Is the Master a fraud?

[SpectorDetector]

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm


Sometimes who you believe is almost as important as what you believe.


Obiwan Kenobi ~"Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows it?"

[JimTheBrit]

...That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it...
...Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges...
...Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled...
Randi:In fact, there is no need for any type of subjective arbitration to decide if the tests have been passed or not, the results will be self-evident. “No judging procedure or statistical analysis will be necessary to decide whether or not the claim had been proved. The result would be "obvious for any observer." (http://www.randi.org/jr/03-27-2000.html)

...No matter how potent the published evidence, how incontestable the facts or rigorous the precautions against fraud, the number, qualifications or expertise of the witnesses and investigators, the duration, thoroughness and frequency of their tests or (where statistical evaluation is possible) the astronomical odds against a chance explanation: all must be ignored....
With so much evidence to support the phenomenon, finding a person to pass the challenge should be a simple task, yes?

...Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel...
Randi's response: http://www.randi.org/jr/05-18-2001.html

[SpectorDetector]

How can anyone believe someone as deceptive and rude as Mr Randi ? He has shown the Million Dollar hoax to be just that.
He is just as pathetic as the woowoos he debunks.

The Million Dollar Challenge is a farce .

It depends upon controling phenomenon this is not consistant and has never been controled. It is also subjective based upon the examiners views . If I could snap my fingers and make an apparition appear , James Randi and his million would be bottom feeders in the pool of interested parties.

Mr. Randi uses the Million Dollar challenge to market his brand of skeptic garbage to the world with no intention of ever giving up the million. After all , if he had to get up off the money his marketing ploy would be as usless as John Edwards predictions.

The Master is definitly a fraud and those who follow are just as foolish. lol
:roll:


P.S. Read the entire article and related links , not just what suits your skeptical side. :rolleyes:

[gnome]

Well we could go through the entire contents about the challenge deficiencies (your article in italics):

Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it.

What is done with the test data has nothing to do with the pronouncement of the result.

From the challenge:

In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000.

It does not say "if Randi says the claimant is successful." If the claimant succeeds, and Randi declares it a failure... he is breaching the agreement and is open to a lawsuit for the million if the claimant actually did succeed.

Once clear purpose of this clause that I can think of is so that Randi can publish the results, esp. if the claimant makes statements as to what happened that Randi would like to provide evidence to refute.

Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy.

Incorrect also, as this ignores the last statement of Article 7:

This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

Here he expressly states which damages the claimant is waiving, and specifically excludes the awarding of the prize itself. A claimant who feels that the agreement has been breached has every right to seek remedy in court and has agreed to nothing that waives that right.

First, his rules are confined to a single, live applicant. No matter how potent the published evidence, how incontestable the facts or rigorous the precautions against fraud, the number, qualifications or expertise of the witnesses and investigators, the duration, thoroughness and frequency of their tests or (where statistical evaluation is possible) the astronomical odds against a chance explanation: all must be ignored. Mr. Randi thrusts every case into the bin labelled 'anecdotal' (which means not written down), and thereby believes he may safely avoid any invitation to account for them.

It seems clear to me that if the test is to follow an agreed-upon protocol, that it must be performed after the conditions are agreed on... how is that unfair? Next paragraph, same problem.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
If I could snap my fingers and make an apparition appear . . . .

Originally from a friend's mom
"If buzzards had harmonicas up their asses, there'd be music in the air."

[SpectorDetector]

Is that the best you can come up with ? And not even your own remark . Pathetic ;(


"If buzzards had harmonicas up their asses, there'd be music in the air."

"If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle ".




While you address the points of the so-called challenge , you totally ignore the facts about Mr. Randi using the Million Dollar challenge to promote his opinions . Hes a fraud and so is the Million dollar challenge.

If you can manage it without blowing your own mind , reverse your position and take a look at the outline of the challenge . Then ask yourself if James Randi is using the challenge to promote his own nonsense . If you fairly reverse your view , you will see how James Randi is as much an attention whore as John Edward and Sylvia Brown .

If the true nature of a critical thinker is to discover facts through percise calculation , then one can easily see through James Randi as easily as John Edward.



