Randi on tape admitting firewalkers are true?!??

[EGarrett]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3999493355358083404&q=randi

Slide your cursor over to about 22 minutes into the video. They show some edited footage of Randi watching firewalkers in a village, then examining their feet and saying something along the effects of "no way I could do that, and his sole isn't any tougher than mine!" then they cut to him shaking hands with the people as though he'd admitted defeat.

Uhhhh...what's the story behind that? What was Randi doing...how was he edited and has he commented on this?

[The Atheist]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3999493355358083404&q=randi

Slide your cursor over to about 22 minutes into the video. They show some edited footage of Randi watching firewalkers in a village, then examining their feet and saying something along the effects of "no way I could do that, and his sole isn't any tougher than mine!" then they cut to him shaking hands with the people as though he'd admitted defeat.

Uhhhh...what's the story behind that? What was Randi doing...how was he edited and has he commented on this?Mate, firewalking isn't paranormal, it's science. Read all about it in Randi's online encyclopaedia (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/fire%20walking.html)

[CFLarsen]

It depends on how they claim not to be burned.

[CFLarsen]

They walk a very short distance, albeit slower than what we usually see.

I did notice that, at the end, they kick up the dust. They could very well remove some of the coals (it looks more like very small pieces of embers, buried in an increasing amount of ashes).

Randi seems baffled? Perhaps he didn't know the explanation at that time? So? He does now.

[Patricio Elicer]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3999493355358083404&q=randi

Slide your cursor over to about 22 minutes into the video. They show some edited footage of Randi watching firewalkers in a village, then examining their feet and saying something along the effects of "no way I could do that, and his sole isn't any tougher than mine!" then they cut to him shaking hands with the people as though he'd admitted defeat.

Uhhhh...what's the story behind that? What was Randi doing...how was he edited and has he commented on this?First off, the video is cut on that segment, as you pointed out. Some bits are clearly edited out, so based on that video alone, there's no way of knowing the full context in which Randi said what he said. He looks baffled indeed, but maybe not because he thought he saw anything paranormal, but because of how courageous those guys were to do that.

I've seen so many purposedly edited misleading videos, that I simply don't trust in them, unless I'm sure it's a full unedited version.

[jimtron]

Firewalkers are "true." What's wrong with admitting that?

[The Atheist]

Firewalkers are "true." What's wrong with admitting that?Quite right! You need more South Pacificans in here, the phenomenon is well-known and understood down here. I'd have to try and find links, but a few years ago, a couple of Kiwi scientists set up and completed a firewalk to show how it works - as stated in the Randi link above, it's all about the glowing embers being covered in a layer of fine ash which protects the feet as long as the walker doesn't stop.

Hot variation of the bed of nails. Looks cool though, you can feel the heat from the bed of coals, so it's very impressive close up.

[Darat]

Actually it rather undermines all the various "Randi would never admit...." or "Randi denies evidence..." claims made about Randi.

If the video is edited in an fair manner we can see that he did not have an explanation for what they could do, he observed it, could find no evidence of trickery, he didn't try to deny what they did, he didn't come up with a theory like "soles are thickened" or anything he just honestly admitted he just didn't know and couldn't explain it.

Today I suspect his reaction would be different since he has learnt since then about the physics that makes what seems quite an astonishing feat rather a mundane and explainable feat.

Have to say even though I've now done it twice (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/firewalk.htm) (so not only do I have the understanding of the physics behind it but also personal experience) if I was asked to do it again I know that when I saw in the dark the glowing bed of embers I would still have to take a deep breath before I started to walk across!

[jimtron]

They show some edited footage of Randi watching firewalkers in a village, then examining their feet and saying something along the effects of "no way I could do that, and his sole isn't any tougher than mine!" then they cut to him shaking hands with the people as though he'd admitted defeat.

I'll bet Randi can't water ski barefoot either. I guess barefoot waterskiers must have paranormal abilities.

[Windom]

I've seen so many purposedly edited misleading videos, that I simply don't trust in them, unless I'm sure it's a full unedited version.

