiny, I would say it was hyperbole or figurative language.

[Orphia Nay]

Think of all the charlatans Randi has debunked going back decades. If there was serious dirt out there don't you think one of them would have found it?

Folks are grasping at straws with this. Let us know when someone has evidence of wrongdoing. No one here is going to come up with a magic bullet that proves a negative.

Indeed.

FWIW, and in addition to Darat's link, there's this, which purports to be James Randi's comments on the matter in 1999.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1

[Red3]

How many people's chops can Randi reach? Was he standing on a chair? Unless his opponent was tiny, I would say it was hyperbole or figurative language.

It kinda sounds like he punched the guy:

In front of an audience assembled to hear my lecture, I had the great pleasure of punching him out -- to a standing ovation. But it's little satisfaction, considering the damage that he and others like him, along with the principals, Geller, Warth and Byrd, have done to me.)

(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1)

[Foolmewunz]

What he said. And what the hell is this about teenage boys? ANybody care to provide a recap? (No time to google - if it's even worth it)

It kinda sounds like he punched the guy:



(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1)


And the Skeptic (oops, Sceptic) Of The Day Award for June 30, 2010.... The envelope please, Priscilla......

It's Red3!!! (Crowd erupts in delirious shouts of approval and riotous applause)

From a somewhat dismissive, "... if it's even worth it", to digging into ancient articles for proof/evidence in less than 10 hours! That's what JREF is made of. :D

[Orphia Nay]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Chris H]

Who are you debating with? The professor?


Ha! Is there anywhere that guy hasn't been banned from?

Incidentally, Dave Koenig/"The Professor" dragged this dead horse from it's coffin 12 months ago, and continues to flog it to this day. He even went as far to post a link to a download site where the "sex tapes" were hosted. He went out of is way to thank "whoever posted these so we can all make up our own minds without outside interference". However I think it's likely that Koenig had something to do with the upload, considering his connections to Jim Callahan, and Jim's connection to Uri Geller. The files have since been removed from Uploadpedia, but if you want to read the 40 pages of dribble, along with dozens of pages of other Randi/JREF libel, knock yourself out.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7

[Chris H]

Slightly off topic...

Whilst I've been rather happy to have nothing to do with Koenig since his permanent ban from both here and the Magic Cafe, something that was predicted by many non-psychics during the course of his MDC application has come to fruition. Koenig is promoting himself as "THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS PERFORMING AMAZING FEATS THAT DEFY EXPLANATION!!!!!". Good to see he hasn't got over his caps lock fixation. ;)

http://www.myspace.com/professorslimking

[Red3]

And the Skeptic (oops, Sceptic) Of The Day Award for June 30, 2010.... The envelope please, Priscilla......

It's Red3!!! (Crowd erupts in delirious shouts of approval and riotous applause)

From a somewhat dismissive, "... if it's even worth it", to digging into ancient articles for proof/evidence in less than 10 hours! That's what JREF is made of. :D

Well, what can I say...

It's been a slow morning!

[Paulhoff]

Funny, I looked at that page and the word SEX does not come up at all any where, the word "tape" yes, "sex" no.

Paul

:) :) :)

[arthwollipot]

Okay, wait. Tell me if I've got this wrong. Randi received obscene phone calls, and recorded them in order to provide them to the police. And this is a "sex tape"???

Seriously - Wuh - tuh - fuh?

[Paulhoff]

Yea, makes one wonder how we made it out the trees with all the dead weight in the population.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jakesteele]

Deny everything. Demand proof of everything from the person who you are debating with. If he cannot produce the tape it does not exist! If you are lucky he will only have second hand information and be unable to provide anything.

Who are you debating with? The professor?

As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops. Until the cops step forward and back him up with documentation, it’s no different from a person that says he was alone in his apartment on the night of the crime but can’t produce anyone to corroborate his statement. They just have his word for it.

In our legal system the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is up to the accuser to prove their guilt, but when you have conclusive proof of something the accused did, especially by his own admission, the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the accuser’s side in support of their charge and the burden of proof shifts to the accused ‘to explain’.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc. Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement. And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

If you’re going to play the skeptic game you have to be willing to apply it to yourself even when it burns and stings.

