Randi retreats from Challenge with a man from Germany

[WWu777]

Read all about it. And see what Randi himself wrote. It's pretty pathetic.

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm

[Zep]

Aaah, yes. We discussed this over a year ago, Winston, and concluded that the letter itself is most probably a forgery due to the way the signature DOESN'T fold but the rest of the letter does. Which is kinda weird, don't you think, Winston?

But I guess that would be WAY less important to you than the fact that Randi rejected his application. Perhaps if you read here you will get the other side of the story: http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

And tell us, Winston. What sort of testing would YOU suggest be employed to ensure that this nutter is tested properly and with full scientific rigour?

[Patricio Elicer]

The case was discussed in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19874&highlight=kolodzey) , some posts by Randi himself included.

In short, an absurd claim.

[Zep]

Thank you, Patricio! I was just looking for that thread and you beat me to it.

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Zep
Aaah, yes. We discussed this over a year ago, Winston, and concluded that the letter itself is most probably a forgery due to the way the signature DOESN'T fold but the rest of the letter does. Which is kinda weird, don't you think, Winston?

But I guess that would be WAY less important to you than the fact that Randi rejected his application. Perhaps if you read here you will get the other side of the story: http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

And tell us, Winston. What sort of testing would YOU suggest be employed to ensure that this nutter is tested properly and with full scientific rigour?

W: I would suggest the same test that Richard Milton suggested in that article.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: I would suggest the same test that Richard Milton suggested in that article.
Milton's test would put Kolodzey at risk of physical harm from starvation. I'm pretty sure the JREF Challenge rules prohibit tests that may result in physical harm to the claimant, such as tests of people who claim they can fly from the tops of buildings.

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Zep
Aaah, yes. We discussed this over a year ago, Winston, and concluded that the letter itself is most probably a forgery due to the way the signature DOESN'T fold but the rest of the letter does. Which is kinda weird, don't you think, Winston?

But I guess that would be WAY less important to you than the fact that Randi rejected his application. Perhaps if you read here you will get the other side of the story: http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

And tell us, Winston. What sort of testing would YOU suggest be employed to ensure that this nutter is tested properly and with full scientific rigour?

W: Zep, I looked at the link above, but in it, Randi doesn't deny that he wrote that short letter! So there's no basis for saying that it was a forgery.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: Zep, I looked at the link above, but in it, Randi doesn't deny that he wrote that short letter! So there's no basis for saying that it was a forgery.

Let's say he did. Can you think of a test that wouldn't put this person's health at risk? Aside from the moral problems of such a test, there are legal issues too.

[Zep]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: Zep, I looked at the link above, but in it, Randi doesn't deny that he wrote that short letter! So there's no basis for saying that it was a forgery. Winston, I give you a freebie point on a plate and you didn't take it. IF YOU HAD READ THE THREAD THAT PATRICIO LINKED, you would have seen that Randi himself says it is indeed a genuine letter. See, that's how we know you don't read stuff we give you. Perhaps if you did your research better you might get more cred here, and need to post fewer silly posts.

But the letter itself is neither here nor there. The REAL point is about the testing you say has been denied.

OK, let's say that we proceed with the jail-cell idea. Please describe to me at least one way you can think of that the claimant could somehow cheat, and consume enough sustance to live while he was supposedly food-free, and still being seen on CCTV.

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Zep
Winston, I give you a freebie point on a plate and you didn't take it. IF YOU HAD READ THE THREAD THAT PATRICIO LINKED, you would have seen that Randi himself says it is indeed a genuine letter. See, that's how we know you don't read stuff we give you. Perhaps if you did your research better you might get more cred here, and need to post fewer silly posts.

But the letter itself is neither here nor there. The REAL point is about the testing you say has been denied.

OK, let's say that we proceed with the jail-cell idea. Please describe to me at least one way you can think of that the claimant could somehow cheat, and consume enough sustance to live while he was supposedly food-free, and still being seen on CCTV.