According to "Demon haunted world", Carl Sagan once said something like "oh, right, then alien abductions must happen every 3 seconds in USA alone". He was quoted on some ufo-TV-show in a context "see? Sagan believes too!".

(if I remember everything correctly)

[Rodney]

Actually it rather undermines all the various "Randi would never admit...." or "Randi denies evidence..." claims made about Randi.

If the video is edited in an fair manner we can see that he did not have an explanation for what they could do, he observed it, could find no evidence of trickery, he didn't try to deny what they did, he didn't come up with a theory like "soles are thickened" or anything he just honestly admitted he just didn't know and couldn't explain it. The problem is that Randi now refuses to concede that he was as baffled as he appeared on the video. As I recently noted on the "Fire' Walking Questions/Observations" thread: "If I'm wrong that he had no explanation to offer, it's incumbent upon him to produce some evidence supporting his position that NBC edited the tape in a misleading fashion. Otherwise, I think fair-minded skeptics can be forgiven if they believe Randi is being deceptive here." See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1951393#post1951393

[Darat]

The problem is that Randi now refuses to concede that he was as baffled as he appeared on the video. As I recently noted on the "Fire' Walking Questions/Observations" thread: "If I'm wrong that he had no explanation to offer, it's incumbent upon him to produce some evidence supporting his position that NBC edited the tape in a misleading fashion. Otherwise, I think fair-minded skeptics can be forgiven if they believe Randi is being deceptive here." See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1951393#post1951393

The post you link to is just a slightly extended repetition of this post - what evidence is it meant to be of deception by Randi?

[Jekyll]

The problem is that Randi now refuses to concede that he was as baffled as he appeared on the video. As I recently noted on the "Fire' Walking Questions/Observations" thread: "If I'm wrong that he had no explanation to offer, it's incumbent upon him to produce some evidence supporting his position that NBC edited the tape in a misleading fashion. Otherwise, I think fair-minded skeptics can be forgiven if they believe Randi is being deceptive here." See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1951393#post1951393

The actual post where you quote what Randi has said is here:

I have now had two e-mail exchanges with Randi. His position is that NBC, which produced the firewalking documentary, edited out the following statement after his "I don't know, it's got me buffaloed" comment: "But I'm sure that with some careful investigation, we'd come up with a solution." I responded that, in addition to the "buffaloed" comment, Randi can also be heard on the documentary congratulating one of the firewalkers for a "most impressive" performance and stating about the sole of a firewalker's foot: "That sole is no tougher than mine; that's no tougher than mine and yet the man can do it. I don't think I could." I told him that the burden is on him to prove that NBC edited the documentary inappropriately, but he responded that he is not required to satisfy any such burden. He contended, however, that the original NBC tape doubtless exists to prove his point, and so I suggested that he try and obtain a copy of it.

At no point in the email exchange you copied does he suggest that he wasn't baffled, but he was confident that a explanation exists even if he didn't know what it was then.

[Psi Baba]

It's also possible that Randi understood quite well how it worked, but his "I don't think I could [do it]" comment merely meant that while he knew how to do it, he didn't feel he had the nerve to actually try it himself.

[Darat]

It's also possible that Randi understood quite well how it worked, but his "I don't think I could [do it]" comment merely meant that while he knew how to do it, he didn't feel he had the nerve to actually try it himself.


Given the clip as it was shown I would say that Randi looks and acts baffled.

[Rodney]

At no point in the email exchange you copied does he suggest that he wasn't baffled, but he was confident that a explanation exists even if he didn't know what it was then. Randi stated to me: "Yes, I did make the statement about being 'buffaloed' in an NBC documentary -- but the rest of my statement was edited out. I'd followed that sentence with: 'But I'm sure that with some careful investigation, we'd come up with a solution.' NBC didn't want, so didn't use, that part of my statement; they wanted a mystery to remain, one that seemingly had the magician stunned." "Seemingly"? And the mystery did not remain?