It’s exactly as Cavemonster said, the truth is the truth no matter what. It doesn’t matter what Randi or Einstein did; the facts is the facts. The most important thing to remember about Randi is what he’s accomplished and helped create.

[Darat]

As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.

...snip...

No he doesn't.

[kookbreaker]

This is ancient, Randi's explanation dates back over 10 years and I think even that was a repost. The 'tape' goes back to the 60's.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287

The problem you are going to have is that the people involved are very likely no longer at their jobs, it having been decades since this took place. You will need to file motions if you want more information, but frankly I doubt it is easy to come by even with legal help.

What is certain is this:

1) The Rumson police had this tape in their posession for decades and did not arrest Randi. That speaks volumes right there. It means the claims of the scumwads who bring this up (and those who enable their sleazy tactics) are not at all close to reality.

2) The major 'spreader' of this tape, one Eldon 'kid luvin' clown' Byrd was hardly one to accuse anyone of sexual impropriety. He also lost his US Navy job because he abused his position to get ahold of the tape.

3) Earl 'the psychotic psychic' Curley was close to being sued for spreading false claims about this tape, he drank himself to death before the suit could be brought.

Frankly, if the sleazeworm who is using this as defamation, he (or she) doesn't really deserve any replies.

[jimtron]

As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops. Until the cops step forward and back him up with documentation, it’s no different from a person that says he was alone in his apartment on the night of the crime but can’t produce anyone to corroborate his statement. They just have his word for it.

In our legal system the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is up to the accuser to prove their guilt, but when you have conclusive proof of something the accused did, especially by his own admission, the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the accuser’s side in support of their charge and the burden of proof shifts to the accused ‘to explain’.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc. Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement. And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

If you’re going to play the skeptic game you have to be willing to apply it to yourself even when it burns and stings.

It’s exactly as Cavemonster said, the truth is the truth no matter what. It doesn’t matter what Randi or Einstein did; the facts is the facts. The most important thing to remember about Randi is what he’s accomplished and helped create.

Just let us know when you have evidence of wrongdoing. Does a tape exist? Maybe. Is there evidence of wrongdoing? Not that I've seen. When a very nasty allegation is made against someone, it should be supported with evidence, otherwise it's slander. Again, you can't prove a negative. It's not up to us show that Randi is innocent, it's up to the accusers to provide evidence. Put up or shut up.

[Azrael 5]

OP still not managed to post a link to his discussion elsewhere?

[Paulhoff]

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.
Proof please.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh, this is my last post on this BS thread.

[rjh01]

Ha! Is there anywhere that guy hasn't been banned from?

Incidentally, Dave Koenig/"The Professor" dragged this dead horse from it's coffin 12 months ago, and continues to flog it to this day. He even went as far to post a link to a download site where the "sex tapes" were hosted. He went out of is way to thank "whoever posted these so we can all make up our own minds without outside interference". However I think it's likely that Koenig had something to do with the upload, considering his connections to Jim Callahan, and Jim's connection to Uri Geller. The files have since been removed from Uploadpedia, but if you want to read the 40 pages of dribble, along with dozens of pages of other Randi/JREF libel, knock yourself out.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7

The Professor has not posted there since April 2010. No idea why he left or where he has been since.

[Dunstan]

I'm pretty sure Randi wrote in some detail about this on randi.org so have a search on there. I found this SWIFT article that mentions it towards the bottom: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/525-a-champion-grubbie-speaks-out.html

Somewhat off-topic, but I don't think Randi comes across very well in that article. I know he was obviously angry at the things being said about him, but bragging about punching people out -- and hinting that he might do so to others -- is not very admirable. If Uri Geller started threatening to punch out anyone who called him a phony, Randi would be the first to chastise him for resorting to intimidation.

And offering the million dollar prize for proof that Randi said certain things? There's nothing paranormal about a claim that "James Randi said such-and-such," and the prize is supposed to belong to the JREF and not be Randi's personal property to offer up (even rhetorically) every time he's in a snit about something. In fact, by April 2009 when that Swift article was written, Randi was no longer even the JREF President -- so why is he acting like it's his to hand over if he loses an argument?

[valis]

Going from memory......

The thing about the tape was it was claimed as proof that Randi was a pedophile, the problem being the people he was talking to were, I believe 17 years old in the case of the youngest. Even if that is technically below the legal age of consent for the jurisdiction it is a million miles from pedophilia.