W: I did go to that link that Patricio posted, and read a few posts, but there were too many for me to read them all. I have other things to do! Shame on you for trying to set me up!

The claimant could cheat by hiding food in his clothes or by having someone deliver food to him. Common sense, and easy to block.

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Let's say he did. Can you think of a test that wouldn't put this person's health at risk? Aside from the moral problems of such a test, there are legal issues too.

W: If the test is for malnutrition, then they can measure his health. It doesn't mean he would die from it. Just see if his health worsened or not.

[Zep]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: I did go to that link that Patricio posted, and read a few posts, but there were too many for me to read them all. I have other things to do! Shame on you for trying to set me up!

The claimant could cheat by hiding food in his clothes or by having someone deliver food to him. Common sense, and easy to block. Shame on me for "setting you up"??? How about you trying to make us go look at your ultra-silly debunker-debunker sites that you "haven't even looked at yet" ha ha. Winston, if you had an ounce of sense in you, you would have been scouring that thread front to back looking for the facts of what was said, and the information would have jumped right out at you. It's what we do here - SEEK THE EVIDENCE. It takes a bit of work on your part - no-one is going to hand it to you on a plate. It demands that you work, think, absorb. Try it - you will like it.

And I see that you have now agreed that it IS possible for the person to cheat. The obvious answers too. OK, how would you stop the cheating of that kind, and therefore can you find any other way that he could still cheat.

[Zep]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: If the test is for malnutrition, then they can measure his health. It doesn't mean he would die from it. Just see if his health worsened or not. But the man would still be alive, so he has not actually "failed" the test at any time yet - he is alive and living on air and water. How long can a person live without food but with water? At what point would you agree that he is NOT living on air and water?

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Zep
Shame on me for "setting you up"??? How about you trying to make us go look at your ultra-silly debunker-debunker sites that you "haven't even looked at yet" ha ha. Winston, if you had an ounce of sense in you, you would have been scouring that thread front to back looking for the facts of what was said, and the information would have jumped right out at you. It's what we do here - SEEK THE EVIDENCE. It takes a bit of work on your part - no-one is going to hand it to you on a plate. It demands that you work, think, absorb. Try it - you will like it.

And I see that you have now agreed that it IS possible for the person to cheat. The obvious answers too. OK, how would you stop the cheating of that kind, and therefore can you find any other way that he could still cheat.

W: EVERYONE agrees that it is possible to cheat. You are setting up straw mans again, which is typical of pseudo-skeptics.

If I were setting up the test, it would be tedious for me to stop the cheating because I would have to have a guard and video camera there at all times. It would require hiring people to do it. Why are you asking me all this?

[Blue Monk]

Also if you stopped the test because the subjects health was in danger, which would be the only ethical thing to do, then the believers would use that against you and claim that you did it for fear of losing the challenge.

Even the believers in this type of challenge would have to understand that even if there were people who could do this there are also people who are delusional and it would be impossible to tell the difference until after the subject's health has been compromised.

[Zep]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: EVERYONE agrees that it is possible to cheat. You are setting up straw mans again, which is typical of pseudo-skeptics.

If I were setting up the test, it would be tedious for me to stop the cheating because I would have to have a guard and video camera there at all times. It would require hiring people to do it. Why are you asking me all this? I'm not setting up strawmen at all. I'm merely taking you through the steps required to properly test this claim to ensure that what the person claims to be able to do is exactly what they do.

Now...

Fine, you have him watched 24/7. I ask again, how could a person who is supposedly subsisting only on air and water obtain nourishment in order to stay alive, possibly indefinitely?

And by what measure for you is "indefinitely"?

For example, David Blaine supposedly lived for 40 days in a glass box hanging over the Thames only recently. Is that sufficient for your testing of this man? Note that Blaine made no claim at all to be living on water and air...