Further, according to the website http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/two.html
-- "As to Fijian firewalking, he [Randi] says he never said he couldn't explain it, and in fact he has done the firewalking himself!" Now, Randi told me in his e-mail that the firewalking he observed took place on Sri Lanka, not Fiji, and that, in fact, he has never firewalked, and so perhaps the website's author also got the part wrong about Randi telling the author "he never said he couldn't explain it." If that's the case, however, it would be nice if Randi were to e-mail the author to set the record straight, rather than have the website continue to promote the notion that Randi had firewalking figured out from the beginning. Don't you think Randi would have done this if that website were not a "skeptical" one that supports his position, but rather was a "believer's" website that supports his opponents' position?

[Darat]

Randi stated to me: "Yes, I did make the statement about being 'buffaloed' in an NBC documentary -- but the rest of my statement was edited out. I'd followed that sentence with: 'But I'm sure that with some careful investigation, we'd come up with a solution.' NBC didn't want, so didn't use, that part of my statement; they wanted a mystery to remain, one that seemingly had the magician stunned." "Seemingly"? And the mystery did not remain?


...snip...

Rodney do you have any evidence for saying that Randi has or is being deceptive over this video - so far you have not presented any.

[Rodney]

Rodney do you have any evidence for saying that Randi has or is being deceptive over this video - so far you have not presented any. I disagree. It's deceptive to say that NBC "wanted a mystery to remain, one that seemingly had the magician stunned." The best evidence is that, at that time, there was a mystery and Randi was stunned. If Randi said something to solve the mystery or that would indicate he wasn't stunned and that was edited out, he needs to produce evidence.

[Darat]

I disagree. It's deceptive to say that NBC "wanted a mystery to remain, one that seemingly had the magician stunned."
...snip...

How is that deceptive? At worse it could be seen as just Randi's opinion.

I was at a taping of TV show a week or so ago - they may edit what I said because the show's producers want a particular view to come across. There is nothing unusual about that and it wouldn't be deceptive of me to say "yes but I also said blah but they didn't want to use that".

[Reager]

It's also possible that Randi understood quite well how it worked, but his "I don't think I could [do it]" comment merely meant that while he knew how to do it, he didn't feel he had the nerve to actually try it himself.

Given that we are speaking about a man who has escaped from a straight jacket while hanging above Niagara Falls, I don't think nerves would be an issue. ;-)

[Yahzi]

I disagree. It's deceptive to say that NBC "wanted a mystery to remain, one that seemingly had the magician stunned." The best evidence is that, at that time, there was a mystery and Randi was stunned. If Randi said something to solve the mystery or that would indicate he wasn't stunned and that was edited out, he needs to produce evidence.
The deception was in editing out Randi's comment.

Randi said, "I dunno, but I bet there's a reason."

NBC had him say, "I dunno."

If you can't see the difference between those two statements, you are just being partisan.

Randi's comments strike me as perfectly legitimate: at the time he was baffled, but he knew there was some logical explanation. Nowhere do I see Randi denying this. You are making a mountain out of an imaginary mole-hill.

I survived the Casey thread, but not this one. Welcome to /ignore.

[Rodney]

The deception was in editing out Randi's comment.

Randi said, "I dunno, but I bet there's a reason."
What proof do you or anyone else here have that he said that?

I survived the Casey thread, but not this one. Welcome to /ignore. I guess I've made the big-time. ;) By the way, it's Cayce.

[Reager]

What proof do you or anyone else here have that he said that?

In a situation like this, the only "proof" we'll ever have is he-said/20-year-old-tv-show-said (barring acquiring the raw footage from who-knows-where, or tracking down witnesses). Now which is more probable, that the producers of a television special on the paranormal edited the words of a skeptic, or...wait, how is that ever NOT the most likely possibility?

[LTC8K6]

The tape is obviously cut after "buffaloed". Why is anyone claiming it's not edited?

[LTC8K6]

All you've shown is that Randi did not know how firewalking worked.

[jimtron]

All you've shown is that Randi did not know how firewalking worked.

Right. Arguably Randi, at that time, didn't know how the firewalkers walked on hot coals without getting badly burned. And it's possible that Randi cannot firewalk (but I'd bet he can). So what? That certainly does not prove that firewalking is paranormal, and afaik, Randi never claimed to know everything.

So what is the significance of this argument, if any?