In the words of John Stossel " Give me a break " :rolleyes:

[Brown]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
How can anyone believe someone as deceptive and rude as Mr Randi ? This question is surely posed rhetorically. Nevertheless, I shall give a straight answer.

As a lawyer might say, the question "presumes facts not in evidence." It presumes that Mr. Randi is (1) deceptive and (2) rude.

Well, as a professional conjuror, it is necessary for Mr. Randi to be deceptive to a degree. If this is the basis for the accusation of being "deceptive," it is certainly laughable. There is no evidence that Mr. Randi is deceptive by nature, nor that he regularly engages in deception as part of non-conjuring activities.

As for being rude, there is little question that Mr. Randi has been brusque and sarcastic, but invariably this reaction is in response to brusqueness, sarcasm or astonishing foolishness on the part of others. If this is the basis for the accusation of being "rude," it is once again laughable. There is no evidence that Mr. Randi is ill-mannered.

It is clear that you have never met the man. I have. He is charming and polite, and very frank in his discussion. He seems to appreciate those qualities in others. He seems to take delight in the advancement of knowledge, and seems to be distressed by displays of stupidity. Although his credibility is excellent, I do not agree with Mr. Randi on every point. My disagreements, however, are based upon the merits of the issues, rather than a comprehensive insult to his truthfulness.

[Martin]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
How can anyone believe someone as deceptive and rude as Mr Randi ?As Brown points out, you've yet to demonstrate this deception. As for rude - the Earth isn't flat, you f*cking imbecile.

Now, in what way does my rudeness affect the veracity of my statement? Clearly, it doesn't. You f*cking imbicile :p

Edited to add: I can't help but notice that your only response to Jim's post was to decry Randi as a liar, and you haven't responded at all to Gnome's detailed post. Why exactly should we take your word for it that Randi isn't trustworthy when you can't even be bothered to defend your claims?

[SpectorDetector]

Its not necessary to verify anything to a fool about a fool. Its simply a waste of my time , you wouldnt understand . lol

Read the link and all associated material , if you are able to do so .


You base your entire belief system upon a marketing ploy .


That makes you the dumbass .

:roll:

You follow the antics of a skeptical version of John Edward . How can any of your remarks be taken seriously .

Actually , the premise that the world is flat was a skeptics creation . Once again you demonstrate dumbass in its purest form . :rolleyes:

It must be hard finding out Santa is your daddy in a red suit. :(

[Zep]

:tr:

[Ladewig]

If you fairly reverse your view , you will see how James Randi is as much an attention whore as John Edward and Sylvia Brown .

You base your entire belief system upon a marketing ploy.

Most of us do not base our beliefs on Randi's challenge, statements, or pronouncements. If he were indeed shown to be a fraud, most of us would denounce him and continue our skeptical beliefs.

Second, if it is a marketing ploy, it is perhaps one of the worst marketing ploys in modern times. JVP and JE have television shows; Uri still gets free publicity. Randi hardly gets noticed by mainstream or even alternative media. If he were interested in publicity, he could bend spoons on camera or make images appear on photographic film or run a mind-reading act. He has already demonstrated his abilities to perform these tasks at a professional level.

Third, if it is all marketing, why are arguments against skepticism in general and Randi in particular permitted on this board? On every believer board I've ever seen, any criticism of the board owner results in deletion or banning.

It depends upon controling phenomenon this is not consistant and has never been controled.

Perhaps you could explain why so many ADCers, pet psychics, fortune tellers, past-life regressionists, et al control their abilities well enough to charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars to demonstrate these abilities on demand.

[Starrman]

Obiwan Kenobi ~"Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows it [sic]?"

Perhaps you should put some more Star Wars quotes in your arguments. They are very "powerfull indeed"!

You base your entire belief system upon a marketing ploy .

Wow, great argument. I used to be Catholic, now I'm Million-Dollar-Challengeist.

You follow the antics of a skeptical version of John Edward . How can any of your remarks be taken seriously .

Another awesome argument, completely free of presumptions. 'Skeptical version of John Edward' is by far one of the finest oxymorons I've ever encountered.

Actually , the premise that the world is flat was a skeptics creation

Yes, airtight once again. No one ever believed that!

Once again you demonstrate dumbass in its purest form .

I think you meant 'dumbassness'.

It must be hard finding out Santa is your daddy in a red suit.