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm not setting up strawmen at all. I'm merely taking you through the steps required to properly test this claim to ensure that what the person claims to be able to do is exactly what they do.

Now...

Fine, you have him watched 24/7. I ask again, how could a person who is supposedly subsisting only on air and water obtain nourishment in order to stay alive, possibly indefinitely?

And by what measure for you is "indefinitely"?

For example, David Blaine supposedly lived for 40 days in a glass box hanging over the Thames only recently. Is that sufficient for your testing of this man? Note that Blaine made no claim at all to be living on water and air...

W: Well haven't you heard accounts of monks in Tibet who are able to meditate in sub zero temperatures with their shirts off? There are ways to control your body with different states of consciousness. It's a documented fact.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: Well haven't you heard accounts of monks in Tibet who are able to meditate in sub zero temperatures with their shirts off? There are ways to control your body with different states of consciousness. It's a documented fact.
Easily documented. Show me the document.
I'll bet there isn't one.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Easily documented. Show me the document.
I'll bet there isn't one.
Oh, there are such documents. They take the form of literature published for members of New Age organizations such as Astaria. Usually consist of travelogues in which the person relating the story has heard about monks meditating in subzero cold with their shirts off. It's all legends told by Sherpas or something. Sorta like yeti.

Scientific documentation, however, does not exist.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: Well haven't you heard accounts of monks in Tibet who are able to meditate in sub zero temperatures with their shirts off? There are ways to control your body with different states of consciousness. It's a documented fact. Well if monks can do that there is no reason why someone should not be able to live for 50 years with no food and only water.

As a side issue. Have you been a wanker all your life or is it something you have grown into ?

[Toastrider]

Shutting out physical discomfort is not a paranormal ability.

Infantry soldiers, professional sports players, and martial artists all learn to 'suck it up' and keep going.

Speaking of sports, and off topic, if you want an excellent anecdote of 'twin telepathy', check out the no-look, no-way-he-coulda-known pass during the UAB - Kentucky game. Talk about raising the hair on the back of my neck... :)

--Toasty

[Checkmite]

Let's get serious, guys. There's no way this claim COULD be tested, ethically.

Consider...this person suggests that he be locked in a cell with only water to drink, for an unspecified amount of time. I could easily do that (live on water alone), for a lengthy amount of time. But how long, exactly, does he want to stay in there? How much would it cost to watch over him in this cell for, say, a month? How much would all the tapes cost? Will the police just let their facilities be used in this manner? The JREF certainly does not have any similar facilities.

If he experiences "considerable weight loss", or asks for food, he loses. Does anybody else see the problem here? What does "considerable" mean? Interpret it the wrong way, and the JREF is bogged down in costly litigation. And we know darn well the subject won't ask for food. The only way for this guy to really lose is by wasting away until his health is so bad he has to be carried out, and that can't be ethically done. Even if it were done...I'm sorry, no waiver can exclude any group, let alone the JREF, from responsibility for holding a guy in a cell with no food until he's half dead. So our friend, when he loses, will simply sue for compensation and win most of the million anyway.

This claim is garbage.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: If the test is for malnutrition, then they can measure his health. It doesn't mean he would die from it. Just see if his health worsened or not.

Still too much potential danger. The health effects of a period of severe malnutrition can be permenant. Some folks may bounce back no problem, but many do not.

[Beleth]

As my fireman friend says, "four weeks, four days, four minutes."

Four weeks without food. Four days without water. Four minutes without air.

I was going to post something to the effect of "yeah, and how would you set up a control for this test?" when it hit me - the control part of this test is actually a necessary part of a non-injurious conclusion to the test.

There are certain types of body changes that could not go on indefinitely. Loss of fat or muscle mass, for instance. You can't just go by weight, since water is allowed.

So here's how I'd do it.

A) Control period. Weigh the claimant, take muscle and fat measurements, vital signs, all that stuff. Let him go about his daily routine, on his honor that he will ingest nothing but air and water but otherwise unsupervised, for six weeks. Every three days, take all those measurements again.