[Rodney]

In a situation like this, the only "proof" we'll ever have is he-said/20-year-old-tv-show-said (barring acquiring the raw footage from who-knows-where, or tracking down witnesses). Now which is more probable, that the producers of a television special on the paranormal edited the words of a skeptic, or...wait, how is that ever NOT the most likely possibility? The problem is that the video shows Randi: (1) saying he was "buffaloed"; (2) congratulating one of the firewalkers for a "most impressive" demonstration; and (3) saying "I don't think I could" [firewalk]. So, it does not seem all that probable that he would also say that he thought there was a logical explanation. If he thought that, why didn't he think he could firewalk?

[jimtron]

The problem is that the video shows Randi: (1) saying he was "buffaloed"; (2) congratulating one of the firewalkers for a "most impressive" demonstration; and (3) saying "I don't think I could" [firewalk]. So, it does not seem all that probable that he would also say that he thought there was a logical explanation. If he thought that, why didn't he think he could firewalk?


OK, apparently Randi said he was buffaloed and found the demo most impressive. At the time he apparently didn't think he could firewalk. So what? What are you getting at? Are you arguing that Randi believed or believes that firewalking is done by paranormal means? Or simply that he doesn't readily have the answer to everything? Or something else?

[RSLancastr]

The problem is that the video shows Randi: (1) saying he was "buffaloed"; (2) congratulating one of the firewalkers for a "most impressive" demonstration; and (3) saying "I don't think I could" [firewalk]. So, it does not seem all that probable that he would also say that he thought there was a logical explanation. If he thought that, why didn't he think he could firewalk?Mr. Randi is a magician.

If he sees another magician performing a trick which he cannot figure out, do you think he assumes there is paranormal activity afoot?

He saw a trick, did not know the secret behind it, and so said that he doubted he could do it. I think it is pretty obvious from context (and from Mr. Randi's track record both before and since), that he meant that he didn't think he could do it right then.

As it turned out, the trick is so simple that anyone who can walk at a reasonable pace (and who has a sufficient amount of nerve) can do it, but Mr. Randi did not know that at the time.

[Richard]

There is another aspect to ‘native’ fire walking I’d like to point out. When I was but a lad in my early 20s, I went to Fiji for a vacation. Wonderful place. I did not see any fire walking but I did go on a walk with a native guide through the rain forest. I wore sandals, the guide, a man of about 20, was bare foot. At one point my sandal broke. Within 10 minutes I was in pain and getting blisters as we walked over rocks, gravel, hot sand etc. The guide was fine. When we got back to the hotel, I was hobbling. The point is, my guide had very tough feet indeed having spend most of his life bare foot. I would imagine that many natives who do fire walking would also have feet, far tougher than a shoe wearing westerner like me. This would almost certainly help to some extent in acts of fire walking.

Here is a photo of me during that walk way back in 1989.

[Rodney]

OK, apparently Randi said he was buffaloed and found the demo most impressive. At the time he apparently didn't think he could firewalk. So what? What are you getting at? Are you arguing that Randi believed or believes that firewalking is done by paranormal means? Or simply that he doesn't readily have the answer to everything? Or something else?I believe that Randi was convinced that firewalking was a hoax when he went to Sri Lanka many years ago. He therefore thought he could expose it as such. When he realized that it wasn't a hoax, he didn't necessarily think anything paranormal was taking place, but he was bewildered.

If I'm correct, I think he should simply admit that's what happened, rather than try and rewrite history. If I'm wrong and there was some biased editing by NBC, I think he should gather some evidence supporting his case. The unedited NBC footage would be best, but if that's not available, a witness or two that supports his version of events would be a decent substitute.

[jimtron]

When he realized that it wasn't a hoax, he didn't necessarily think anything paranormal was taking place, but he was bewildered.
He may have been impressed and bewildered, but how do you know he "realized that it wasn't a hoax"? He may have been at a loss for an immediate explanation, but that doesn't mean he had ruled out that it could be a hoax.