The purported court transcripts have been posted online at times, you could try searching for those.

I read them years ago and a couple of purely personal opinion observations......

I seem to recall that the judge was none too happy with Randi at times and made it clear he did not believe Randi was entirely truthful.

After reading what Randi said his coming out was the least surprising announcement in history. The words on those tapes are obviously not those of a straight man. I spent a great deal of my teenage youth hitch hiking the US and met plenty of Randis. Not, btw that there is anything wrong about a gay man hitting on teenage, of age guys. There are plenty of adult straight men that chase 18 year old girls. I think it says something about them but it's legal and you can do it if you want.

Randi makes claims about his anatomy that are indeed impressive when viewed in relation to his height.

In short the whole thing is damming if gay men make you feel icky or if you are a big Randi fan and can't handle gods with feet of clay. Otherwise a whole bunch of nothing.

Again this is based on my memory of the court transcript that was posted online, if in error please feel free to point me to the true transcript and I will stand corrected.

[bluesjnr]

James Randi "sex" tapes.

Where JREF sceptics lose their reasoning.

The clamour to excuse the dirty old bugger is almost homophobic. FFS wake up.

[paximperium]

Does ANYONE have any actual facts to post or are we all just winging it for the fun of it?

[Fnord]

OP still not managed to post a link to his discussion elsewhere?
Isn't that a sign that a claim is bogus in some way?

[jimtron]

Facts and evidence are helpful; speculation and hearsay not so much.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc. Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement. And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

Yes, there should be no double standard. When folks make claims, Randi often asks for evidence (and offers a million bucks if the evidence is properly presented). The onus is not on Randi or anyone here to prove a negative. The onus is on anyone who claims Randi is guilty of some kind of wrongdoing. So if someone can specifically state what he did that was wrong, and provide evidence, then do it. Otherwise let's stop the innuendos.

[SkepticScott]

FWIW, and in addition to Darat's link, there's this, which purports to be James Randi's comments on the matter in 1999.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1That reads a lot like a letter I received from Randi at about that time. I've been trying to find it to compare them.

[arthwollipot]

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.Stop right there. Randi admits to no such thing. Randi admits to having recorded a phone call (for whatever reason). Possibly more than one - I didn't read it that closely.

To get from there to "sex tape" involves a cognitive leap of truly heroic proportions.

[kerikiwi]

To get from there to "sex tape" involves a cognitive leap of truly heroic proportions.

Either that or someone has led a really, really sheltered life and needs to get out more...

[Eddie Dane]

Everybody has sexual details that (while not illegal) aren't things they'd want to communicate to the world.

Christ, that's how Scientology keeps the troops in order. All those embarrassing details recorded during those "audits".

So Randi is gay and likes young guys.
Well, imagine my shock. NOT.

[arthwollipot]

I think that if there were any sexual talk by Randi on the tape it would probably have been done in order to keep the obscene caller talking to gather more evidence for the police.

[Vortigern99]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1

Given that even some of Randi's supporters have not bothered to read Randi's 1999 statement, but prefer instead to make uninformed comments and submit questions about what has been plainly written and is a matter of public record, I'm quoting Randi's relevant comments from the above linked document.

The tape cassette which formed part of the blackmail package, rather than being the product of a "tap" on my phone, as the blackmail package claimed, was a copy of a tape that I was specifically asked to make back in 1968, by the police chief -- Zerr -- of Rumson, New Jersey, where I lived at that time. That request was because of obscene phone calls I'd been receiving at home, at all hours of the day and night. The object of my conversations on that tape had been to keep the callers on the line and thereby trace and identify the persons responsible. Zerr informed me that though a recording could probably not be admitted into evidence, it would be a powerful tool to possess. (At that time, to establish a trace, it was necessary to keep a caller on the line a minimum of four minutes.) That investigation resulted in a minor in a neighboring town being identified
and charged with the crime. At that time, the minor's lawyer was informed
by the local police that I possessed a recording of the phone calls. The
very next night, my home was broken into, and only my small reel-to-reel
tape recorder that had been connected to the telephone, was taken; no other valuables were touched.

Police subsequently found the minor in possession of the recorder and its
tape reel, and he was then also charged with the break-in.