The meaning of this is so self-evident I will not bother to explain further.

Brilliant - as are all of your posts. I now officially reject my Million-Dollar-Challengeism and accept your world view of Copyshi*fromtheinternetanddontthinkaboutitatallini sm.

Oh yeah, and to further solidify your arguments, try this ace;

"Luke, I am your father!" - Darth Vadar. Zing!

[Martin]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
<rant snipped>Sorry, was that directed at me? It's hard to tell, seeing as it doesn't actually relate to me or anything I've written. Idiot.

[SpectorDetector]

Idiot? LOL

Typical response from a dipsh*t , nolife dumbass whos only human contact is on a message board on the web.

Your obvious irritation over the revelation that James Randi is an attention whore has clouded your ability to form an intelligent response .

Your anger doesnt change the fact that The Million Dollar Challenge is a farce as is James Randi .

You should go buy tickets to the next John Edward telecast and mabey you'll hear from your great granny ( through Mr Edward) what you've suspected all along . You need to get out more and quit being a suspicious , uptight ,anal retentive dipsh*t.


Thanks for your response.





:D


Sorry, was that directed at me? It's hard to tell, seeing as it doesn't actually relate to me or anything I've written. Idiot.


seeing as

By the way, you is an excellent riter .

U seeem tu be huked on foniks .

It wurked fur u :roll:
(edited by Lisa for language. Please read the posted rules and FAQ. Thank you)

[glee]

From the original link by SpectorDetector:

"Likewise, the production of a spanner bent by a force considerably in excess of the capacity of the strongest man, created at the request and in the presence of a group of mechanics gathered round a racing car at a pit stop by Mr. Randi's long-time enemy, Uri Geller...."

I understand that Mr. Geller is a skilled conjuror. Perhaps such a man could substitute a previously bent spanner.
SpectorDetector, do you think that is possible?

The witnesses to this paranormal feat were a group of motor mechanics in a racing car pit.

SpectorDetector, do you think this counts as 'science'? Are these people ready to spot skilled misdirection? Were they perhaps inclined to be 'entertained'?

Further from the link:

"scientists at Imperial College have tested the spanner, which its current possessor, the researcher and author Guy Lyon Playfair, not unnaturally regards as a permanent paranormal object, and there is a standing challenge to skeptics to explain its appearance."

Wow. 'Scientists' (unnamed, naturally) are 'involved'.
Can we have a cite for their research?
Does Guy Playfair (is he a scientist? does he consider the pit stop demo to be scientifically controlled?) accept my explanation? Do I get any money from him?

Next up:

"when the outcome of the (Gary Schwartz on mediums) experiment proved an overwhelming success...He (Randi) criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal."

SpectorDetector, do you think that Nature and Science are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress all paranormal research?
Have you publically exposed them for this appalling lack of scientific bias?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
It depends upon controling phenomenon this is not consistant and has never been controled.

How many times does this lie need to be swatted down?

I'll make it simple for you.

Claimant says they can do A.
Randi says, do you agree to be tested to see if you can do A.
Claimant says yes.
Test ensues.
Test has shown thust far that claimants are indeed doing A via means other than the paranormal.

It's the claimants who are suggesting that their superpowers are consistant and can be controlled. Randi's just letting them (attempt) to show that.

[Michael Redman]

SpectorDetector - You truly are stupid (or impressively arrogant) if you believe that your childish criticism is some sort of "revelation". Your first and primary error is that you assume that we see James Randi as a "master" and "believe" in him, and that our position is a faith, as subjective and illogical as yours is. Believers of various type constantly pop in here with this sort of ill reasoned nonsense, find their attacks do no good, and then go off and pout, never to be heard from again. I'm sure you'll soon follow suit.

[SpectorDetector]

SpectorDetector - You truly are stupid (or impressively arrogant) if you believe that your childish criticism is some sort of "revelation". Your first and primary error is that you assume that we see James Randi as a "master" and "believe" in him, and that our position is a faith, as subjective and illogical as yours is. Believers of various type constantly pop in here with this sort of ill reasoned nonsense, find their attacks do no good, and then go off and pout, never to be heard from again. I'm sure you'll soon follow suit.