If I'm correct, I think he should simply admit that's what happened, rather than try and rewrite history. If I'm wrong and there was some biased editing by NBC, I think he should gather some evidence supporting his case. The unedited NBC footage would be best, but if that's not available, a witness or two that supports his version of events would be a decent substitute.
When you say he should admit what happened, what are you getting at? What did happen? He was at a loss for an immediate explanation? Big deal. If you think something more significant happened, the onus is on you to show evidence of wrongdoing , or whatever it is you're getting at. I don't see why he should bother.

Again, what is it that you thinkRandi is guilty of here?

eta: I don't know if I'd call firewalking a hoax, it's more of a puzzle. Firewalkers say they can walk on hot coals without getting badly burned; and that's the truth. That can seem impossible or mystical or extremely difficult if you don't know the reality of how firewalking works.

[Rodney]

Again, what is it that you thinkRandi is guilty of here?Pretending that he had no doubt from the beginning that firewalking is real and can be explained by the laws of physics.

[EGarrett]

Now that I think about it...let's just be thankful no one ever quoted him as saying "That man's SOUL is no tougher than mine."

There is another aspect to ‘native’ fire walking I’d like to point out. When I was but a lad in my early 20s, I went to Fiji for a vacation. Wonderful place. I did not see any fire walking but I did go on a walk with a native guide through the rain forest. I wore sandals, the guide, a man of about 20, was bare foot. At one point my sandal broke. Within 10 minutes I was in pain and getting blisters as we walked over rocks, gravel, hot sand etc. The guide was fine. When we got back to the hotel, I was hobbling. The point is, my guide had very tough feet indeed having spend most of his life bare foot. I would imagine that many natives who do fire walking would also have feet, far tougher than a shoe wearing westerner like me. This would almost certainly help to some extent in acts of fire walking.

Here is a photo of me during that walk way back in 1989.:) Monty Python goes to the Jungle?

[jimtron]

Pretending that he had no doubt from the beginning that firewalking is real and can be explained by the laws of physics.
Randi is very skeptical of paranormal claims. I would bet that he never thought that firewalking involved defying the laws of physics. Was he possibly unsure of how the firewalking was done? Yes, that may be true. Did he ever, for a moment, think that firewalking was paranormal, or defied the laws of physics? I highly doubt it, but if you have evidence, please cite it.

Again, just because he couldn't necessarily readily explain it, doesn't mean that he assumed it defied physics as we know it. Does he seem to you like the kind of person who would assume that firewalking must be paranormal if he couldn't immediately determine the "secret"?

[Rodney]

Randi is very skeptical of paranormal claims. I would bet that he never thought that firewalking involved defying the laws of physics. Was he possibly unsure of how the firewalking was done? Yes, that may be true. Did he ever, for a moment, think that firewalking was paranormal, or defied the laws of physics? I highly doubt it, but if you have evidence, please cite it.

Again, just because he couldn't necessarily readily explain it, doesn't mean that he assumed it defied physics as we know it. Does he seem to you like the kind of person who would assume that firewalking must be paranormal if he couldn't immediately determine the "secret"?No, you misunderstood. I stated two posts ago: "I believe that Randi was convinced that firewalking was a hoax when he went to Sri Lanka many years ago. He therefore thought he could expose it as such. When he realized that it wasn't a hoax, he didn't necessarily think anything paranormal was taking place, but he was bewildered."

My point is that I think Randi switched positions on firewalking from "hoax" to "explainable by the laws of physics" without admitting that he switched positions.

[Jeff Corey]

No, you misunderstood. I stated two posts ago: "I believe that Randi was convinced that firewalking was a hoax when he went to Sri Lanka many years ago. He therefore thought he could expose it as such. When he realized that it wasn't a hoax, he didn't necessarily think anything paranormal was taking place, but he was bewildered."

My point is that I think Randi switched positions on firewalking from "hoax" to "explainable by the laws of physics" without admitting that he switched positions.
I would need some concete evidence to buy the assertion that Randi switched positions. Do you have any? Other than your belief?

[WhiteLion]

he didn't necessarily think anything paranormal was taking place, but he was bewildered.

Yes well I get bewildered by illusionists at times, doesn't mean I believe it's actual magic.