...

The fact that all the calls on that tape are calls made to me and not by me, shows the true nature of the tape. The tape was made by me, at the instruction of the Chief of Police of Rumson, New Jersey, for the purpose of obtaining evidence on the night callers. A careful listening to the tape establishes this beyond doubt. The distributors cite references that are simply not on the tape, and they fail to mention its provenance.

...

Shortly thereafter, I was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in a hall in Newark,
New Jersey. I relate this event to show that my whole record was and is
known to the U.S. government, yet I was granted citizenship. Had there been any truth to the horrendous canards that are presently being circulated,
that would not have happened. 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. It was played, and Postal Inspector Ray Mack, who followed this matter from its inception, was a witness we brought in to validate the true nature of the recording. His evidence was accepted by the jury, who then gave Eldon Byrd zero of the four penalties he was demanding of me, totaling thirteen million dollars. My detractors claim that at that trial, I was established to be "a malicious liar," and that I was found guilty. ... I was notconvicted of having made that statement; it was already part of the record. I had said that Byrd was "a convicted child molester," while I should have said that he was "an admitted child molester," ... In any case, I certainly won that case, since I was represented pro bono most efficiently, and paid Byrd not a nickel.

I've snipped out the stuff about Xanthos, which is related to the case but ancillary to the main points of this thread. The entire tape in question was played in a separate but related trial to establish to the satisfaction of a jury that Randi has indeed been working for the Rumson police when he made the tape, a fact supported by a US government investigator Ray Mack.

This is all a matter of public record and can be investigated by interested parties seeking to corroborate or refute Randi's claims.

[Vortigern99]

As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

No, it was played in its entirety for a judge and jury on a separate charge of which Randi was unanimously cleared. Far from being anecdotal, the reason the tape was made is a matter of public record.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops. Until the cops step forward and back him up with documentation, it’s no different from a person that says he was alone in his apartment on the night of the crime but can’t produce anyone to corroborate his statement. They just have his word for it.

See above. A US jury heard the tape and the testimony of Postal Inspector Ray Mack, and decided the tape was exactly as Randi has described. It has been proven in a court of law, and is supported by a federal investigator; "allegedly" is not an adverb that accurately describes this case.

In our legal system the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is up to the accuser to prove their guilt, but when you have conclusive proof of something the accused did, especially by his own admission, the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the accuser’s side in support of their charge and the burden of proof shifts to the accused ‘to explain’.

He has explained it to the satisfaction of a judge, jury and a federal investigator. If you have or know of some material that disputes this documented fact or proves it false, please submit it.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc.

Your insight into human nature is so remarkably prescient that you can actually certify the behaviors and responses to a certain stimulus of a person you've never met and have only corresponded with via the Internet. Color me impressed!

Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement.

Right now you've willfully ignored the actual facts of this matter, which are that a judge, jury and federal investigator have unanimously agreed that the tape is precisely what Randi claims it is.

And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

Debunkers, ganders and geese aside, Randi has been put under the very scrutiny you demand, specifically in a US court of law, where his statement has been corroborated and certified by a judge, jury and federal investigator.

If you’re going to play the skeptic game you have to be willing to apply it to yourself even when it burns and stings.

Quoted for Truth. Please follow your own advice in this regard. Does it "burn and sting" yet? Have the beneficial remedies for large water fowl of the male sex been certified as equally beneficial for the females? ;)

It’s exactly as Cavemonster said, the truth is the truth no matter what. It doesn’t matter what Randi or Einstein did; the facts is the facts. The most important thing to remember about Randi is what he’s accomplished and helped create.

Great, now you can actually apply the principles he prescribes, investigate the documents under review, see for yourself that Randi's assertions have been proven valid in a court of law, and shut up already.

[TheDoLittle]

The Professor has not posted there since April 2010. No idea why he left or where he has been since.

He was banned. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146020

[Azrael 5]

He was banned. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146020

The quote to which you replied refers to a different forum not this one.

[TheDoLittle]

The quote to which you replied refers to a different forum not this one.

I sit corrected. I think I have a case of dumb this morning.

[kookbreaker]

No, it was played in its entirety for a judge and jury on a separate charge of which Randi was unanimously cleared.