So now we have five data points as to what should happen to his body on the nothing-but-water diet.

B) Test period. Same thing except with 24/7 supervision. Restrict his movements as little as possible. If he wants to go to the gym or whatever, let him. Every three days, take his vitals again and compare them to the corresponding measurements in the control period.

The test is declared a success if, after the measurements of the sixth test week, the claimant is in the same state of health that he was at the end of the six-week control period.

The test is declared a failure if any of the following things happen:
1) The claimant declares the test is over.
2) The claimant ingests anything besides air and water.
3) The claimant goes unsupervised in an area where there might be ingestable products besides air and water.
4) The claimant develops an illness as diagnosed by a medical doctor agreed upon ahead of time.
5) The claimant's vital signs are weaker to the point of potential harm to the claimant compared to the corresponding control period in any one three-day period, as diagnosed by a medical doctor agreed upon ahead of time.
6) The claimant's vital signs are weaker than they were in the control period over any three consecutive measurement periods.

Six weeks only sounds like a long time to test someone. We all know that the actual test won't last longer than six days.

If a three-day interval is too long, it could be made into a one-day interval.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: If the test is for malnutrition, then they can measure his health. It doesn't mean he would die from it. Just see if his health worsened or not.

And if his health indeed worsened, the testers would be responsible. I see a big can of lawsuit going on in something like that.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Also if you stopped the test because the subjects health was in danger, which would be the only ethical thing to do, then the believers would use that against you and claim that you did it for fear of losing the challenge.

Indeed. His claim is that he can survive without food. Anything less than his death by starvation could be interpreted as 'surviving' regardless of the condition of his health. A test no sane person would want to carry out.

Even the believers in this type of challenge would have to understand that even if there were people who could do this there are also people who are delusional and it would be impossible to tell the difference until after the subject's health has been compromised.

Another good point.

[nineinchnails_999]

Originally posted by Beleth
As my fireman friend says, "four weeks, four days, four minutes."

Four weeks without food. Four days without water. Four minutes without air.

I was going to post something to the effect of "yeah, and how would you set up a control for this test?" when it hit me - the control part of this test is actually a necessary part of a non-injurious conclusion to the test.

There are certain types of body changes that could not go on indefinitely. Loss of fat or muscle mass, for instance. You can't just go by weight, since water is allowed.

So here's how I'd do it.

A) Control period. Weigh the claimant, take muscle and fat measurements, vital signs, all that stuff. Let him go about his daily routine, on his honor that he will ingest nothing but air and water but otherwise unsupervised, for six weeks. Every three days, take all those measurements again.

So now we have five data points as to what should happen to his body on the nothing-but-water diet.

B) Test period. Same thing except with 24/7 supervision. Restrict his movements as little as possible. If he wants to go to the gym or whatever, let him. Every three days, take his vitals again and compare them to the corresponding measurements in the control period.

The test is declared a success if, after the measurements of the sixth test week, the claimant is in the same state of health that he was at the end of the six-week control period.

The test is declared a failure if any of the following things happen:
1) The claimant declares the test is over.
2) The claimant ingests anything besides air and water.
3) The claimant goes unsupervised in an area where there might be ingestable products besides air and water.
4) The claimant develops an illness as diagnosed by a medical doctor agreed upon ahead of time.
5) The claimant's vital signs are weaker to the point of potential harm to the claimant compared to the corresponding control period in any one three-day period, as diagnosed by a medical doctor agreed upon ahead of time.
6) The claimant's vital signs are weaker than they were in the control period over any three consecutive measurement periods.

Six weeks only sounds like a long time to test someone. We all know that the actual test won't last longer than six days.

If a three-day interval is too long, it could be made into a one-day interval.