Hey Mikey :p WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG again dumbass . Your 0 for 2 ;)

I wont go away . Morons like you dont even phase me . I lend your remarks no creedence. You are obviously an idiot. :roll:


It's the claimants who are suggesting that their superpowers are consistant and can be controlled. Randi's just letting them (attempt) to show that.

Randi uses them for publicity to spew his own brand of garbage . His hero complex allows him to think that hes actually doing the world a favor by revealing these people as frauds , when the truth is that they were frauds long before he ever met them and graced them with his idiot test.

The Million Dollar challenge is the equal of a carrot held in front of a horses eyes to make him perform.

The Challenge is a marketing game used for the sole purpose of nursing Jimmys hero complex. Anyone who sees it as anything other than that is just plain ignorant.




I understand that Mr. Geller is a skilled conjuror. Perhaps such a man could substitute a previously bent spanner.

Yes , anything is possible .


SpectorDetector, do you think this counts as 'science'? Are these people ready to spot skilled misdirection? Were they perhaps inclined to be 'entertained'?

The premise of the challenge is to perform the task on comand , not to demonstrate scientific proof.

SpectorDetector, do you think that Nature and Science are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress all paranormal research?

No only anal retentive morons who believe in nothing except their own dilusions of grandure .

Anything is possible. History has proven this. Discoveries of new scientific facts are the very thing that has brought us to this point in technology. To simply say things are not possible because they escape conventional belief is ignorant.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm


Sometimes who you believe is almost as important as what you believe.


Obiwan Kenobi ~"Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows it?"
Let me guess...

you read it on the web, so it must be true.

[arcticpenguin]

So all these paranormal phenomena won't happen under controlled conditions that would preclude cheating. Let me think about a likely explanation:

1) Unlike gravity or any other natural well-known natural phenomenon, psychic powers really don't work when someone is looking.

2) The claimants are fraudulent or delusional and do not produce under controls because they can't under any circumstances.

Gosh, which is a more likely solution?

[Dancing David]

Mr. dtector,
On which points exactly are you uncomfortable, I have read the challenge and find it to be fair. If I was to design a test of paranormal powers I would probably include even more restrictions than Mr. Randi does, but then I am not as adept at sleight of hand as he is.

Is your objection that Mr. randi can over rule his judges?

In where do you find that Randi is a fake, on this board it is considered a courtesy to back up statements with citations and references, please explain.

I do not find that Randi has set himself up as a charismatic leader, he allows for all sorts of discussion on these boards.

And yes people were frauds before they entered the challenge , but so what that is the nature of chalatans.

Could you please enumerate you feelings?

Thanks

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
[B]


dumbass
Morons
idiot.


anal retentive morons
***********
Anything is possible. History has proven this. Discoveries of new scientific facts are the very thing that has brought us to this point in technology. To simply say things are not possible because they escape conventional belief is ignorant. [
**********************/B]

Your name calling does little to convince any one of anything, but it will brand you as a troll.

Not anything is pausible! Anything is not possible either.

Merely asserting that something could be possible does not show that it is so, in science the burden is on the person who makes the claim to demonstrate the facts. Conventional belief is the major target of the people on these board which you already knwo.

It would seem that you just don't like Mr. randi, you have nothing to back your statemnets except to say you don't like Mr. Randi.

So wheres the beef?

[squibby]

Is the Master a fraud?

No, but Ron Hughes is.

He's quoted as saying. " We will all know the absolute truth regarding the mystery of life after death the day we die" -Ron Hughes..Paranormal Researcher.

Unfortunately for him, he will never know he is wrong. And we will never know we were right.

squibby

[Dancing David]

These rules, be it noted, are in stark contrast to Mr. Randi's frequent public assertions that he wanted demonstrable proof of psychic powers. First, his rules are confined to a single, live applicant. No matter how potent the published evidence, how incontestable the facts or rigorous the precautions against fraud, the number, qualifications or expertise of the witnesses and investigators, the duration, thoroughness and frequency of their tests or (where statistical evaluation is possible) the astronomical odds against a chance explanation: all must be ignored. Mr. Randi thrusts every case into the bin labelled 'anecdotal' (which means not written down), and thereby believes he may safely avoid any invitation to account for them.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Above quoted from link in the original post.