Nitpick: Randi wasn't exactly cleared. It was a civil trial where Randi was the defendant and the jury found for the plaintiff - because they had to as Randi admitted to the error of 'slandering' the plaintiff during the trial*. But they found Randi liable to the tune of $0 as the plaintiff had no reputation to smear.**


* Randi had called the man a convicted child molester, when in fact the plaintiff was merely convicted for having child pornography. During the trial the plaintiff admitted, among other unsavory antics, that he had sex with his then underage girl who he was the legal guardian. Such a prize!

** The added benefit with this result is that the plaintiff could not appeal the verdict. That didn't stop him from whining that everyone except him in Baltimore doesn't understand civil law.

[blobru]

Sidebar of note (probably mentioned elsewhere on the forum, but the first I've seen of it): Randi's defence counsel for the Byrd v Randi lawsuit included very-soon-to-be US Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan!

Here's a library record (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gWQGlbNjZUwJ:www.clintonlibrary.gov/KAGAN%2520S%26O/6298_STAFF%2520AND%2520OFFICE%2520DC%2520CIRCUIT.p df+Byrd+v+Randi+No.+MJG-89-636+Elena+Kagan&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca) of the defense presentation, also listed as one of the ten most significant cases she'd handled (see 16-d) in her C.V. questionnaire (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858104575232401275782466.html) for Solicitor-General. :pedant

[plumjam]

I think that if there were any sexual talk by Randi on the tape it would probably have been done in order to keep the obscene caller talking to gather more evidence for the police.

Maybe he was multitasking.

Furiously.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Maybe he was multitasking.

Furiously.

Thank you PJ. We can always count on you to add a sense of the rational to any thread.

But don't project so much.

[Orphia Nay]

Given that even some of Randi's supporters have not bothered to read Randi's 1999 statement, but prefer instead to make uninformed comments and submit questions about what has been plainly written and is a matter of public record, I'm quoting Randi's relevant comments from the above linked document.



I've snipped out the stuff about Xanthos, which is related to the case but ancillary to the main points of this thread. The entire tape in question was played in a separate but related trial to establish to the satisfaction of a jury that Randi has indeed been working for the Rumson police when he made the tape, a fact supported by a US government investigator Ray Mack.

This is all a matter of public record and can be investigated by interested parties seeking to corroborate or refute Randi's claims.

Thanks for those quotes, Vortigern99.

Sidebar of note (probably mentioned elsewhere on the forum, but the first I've seen of it): Randi's defence counsel for the Byrd v Randi lawsuit included very-soon-to-be US Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan!

Here's a library record (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gWQGlbNjZUwJ:www.clintonlibrary.gov/KAGAN%2520S%26O/6298_STAFF%2520AND%2520OFFICE%2520DC%2520CIRCUIT.p df+Byrd+v+Randi+No.+MJG-89-636+Elena+Kagan&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca) of the defense presentation, also listed as one of the ten most significant cases she'd handled (see 16-d) in her C.V. questionnaire (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858104575232401275782466.html) for Solicitor-General. :pedant

Nice find, blobby.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thanks for those quotes, Vortigern99.



Nice find, blobby.

Seconded. Let's remember to keep this all around for the next time for I'm sure as long as Woo exists there will be a next time.

[Orphia Nay]

Seconded. Let's remember to keep this all around for the next time for I'm sure as long as Woo exists there will be a next time.

Indeed. I saved the link (from which Vortigern quoted) a year or two ago, when I found it after much searching because I was in a debate similar to the OP's. Not that the Woos bothered to read it, unless that's what stopped them posting. Still, it came in handy again here, and blobby's link will, sadly, probably be useful.

[Foolmewunz]

Seconded. Let's remember to keep this all around for the next time for I'm sure as long as Woo exists there will be a next time.

Indeed. I saved the link (from which Vortigern quoted) a year or two ago, when I found it after much searching because I was in a debate similar to the OP's. Not that the Woos bothered to read it, unless that's what stopped them posting. Still, it came in handy again here, and blobby's link will, sadly, probably be useful.

ditto

and

ditto

And I feel kinda like a lazy schlub, myself. I've been here through at least three (maybe four) such witch hunts, and should be able to access the stuff at the drop of an innuendo.