That sounds reasonable, but wouldn't the state of the claimant at the beginning of the trials be a factor? You couldn't really have one right after the other. How would the starting points be determined? Vital signs again? This could be tricky, because anything from what he ate or how much he slept before hand could affect his vital states, and the claimant might not know what the effects of that are. Is it fair to penalize him for that? It'd probably depend on how close you expected the stats to match as well. Also, six weeks, although long, is not indefinate. We can't watch the man forever though, so a limit would have to have been set anyway. How about "substantially longer than avergage?" Just a though. I know it was just a theoretical test and all the kinks weren't worked out, that just seems to me like a big issue to be worked out. Just my two cents.

I agree with the rest of you as well, that this poses too many legal and ethical problems to be seriously considered. Not to mention the fact that there would be a lot of time and money involved to sit and watch someone 24 hours a day. I think Randi was right when he said he had better things to do with his time.

Doug

[Zep]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: Well haven't you heard accounts of monks in Tibet who are able to meditate in sub zero temperatures with their shirts off? There are ways to control your body with different states of consciousness. It's a documented fact. That is a complete avoidance of the questions I asked, Winston, and you know it.

Please respond to THESE questions:I ask again, how [do YOU, Winston Wu, think] a person who is supposedly subsisting only on air and water obtain nourishment in order to stay alive, possibly indefinitely?

And by what measure for you is "indefinitely"?

For example, David Blaine supposedly lived for 40 days in a glass box hanging over the Thames only recently. Is that sufficient for your testing of this man? Note that Blaine made no claim at all to be living on water and air...

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by nineinchnails_999

I agree with the rest of you as well, that this poses too many legal and ethical problems to be seriously considered. Not to mention the fact that there would be a lot of time and money involved to sit and watch someone 24 hours a day. I think Randi was right when he said he had better things to do with his time.

Doug

And people like WWu777 will claim that Randi "ran away".

Oh wait, he did. :D

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by WWu777
Read all about it. And see what Randi himself wrote. It's pretty pathetic.

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm
Hmm. Looks to me like Randi didn't "retreat" or "run away". He basically told the fool to get stuffed. There's a world of difference.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: Well haven't you heard accounts of monks in Tibet who are able to meditate in sub zero temperatures with their shirts off? There are ways to control your body with different states of consciousness. It's a documented fact.
Yes, this can be done. I've seen it myself during Packers games at Lambeau Field. All it requires are large quantities of alcohol and a diet of cheese and beef sticks. :D

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Hmm. Looks to me like Randi didn't "retreat" or "run away". He basically told the fool to get stuffed. There's a world of difference.

One suspects that if a claimant stated that they could stick an unmodified, untampered, and loaded handgun in their mouth and fire it without harm, Randi would be immediately accused of "running away" by Winston upon telling the suicidal idiot to get lost.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


One suspects that if a claimant stated that they could stick an unmodified, untampered, and loaded handgun in their mouth and fire it without harm, Randi would be immediately accused of "running away" by Winston upon telling the suicidal idiot to get lost.

I think Randi needs to put it in the guidelines from the beginning that JREF will not test any claims that would lead to physical harm of the claimnant if they were unsuccessful. Thus, when someone comes claiming that they can survive falling out of an airplane with no parachute, Randi can just point to that clause and say, no, we don't test such claims.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Lothian
As a side issue. Have you been a wanker all your life or is it something you have grown into ?
Technically, one cannot be a wanker until puberty.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Technically, one cannot be a wanker until puberty. Tricky, I didn’t mean to imply that Wu masturbated. I am sure that if he wanted sex, with his looks, wit and charm he could go down any town centre and pay for it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Lothian
Tricky, I didn’t mean to imply that Wu masturbated. I am sure that if he wanted sex, with his looks, wit and charm he could go down any town centre and pay for it.
No, apparently not. That's why he has to solicit Russian women. Even the girls on Main Street are not that desperate.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Four days without water.I've done 7 once and 8 twice without any water or food, using techniques of prana. Also I've come across documented cases of people surviving for longer than that when they've had to in cases of emergency. So that four days is incorrect.