[Mercutio]

No, you misunderstood. I stated two posts ago: "I believe that Randi was convinced that firewalking was a hoax when he went to Sri Lanka many years ago. He therefore thought he could expose it as such. When he realized that it wasn't a hoax, he didn't necessarily think anything paranormal was taking place, but he was bewildered."

My point is that I think Randi switched positions on firewalking from "hoax" to "explainable by the laws of physics" without admitting that he switched positions.

Um... "hoax" is "explainable by the laws of physics". Contrast both of them with "it is a paranormal 'mind over matter' thing". If that was what was being claimed, then showing that it is explainable by physics is the same thing as showing the claimed explanation is a hoax.

[Rodney]

I would need some concete evidence to buy the assertion that Randi switched positions. Do you have any? Other than your belief?It's a logical inference. If Randi had thought firewalking was not a hoax, but rather a real phenomenon explainable by the laws of physics, he would not have: 1) said he was buffaloed, 2) said he didn't think he could firewalk, and 3) praised a firewalker for a most impressive demonstration.

[Jeff Corey]

That's not a logical inference. That's your belief. Two different things.

[WhiteLion]

It's a logical inference. If Randi had thought firewalking was not a hoax, but rather a real phenomenon explainable by the laws of physics, he would not have: 1) said he was buffaloed, 2) said he didn't think he could firewalk, and 3) praised a firewalker for a most impressive demonstration.

1.) Why not, Randi's got a million tricks up his sleave that buffaloes me, I know paranormal claims attached to such tricks are hoaxes, and it's explainable by laws of physics in a sense.
2.)Well tricks might be easy but I sure as heck fire can't repeat them all.
3.)I praise Randi for being a skilled conjurer and trickster, so what?

[Rodney]

1.) Why not, Randi's got a million tricks up his sleave that buffaloes me, I know paranormal claims attached to such tricks are hoaxes, and it's explainable by laws of physics in a sense.
2.)Well tricks might be easy but I sure as heck fire can't repeat them all.
3.)I praise Randi for being a skilled conjurer and trickster, so what?You're making my point because firewalking isn't a trick. So, when Randi realized that, the video seems to show that he was clueless. If he's got some evidence to refute that seeming fact, he needs to supply it.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Firewalking isn't a trick?

[Darat]

You're making my point because firewalking isn't a trick. So, when Randi realized that, the video seems to show that he was clueless. If he's got some evidence to refute that seeming fact, he needs to supply it.

Clueless does not mean the same as believing that the only explanation was paranormal.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's a logical inference. If Randi had thought firewalking was not a hoax, but rather a real phenomenon explainable by the laws of physics, he would not have: 1) said he was buffaloed, 2) said he didn't think he could firewalk, and 3) praised a firewalker for a most impressive demonstration.

The point people are trying to make is that "hoax" is a subset of "things explainable by physics".

Randi may well have gone to see the firewalking having guessed that it was a hoax and that somehow they were not really walking on hot coals at all. That would not be an illogical guess if you did not know how it actually worked. Then when he got there and could not discern how it was done, it would be equally logical to say "Wow, I don't know how they did that".

What I think the OP wants is to believe that Randi was temporarily convinced that the firewalkers had supernatural powers, because that would make Randi seem more fallible. Without being mind readers we will probably never know, but Randi has always seemed rational and a rational person confronted with firewalking does not fix the belief that supernatural powers are involved.

[Rodney]

Randi may well have gone to see the firewalking having guessed that it was a hoax and that somehow they were not really walking on hot coals at all. That would not be an illogical guess if you did not know how it actually worked. Then when he got there and could not discern how it was done, it would be equally logical to say "Wow, I don't know how they did that".I agree with your analysis. The problem is that, to my knowledge, Randi has never admitted that he changed his position about firewalking after he witnessed it and did some research on it.

[delphi_ote]

I agree with your analysis. The problem is that, to my knowledge, Randi has never admitted that he changed his position about firewalking after he witnessed it and did some research on it.
a) How do you know your assumption that he changed his mind is correct? It's not clear that is the case at all.

b) If you are correct, why would he need to admit this? What is the point?

c) Even if he should admit it, how do you know he hasn't admitted it? I actually tracked down the video in question. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1741668#post1741668) For all your bloviating on this subject, you haven't done much research yourself to actually figure out what's going on. You seem to be complaining and nothing more. Forgive me if I don't put much weight behind your assertions.