ETA: Tags? Have I got my VB settings mucked up or are there no Tags for this thread? Seems to me that'd be one real easy way to make sure we can find the info in a hurry.

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks for the heads-up on the tags, FMW. I just added some.

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks for the heads-up on the tags, FMW. I just added some.

Oh, sorry - I didn't realize I was criticizing a Tagger. I thought the Taggers were all named Spod?

[Orphia Nay]

Oh, sorry - I didn't realize I was criticizing a Tagger. I thought the Taggers were all named Spod?

:D It would be good if they were. I can always use more Spods. :)

[Red3]

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.

Not really. He admitted to keeping a teenage crank caller talking after receiving an obscene phone call, so the cops could trace it. Which they did and the kid was caught.

Why would anyone make a sex audio tape?

[Trakar]

I'm pretty sure Randi wrote in some detail about this on randi.org so have a search on there. I found this SWIFT article that mentions it towards the bottom: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/525-a-champion-grubbie-speaks-out.html

ROFLOL!
Thanks, been a rough week, that was enjoyably relaxing!

"...one to the chops,..."

with apple-sauce!

[valis]

ROFLOL!
Thanks, been a rough week, that was enjoyably relaxing!

"...one to the chops,..."

with apple-sauce!

I am, to coin a phrase, a bit skeptical about that story. Randi punched someone, knocking them down in front of an audience that then gives Randi an ovation as the person is carried out? That sounds a little too good to take at face value.

I am not saying it didn't happen, but I would like a little more proof before I buy that. Particularly since this person, who is supposedly out to get Randi, apparently did not press charges?

This Link:http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=155&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30 has a different version.
An excerpt from the opposing post:
De Herrera says he did indeed receive a copy of the Blackmail Tape anonymously, and wrote to the FBI about it. Randi knew about this, and fearing that de Herrera would show up at the lecture, he had armed guards posted at the door. (Uri Geller once did a similar thing, to avoid Randi at a lecture in New Jersey.)

De Herrera says that he sat down quietly in the back row of the auditorium, but after the lecture he went up on stage. Randi rolled up his sleeves dramatically, and took a punch at de Herrera, after which he pushed Randi into a wall. De Herrera's arms were then grabbed by a guard and he was eventually escorted from the hall in an armlock. Rather than "a standing ovation", there was nothing but shocked silence from the crowd.

[Aepervius]

Mostly becauser after reading debunkingskeptic, one can only laugh at what's on that web site. That's basically why. To be more explicit : I am pretty sure randi's version is embelished, but debunkingskeptic is about as trustable as far as I can throw it.

[Cavemonster]

Mostly becauser after reading debunkingskeptic, one can only laugh at what's on that web site. That's basically why. To be more explicit : I am pretty sure randi's version is embelished, but debunkingskeptic is about as trustable as far as I can throw it.

Not just the site, but this is from a post by the Professor.

[ravdin]

My answer to the sex tapes would be: what's your point? Even though people like the Professor won't just come out and say so, these allegations boil down to an ad hominem attack on refusing to accept magical thinking. If I were convinced that Randi really did solicit sex from underage boys, I wouldn't support him in any way. But it doesn't mean that I'd reject skepticism.

[Senex]

Even a piker like me has a sex tape (maybe even more than one). Who cares.

[Azrael 5]

I linked a post in this thread on Scepcop, there is an odious cretin there called Craig Browning who is like Professor-lite, a magician woo. He is possibly only woo left there who bothers participating in Randi threads.

[zerospeaks]

Can we put this to rest please?

Yes there is a tape. If I remember it was 3 mp3 files about 3-4 mins each or so.
I downloaded them last year when that sleezeball started slandering randi and they coincidentally became available for download.
I wanted to hear for myself if my idol was what they said.
I probably still have the mp3's on my HDD somewhere. I see NO reason to release them to anyone and if I come across them I will probably delete them.

Things that I remember from the tapes:
It is a recording of incoming calls to randi on his side. Meaning he is recording.
It is numerous young men calling looking for sex.
Randi seems to be entertaining them to try to get them to stay on the phone for a minute or so.
Randi does say some sexual things but they are very vague and he does not go into detail. Things like, "We'll have fun." "I have a large penis" Nothing specific.
In every call randi seems to get frustrated and terminates the call.
It does not sound like he is enjoying himself or the phone calls.
The youngest sounding caller ask's randi to talk dirty to him. Randi refuses, gets angry, and terminates the call.
These are not the actions of a pedophile or sexual deviant.