However the JREF is right in dismissing paranormal claims of this kind due to the possible harm that could come to a person attempting this claim and also in order to not encourage others to make similar attempts.

Also if Mr. Kolodzey's claim is true, I am sure he can find ways to prove it elsewhere, in a very carefully controlled and SAFE way that would not be made public unless scientists are able to verify the claim.

I also think that Tricky's language is quite a bit inappropriate, especially for a so called Moderator.

Just my opinions. I guess they'll end up at a split thread, like everything else I say around here.

[fromdownunder]

VisionFromFeeling is this a new power you are claiming to have - the ability to raise 5 year old threads from the dead?

Norm

[Audible Click]

nevermind

[dropzone]

I'm guessing that was the thread that triggered WWu777's "Banned due to Libel." I've seen JR (literally) libeled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel) on other boards, but I hope he has more control of his own board and can say, "Enough's enough."

[desertgal]

I've done 7 once and 8 twice without any water or food, using techniques of prana. Also I've come across documented cases of people surviving for longer than that when they've had to in cases of emergency. So that four days is incorrect.

"Four weeks without food. Four days without water. Four minutes without air" is a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast standard for every person. No one, including Beleth, said it was an absolute. You revived this thread to nitpick an adage out of context...

I also think that Tricky's language is quite a bit inappropriate, especially for a so called Moderator.

...and to take a potshot at Tricky and complain that she responded to the word "wanker" with the word "wanker" five years ago.

Good for you.

[Morrigan]

I also think that Tricky's language is quite a bit inappropriate, especially for a so called Moderator.

This thread is five years old. I'm pretty sure Tricky has been a moderator for less than a year. But hey, don't let that stop you from getting on a high horse, all while performing thread necrophilia necromancy!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've done 7 once and 8 twice without any water or food, using techniques of prana. Also I've come across documented cases of people surviving for longer than that when they've had to in cases of emergency. So that four days is incorrect.

That's nothing. This thread went 1893 days without a post.

Any chance you could try and beat that record?

[erlando]

Ma! Get the shotgun! There's zombies afoot.

[SezMe]

Holy thread ressurection, batman! Is this a record between-post period?

[Little 10 Toes]

I wonder how many Phoenix Downs were used.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I wonder how many Phoenix Downs were used.

Nerd!

(and may you get run over by a Cockobo at the next Mog crossing)

[Ashles]

I've done 7 once and 8 twice without any water or food, using techniques of prana.
No.
You.
Haven't.

What you have done there is confuse a real thing with a completely made up thing.

Not for the first time.

Without water? You couldn't even go for that long without writing the word "me".

[desertgal]

No.
You.
Haven't.

What you have done there is confuse a real thing with a completely made up thing.

Not for the first time.

Without water? You couldn't even go for that long without writing the word "me".

What was it Churchill said about fanatics - they can neither change their minds nor change the subject?

He unwittingly described narcissists, as well.

[Georg]

BREATHARIANS

In passing, on another matter, I’ll mention that because of the raucous fuss made – particularly by a chap named Richard Milton – about the JREF’s refusal to test the “breatharians” silly and life-threatening claims, I decided, and announced privately on May 19th, 2006, that I would accept the application of one Rico Kolodzey. He has been the noisiest of the no-food claimants, and Milton apparently accepts his claim that he lives on water alone, and has done so for decades. Yes, read that again, so you’ll appreciate my dilemma. In the 100 days since, we’ve been fussing over an appropriate and acceptable protocol, and getting nowhere. This is quite what I’ve come to accept; consider the Lou Gentile matter. Lou made a huge noise over not being tested, and finally retreated, as have so many, many, others, when given the green light. I’m giving Kolodzey the opportunity of joining this bunch under what I’ve decided to call, The Sylvia Browne Rock, where grubby folks hide when confronted by the JREF challenge.

from here. (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/082506yet.html#i2)