[Rodney]

a) How do you know your assumption that he changed his mind is correct? It's not clear that is the case at all. Delphi, old friend, I thought you had me on ignore. ;) And where is Ursula? But I digress. I've already explained my position: If Randi had not thought firewalking was a hoax prior to his trip to Sri Lanka, but rather thought it was readily explainable by the laws of physics (low specific heat of the coals, etc.), why did he: 1) say he was buffaloed, 2) say he didn't think he could firewalk, and 3) praise a firewalker for a most impressive demonstration?

b) If you are correct, why would he need to admit this? What is the point? To show that he's an honest skeptic, rather than a know-it-all one.

c) Even if he should admit it, how do you know he hasn't admitted it? He didn't admit it to me in our e-mail exchange.

I actually tracked down the video in question. And I am in your debt.

For all your bloviating on this subject, you haven't done much research yourself to actually figure out what's going on. You seem to be complaining and nothing more. Forgive me if I don't put much weight behind your assertions.I actually put in quite a bit of time, including e-mailing NBC's Universal Studios to obtain a copy of the video, but made no headway. But I'm pleased we're one big happy family here and can assist each other. :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree with your analysis. The problem is that, to my knowledge, Randi has never admitted that he changed his position about firewalking after he witnessed it and did some research on it.

What you just did there was slide from "guess" to "position". I characterised Randi's (hypothetical) thoughts on the matter as a guess that somehow they were not really walking on hot coals, but you redefined that as a position, which sounds a lot more like something one should have to defend.

I don't feel obliged to defend a first guess at a problem's solution, or for that matter disseminate a public apology if my first guess is wrong. It's just a guess.

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, old friend, I thought you had me on ignore. ;)
And why would you think something like that?
I've already explained my position: If Randi had not thought firewalking was a hoax prior to his trip to Sri Lanka, but rather thought it was readily explainable by the laws of physics (low specific heat of the coals, etc.), why did he: 1) say he was buffaloed, 2) say he didn't think he could firewalk, and 3) praise a firewalker for a most impressive demonstration?
Reasonable explainations have been given for these facts by other posters and by Mr. Randi himself in your e-mail exchange. You're the one calling the man dishonest. Right now you're doing it based on an assumption. If you want this accusation to stand, contact the television studio and try to track down those tapes. Otherwise, let it rest. You're trying to ruin a man's good reputation based on a guess.
To show that he's an honest skeptic, rather than a know-it-all one.
Randi has admitted time and time again when he's been mistaken in his commentary threads. My experience with him have shown that he's quite willing (though understandably reluctant sometimes) to own up to his mistakes. If he screwed up here, I can't see why he would feel a need to hide it from anyone.
He didn't admit it to me in our e-mail exchange.
Which does not imply he has never admitted it. As I said, you've not convinced me you have any desire to actually get to the bottom of this. You endlessly harp on it, and not much more.

[Mercutio]

It's a logical inference. If Randi had thought firewalking was not a hoax, but rather a real phenomenon explainable by the laws of physics, he would not have: 1) said he was buffaloed, 2) said he didn't think he could firewalk, and 3) praised a firewalker for a most impressive demonstration.
Um..did you miss this?
Um... "hoax" is "explainable by the laws of physics". Contrast both of them with "it is a paranormal 'mind over matter' thing". If that was what was being claimed, then showing that it is explainable by physics is the same thing as showing the claimed explanation is a hoax.Randi would have been investigating a claim that firewalking was not explainable by the laws of physics, no? If the claim was true, it would have been an instance of a paranormal phenomenon. If the claim were a simple hoax, it would be explainable by straightforward physics, or perhaps through slight-of-hand (or foot). In "Miracle Mongers and their Methods" by Harry Houdini, chapter 5 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=HouMirM.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=5&division=div1) and chapter 6 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=HouMirM.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=6&division=div1) describe various different effects and methods regarding fire-eating. These methods, in which someone is doing something that is not what it appears, are hoaxes. The true explanations are consistent with the laws of physics.