So a bunch of people create fraudulent research, that has no basis in the scientific method and then this is supposed to be incontravertible proof!

Sorry,
and Harry Anderson, noted pickpocket could claim that it was a fairy that removed the person's warch from thier wrist, it does mean that he didn't do it himself.

[glee]

SpectorDetector, do you think that Nature and Science are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress all paranormal research?

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
No only anal retentive morons who believe in nothing except their own dilusions of grandure.


Ah, so the man who posted "...the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal" is an 'anally retentive moron, who believes nothing except their own delusions of grandeur'?
But that was you. :eek:

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
Anything is possible. History has proven this.


You're saying that apples can float away from the Earth, because gravity is sporadic?
You're saying that objects with mass can travel faster than light?
You're saying that there is not conservation of momentum in a collision?
And all these things have been proven by History?
Or are you saying that unscientific people have made unsound forecasts in the past (the Earth is flat and the centre of the Universe)?
There is quite a difference (!) between these two positions.

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
Discoveries of new scientific facts are the very thing that has brought us to this point in technology.


Well the scientific method is certainly invaluable. Test, theorise, predict and test again.
In what way does e.g. the refusal of the British Society of dowsers to be tested fit into the scientific method?

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
To simply say things are not possible because they escape conventional belief is ignorant.

And your cite for this quote is?

How do you feel about "things are not worth investigating if they are purely anecdotal claims which contradict a massive body of established scientific knowledge (and the claimant refuses to be scientifically tested)."

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
Hey Mikey :p WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG again dumbass . Your 0 for 2 ;) 0 for 2? Wrong "again"? That was my first post, genius.

By the way, you're doing a wonderful job of proving your case.

[uruk]

OH WHY!, Oh why do we feel the need to take the bait and feed
the starving narcississm of a pale, pasty, pimply faced, adolecent who is intraveneaously hooked up to his X-box and in way-too-much need of human companionship and sun light.

His pathological overuse of Smilies is dead give away.:D
as :p are his inflamatory ;) and unsupported :roll: arguments.

And his early use of the word "dumbass" also shows his inexperiance. Anybody who knows proper debating proceedure knows that "dumbass" is'nt used untill the closing rebuttal.

Clearly, this person is in need of help. So please dig deep and send any substantial monetary contributions to:

The Society for the Foundation of the Organization of the Association of People for the Ethical Treatment of Pale, Pasty, Pimply Faced, Adolecent Sociopaths who are Intraveneaously Hooked up to a X-box and in Way-Too-Much need of Human Companionship and Sun Light and Pathological Abusers of Smilies.

or the SFOAPETPPPFASIHXWTMHCSLPAS

Care of: My Carribean bank account.

please make checks payable to "Cash"

There are people hurting out there :(

[billmi]

Originally posted by glee

You're saying that objects with mass can travel faster than light?


To be entirely off topic, why not?

If the general theory of relativity is correct, an object traveling at the speed of light would have infinte mass, infnite width and cease to exist in length, because the equation for its distortion hits a divided by 0 error.

It's possible that at C, the formula does not apply, as divided by 0 errors are a convention of our mathematics, rather than a feature of physics. It could be that closer to C the formula is inadequate to describe matter distortion.

Even if it does apply, it only means that an object starting at a velocity of less than C can not be accellerated to C because the mass would become infinite and thus the energy needed for accelleration would be infinite.

However, plug in velocities above C and the mass increase and distortions reverse. The same formula used to say it's not possible to accellerate matter to C does not contraindicate that matter can travel at velocities faster than C. It just indicates that they they would not be able to be accellerated from a speed below C to a speed above C, or be decelerated from a speed aboce C to a speed below C.

-Bill

[Aoidoi]

I'm just curious about something. If you were absolutely sure of your arguments, completely conviced that you had the upper hand and that those arguing against you were simply too mentally deficient to see it, wouldn't you at least attempt to appear intelligent in order to help your case and prevent people from taking pot shots at you for a lack of such things as spelling and grammar?

For example:No only anal retentive morons who believe in nothing except their own dilusions of grandure . Just correcting the spelling and punctuation mistakes: No, only anal retentive morons who believe in nothing except their own delusions of grandeur.Look, that took me about 5 seconds to run through a spellchecker and proof read once. It doesn't fix the ad hominem (anal retentive morons) or poisoning the well fallacies (arguing those who disagree are insane), but at least it prevents readers from wondering if you really are too incompetent to proof read your own posts.