As far as the physical confrontation on stage goes. I have never known randi to lie. Fight or flight syndrome during a confrontation makes memory very inaccurate. Perhaps he misremembered. I am sure he did get a good punch in though. But who cares?!?

[LashL]

Sidebar of note (probably mentioned elsewhere on the forum, but the first I've seen of it): Randi's defence counsel for the Byrd v Randi lawsuit included very-soon-to-be US Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan!

Here's a library record (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gWQGlbNjZUwJ:www.clintonlibrary.gov/KAGAN%2520S%26O/6298_STAFF%2520AND%2520OFFICE%2520DC%2520CIRCUIT.p df+Byrd+v+Randi+No.+MJG-89-636+Elena+Kagan&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca) of the defense presentation, also listed as one of the ten most significant cases she'd handled (see 16-d) in her C.V. questionnaire (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858104575232401275782466.html) for Solicitor-General. :pedant


Another sidebar: Actually, it appears that Ms. Kagan represented the publisher defendants in that action, not Mr. Randi.

ETA yet another sidebar: Byrd sued Mr. Randi again in 2000 (for assault, libel and slander) and that action was also dismissed on a motion to dismiss November 13, 2000.

[blobru]

Another sidebar: Actually, it appears that Ms. Kagan represented the publisher defendants in that action, not Mr. Randi.

ETA yet another sidebar: Byrd sued Mr. Randi again in 2000 (for assault, libel and slander) and that action was also dismissed on a motion to dismiss November 13, 2000.


Thanks for the sidebarrage [& clarification], LashL. :D I see the publishers are listed as co-defendants, with Kagan etal arguing their motion for summary judgment.

Interesting to read the background material therein she compiled on the case: how Geller's metal-bending chicanery was so widely accepted in the 80's that Congress had struck a group to discuss its implications, the Dept of Defense were conducting experiments on its military potential, the CIA had hired Byrd as their liason with Geller, even Soviet arms dealers were interested. Have to wonder how many millions of US taxpayer $$$ were wasted on Geller & Byrd's little psychic circus.

[kookbreaker]

Mostly becauser after reading debunkingskeptic, one can only laugh at what's on that web site. That's basically why. To be more explicit : I am pretty sure randi's version is embelished, but debunkingskeptic is about as trustable as far as I can throw it.

Without a neutral witness I suppose we will never know what happened, but honestly the lies told by the woo crowd that center around this 'tape' have dropped their credibility to nil.

I once talked about the Randi vs Byrd case on USENET (I didn't bring it up, but I had more details). Byrd actually emailed me to 'correct' me on several issues. The first issue it was obvious he was lying and I confirmed it with an email to Randi. The second issue was him trying to defend his conviction for possession of kiddie porn (he said it was OK because it was the arty kind - no really). The third point was easily shown to be wrong by a simple glance at the trial transcript and was the worst example of spin I have seen from a woo in a while.

Byrd's fourth point was that the judge didn't understand the law and that he should have been awarded money despite the ruling for $0 - that the jury _had_ to make Randi pay if they found for the plaintiff. I doubt what he claims about the law is true (LashL?) in the least but I can imagine him thinking he was somehow vindicated for getting $1 from Randi. Hell, the USFL got $3.

He then ranted for a couple of sentences on how I could be written off because I had made spelling errors in my post and how he would not reply. I did reply and pointed out his lies, and referred to his spelling mistake in trying to correct Martin Gardener in 'The New Age'.

Byrd was an unbelievable liar even without the trial. When Gardner criticized his experimental write-up on Geller playing with Nitinol he kept magically adding controls it was obvious he didn't have in place in the first place.

[LashL]

Byrd's fourth point was that the judge didn't understand the law and that he should have been awarded money despite the ruling for $0 - that the jury _had_ to make Randi pay if they found for the plaintiff. I doubt what he claims about the law is true (LashL?) in the least but I can imagine him thinking he was somehow vindicated for getting $1 from Randi.


Your doubt is well placed, as Byrd's claim is incorrect. The judge most certainly understood the law, and Byrd does not. A judge or jury can indeed make a finding of liability and then go on to order $0 payable in damages because the assessment of liability and the assessment of damages are two distinct and separate things.