When Randi saw actual firewalking, my guess is that he saw that it was neither a hoax in the same sense as these fire-eating tricks (that is, people actually did walk on coals), nor was it something he could immediately explain. (I know he is familiar with Houdini's book, so he'd have recognized any similar hoax immediately.) Thus, he was "buffaloed", in that he did not know the physics behind the legitimate firewalking performance, was legitimately impressed by the demonstration, and (quite sanely, if he did not know the physics behind the demo) would not have felt confident that he could have done the same. There is nothing in this that says he does not expect a perfectly rational explanation to be forthcoming. (Indeed, an early explanation for firewalking was the Leidenfrost Effect, which was a perfectly good explanation, consistent with physical laws, easily demonstrable... and wrong. It relies on wet feet, and the fact is that wet feet are not necessary to firewalk. We now know the answer, but it would have been dishonest for Randi to have claimed that he did at the time.)

[WhiteLion]

You're making my point because firewalking isn't a trick. So, when Randi realized that, the video seems to show that he was clueless. If he's got some evidence to refute that seeming fact, he needs to supply it.

I do not understand what you're trying to assess here?
A moment of cluelessness isn't a cater of belief in any direction.

But, as a digressive side-line curiosa, much like when our senses get cut off, for example when staying in a completely dark room with no sound or vision, laying on a bed-heep of cotton, the mind halucinates.
This is oft quite comparable when people are faced with events, tricks, stunts etc that we can not understand, the mind really wants to understand, it hates uncertainty, and if there is no logical explaination at hand most people tend to attach to an illogical explaination, paranormal/supernatural/religious and so forth.

Randi however didn't not attach to any such illogical beliefs of what happend, he might have been for a brief moment, puzzled by what just happend.

Just like I was with most of Derren Brown's endeavoring stunts, I knew there was a logical explaination, I just didn't know what kind.

Also, how do you refute a "seeming fact", isn't that an oxymoron btw?

[Rodney]

I do not understand what you're trying to assess here?
A moment of cluelessness isn't a cater of belief in any direction.

But, as a digressive side-line curiosa, much like when our senses get cut off, for example when staying in a completely dark room with no sound or vision, laying on a bed-heep of cotton, the mind halucinates.
This is oft quite comparable when people are faced with events, tricks, stunts etc that we can not understand, the mind really wants to understand, it hates uncertainty, and if there is no logical explaination at hand most people tend to attach to an illogical explaination, paranormal/supernatural/religious and so forth.

Randi however didn't not attach to any such illogical beliefs of what happend, he might have been for a brief moment, puzzled by what just happend.

Just like I was with most of Derren Brown's endeavoring stunts, I knew there was a logical explaination, I just didn't know what kind.

Also, how do you refute a "seeming fact", isn't that an oxymoron btw?I'm leaving open the possibility that NBC misrepresented Randi's true reaction to firewalking, even though there is no evidence of that. However, the thing that I would think might trouble folks here, but apparently does not, is that Randi appears on the video to be befuddled by firewalking, but as far as I know has never admitted to that. John Shirley, who claims to have spoken with Randi "several times", states on his website: "As to Fijian firewalking, he [Randi] says he never said he couldn't explain it." See http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/two.html

[delphi_ote]

I'm leaving open the possibility that NBC misrepresented Randi's true reaction to firewalking, even though there is no evidence of that. However, the thing that I would think might trouble folks here, but apparently does not, is that Randi appears on the video to be befuddled by firewalking, but as far as I know has never admitted to that. John Shirley, who claims to have spoken with Randi "several times", states on his website: "As to Fijian firewalking, he [Randi] says he never said he couldn't explain it." See http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/two.html
Did he ever say he couldn't explain it? We don't know right now. We have no idea as to what the context of those quotes might be.

Did he actually say the things Shirley claims? We don't know that either.

Why is it you're assuming the worst of Randi every time there's incomplete data? You're still attacking a man's reputation based on suppositions. If you don't have more than that, either get the evidence or let it rest.