Most of the time I don't bother pointing out spelling or grammar errors. We all make mistakes, it's not worth dwelling on. But to start posting about Randi's challenge on his own board with such semi-literate prose is rather like marinating yourself in A-1 before facing the ravenous lions. It probably isn't going to make the situation much worse, but it sure isn't going to improve your chances.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
Idiot? LOL

Typical response from a dipsh*t , nolife dumbass whos only human contact is on a message board on the web.

Your obvious irritation over the revelation that James Randi is an attention whore has clouded your ability to form an intelligent response .

Your anger doesnt change the fact that The Million Dollar Challenge is a farce as is James Randi .

You should go buy tickets to the next John Edward telecast and mabey you'll hear from your great granny ( through Mr Edward) what you've suspected all along . You need to get out more and quit being a suspicious , uptight ,anal retentive dipsh*t.



So let me get this straight - you believe in the supernatural? You have an deep emotional investment in believing in the supernatural? Otherwise, I can fathom the source of your outrage.

[TheBoyPaj]

Isn't it odd how mediums' powers cannot be controlled or relied upon but they get hit after hit every night in front of a paying audience?

[Clancie]

Posted by MartinM

As Brown points out, you've yet to demonstrate this deception.
SpectorDectector, Martinm....

What do you think of the new thread here, "Yellow Bamboo--For Real?"

By all indications a JREF representative went to Bali and conducted a preliminary test of Yellow Bamboo's claim.

THEY PASSED!!!! :eek:

Now, instead of saying they passed the preliminary test, we are hearing the words "preliminary demonstration." :(

Clearly they complied with the rules and should advance to the final. For Randi to do otherwise (as he seems to be indicating is his plan) does, indeed, seem highly "deceptive." :(

[reprise]

Clancie, the problem is that we don't know the specific details of the correspondence between the Bamboonies and JREF in relation to this particular observer.

It seems incredibly unlikely that when an agreement for the term of the preliminary challenge is negotiated it does not either specify a date on which the challenge is to take place or include a clause along the lines of "at a time and place to be agreed upon between the parties". Attendance on behalf of JREF does not automatically mean a person is there to conduct the preliminary testing. They may be there to gather information about things to control for or be specifically alert for during the conduct of preliminary testing.

I agree that ambiguity about the nature of this particular observer's role at this particular demonstration needs clarification. Were it an actual preliminary test, though, I would have expected the place and time of that test to have been announced in advance.

[ImpyTimpy]

Anyone else think Aforce is back?

[thaiboxerken]

SpectorDectector, Martinm....

What do you think of the new thread here, "Yellow Bamboo--For Real?"

By all indications a JREF representative went to Bali and conducted a preliminary test of Yellow Bamboo's claim.

THEY PASSED!!!! :eek:

Bullshat, they did not use the protocol agreed upon. A double handed, cave-man strike is not a "tap". Now you are just being deceptive and dishonest as to the nature of the challenge itself. Do you actually believe that the yellow bamboozlers have superpowers and that the JREF is just refusing to acknowledge it?

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by reprise
Clancie, the problem is that we don't know the specific details of the correspondence between the Bamboonies and JREF in relation to this particular observer.

It seems incredibly unlikely that when an agreement for the term of the preliminary challenge is negotiated it does not either specify a date on which the challenge is to take place or include a clause along the lines of "at a time and place to be agreed upon between the parties". Attendance on behalf of JREF does not automatically mean a person is there to conduct the preliminary testing. They may be there to gather information about things to control for or be specifically alert for during the conduct of preliminary testing.

I agree that ambiguity about the nature of this particular observer's role at this particular demonstration needs clarification. Were it an actual preliminary test, though, I would have expected the place and time of that test to have been announced in advance.
The reason why it seems ambiguous is because Randi is presently leaving out the details that would make it clear. On July 4th he asked for volunteers to conduct the preliminary test according to the protocols agreed upon between YB and the JREF, he even mentioned specific dates. Joko Tri conducted the preliminary test as the JREF represenative, and reported that he has no idea how but that he was knocked down, which was the requirement for YB passing.Originally posted by thaiboxerken

SpectorDectector, Martinm....