[John Jones]

I'll tell them now that the "tape" is not one of "solicitation," but
was prepared by me (and not as a wire-tap, as Mr. Curley has chosen to
believe) to trap some bad guys.

That would be the infamous Earl Gordon Curley? I thought this whole thing sounded familiar. Anyone interested can google Earl Gordon Curley. There's an unofficial holiday named for him: Google 'Kook Day'

[valis]

Without a neutral witness I suppose we will never know what happened, but honestly the lies told by the woo crowd that center around this 'tape' have dropped their credibility to nil.

Well supposedly there were a room full of neutral witnesses. That's why I find it hard to believe this hater of Randi did not press charges and that I can't find any other other accounts other than the one I linked and Randi's version. Surely Randi could clear this all up by providing the names of some other attendees, I would assume he knew at least one person there.

Randi has made a career calling out other people's dishonesty; if he is making up stories himself I would find that significant. If you publicly judge others behavior then your behavior in the same regard should be above reproach.

Just ask Jimmy Swaggart.

[kookbreaker]

Your doubt is well placed, as Byrd's claim is incorrect. The judge most certainly understood the law, and Byrd does not. A judge or jury can indeed make a finding of liability and then go on to order $0 payable in damages because the assessment of liability and the assessment of damages are two distinct and separate things.

That does not surprise me. Byrd's modus operandi was to cover his screwups and lies with even bigger lies - even to the point of claiming he knew better than experts in their field. He whined that it was his lawyer's fault and that they should have appealed the award based on Byrd's misunderstanding. Sounds like the lawyer did the sensible thing and ignored Byrd.

[sadhatter]

To me this is like someone saying " you made a porno" and me replying that indeed i was in a film that contained a sex scene but that it was not a porno.

This is no admission of being in a porno, this is a rebuttal of the porno existing. One cannot say " they have me on this one." unless the people claiming the porno exists actually show the porno.

[Thomas]

No animals were harmed during the making of this tape. The gerbil was a bit sad afterwards tho.

[kittynh]

Think of all the charlatans Randi has debunked going back decades. If there was serious dirt out there don't you think one of them would have found it?

Folks are grasping at straws with this. Let us know when someone has evidence of wrongdoing. No one here is going to come up with a magic bullet that proves a negative.

Let's just say that the people that dislike Randi have a lot of money. And Randi has cost many a psychic and "flim flam" scam artist a lot of money over the years. If there was something to it, they have the money and means to get this out there. They can't do it as it is indeed nothing.

It's interesting that a "fundie" would use this arguement. Because besides Randi there are so many other skeptic inspirations for us all. Heck, just look at a roll call of TAM speakers over the years. Also quite a few fundies have turned out to have feet of clay. Certainly just a peek at the recent "rent boy" episode (see recent Swift article by Brandon of the JREF). Now would any good Xian say "ohhh all Christianity is bad and evil because this guy took a rent boy on a vacation and lied about who he is?" Ummm, nope. If ones faith is based on a human being being perfect (and in this case I can certainly say Randi is about as perfect as any human I'm friends with! And I'm very picky in my friends) then one doesn't have faith at all. In this case I think the faith is in science and skepticism and critical thinking.

[Salerio]

How many people's chops can Randi reach? Was he standing on a chair? Unless his opponent was tiny, I would say it was hyperbole or figurative language.

I was imagining him looking like Buzz Aldrin when he twatted Bart. He had to actually reach up to thump the moron. Funny as heck because Buzz is so short

[Jontg]

(Pokes his head out of his foxhole.)
Wow. That went surprisingly well.

[Tomtomkent]

So am I the only one who thinks that the Amazing Randi Sex Tape will never be as awsome as I imagine it. In my version Randi doesn't turn up until twenty minutes in, when the two Soirety Pledges have gone back to their dorm to experiment and one says "Before we go one I have a secret." The music of that very game show plays, and everything goes black and white while the second Soriety girl guesses the secret. I wont give it away, because this room is moderated, and you will worry for my sanity...

But if the real tapes don't at least feature the great man himself producing flowers, escaping a safe and shouting "Tah dah!" then what is the point of watching them?