What do you think of the new thread here, "Yellow Bamboo--For Real?"

By all indications a JREF representative went to Bali and conducted a preliminary test of Yellow Bamboo's claim.


THEY PASSED!!!! :eek:

Bullshat, they did not use the protocol agreed upon. A double handed, cave-man strike is not a "tap". Now you are just being deceptive and dishonest as to the nature of the challenge itself. Do you actually believe that the yellow bamboozlers have superpowers and that the JREF is just refusing to acknowledge it?
You seem confused about what passing the preliminary test means. It doesn't mean they have superpowers, it just means they met the requirement of the protocol. You call Clancie "deceptive and dishonest as to the nature of the challenge" yet seem to sincerely believe that because it was too strong of a strike to be a "Tap" that somehow it shouldn't count. :rolleyes:

I'm curious, have you even seen the official protocol? Do you know how it was communicated to Joko Tri and YB. I personally I have only read little snippets from Randi and he doesn't seem completely consistent in saying what the protocol was himself. There are subtle but significant diffrences between what Randi said the protocol was on July 4th compared to the recent commentary he made, not the best way to convince me he communciated it clearly to Joko Tri and the YB.

Regardless of the minor details the core of the test was honored. A JREF rep tried to hit the YB guy with a stick, saying it doesn't count cause he had the wrong size stick and used the wrong grip, and moved at the wrong speed is lame. Cause in case you haven't put it together yet, it was the JREF reprensenative who wasn't following the protocol. :D

Wether he didn't understand or didn't consider minor details important doesn't change the simple fact that the JREF rep clearly was present and made no objections to the way the test was run.

[kookbreaker]

Before everyone gets into a tizzy, I would point out that even if this was a formal preliminary test, they are not the first to ever pass a preliminary pass by Randi, just the first to do so while the challenge was under the banner of the JREF. (as opposed to when it was just Randi's $10,000 challenge.

To quote Flim-Flam (written in 1981)

"In repsonse to that challenge, over 650 persons have applied as claimants. Only 54 ever made it past preliminaries..."

emphasis aded.

Preliminaries have likely tightened up since the old days, but it still does not mean anything. Its like Luci claiming victory for the Russian girl because she could read with an untaped blindfold.

[thaiboxerken]

The reason why it seems ambiguous is because Randi is presently leaving out the details that would make it clear. On July 4th he asked for volunteers to conduct the preliminary test according to the protocols agreed upon between YB and the JREF, he even mentioned specific dates. Joko Tri conducted the preliminary test as the JREF represenative, and reported that he has no idea how but that he was knocked down, which was the requirement for YB passing.

False, the protocols were not carried out according to plan. A 6-foot long staff is not a wand. A double-handed overhead strike is not a tap.


You seem confused about what passing the preliminary test means. It doesn't mean they have superpowers, it just means they met the requirement of the protocol. You call Clancie "deceptive and dishonest as to the nature of the challenge" yet seem to sincerely believe that because it was too strong of a strike to be a "Tap" that somehow it shouldn't count. :rolleyes:

Yes. A double-handed, overhead strike is never considered a tap. Calling it a tap is dishonest. I don't just believe that it was too strong to be a tap, but any reasonable person would also not consider it a tap.


I'm curious, have you even seen the official protocol? Do you know how it was communicated to Joko Tri and YB. I personally I have only read little snippets from Randi and he doesn't seem completely consistent in saying what the protocol was himself.

Are you implying dishonesty on Randi's part here?

There are subtle but significant diffrences between what Randi said the protocol was on July 4th compared to the recent commentary he made, not the best way to convince me he communciated it clearly to Joko Tri and the YB.

That's your problem, reasonable people understand that a 6ft pole isn't a want and an double-handed, overhead strike isn't a tap.

Regardless of the minor details the core of the test was honored.

Those are hardly minor details. I guess, according to you, bringing a real gun to a paintball fight is just a minor detail.


A JREF rep tried to hit the YB guy with a stick, saying it doesn't count cause he had the wrong size stick and used the wrong grip, and moved at the wrong speed is lame.

No, it's perfectly reasonable since the protocols requested a tap and a wand. You are a loophole monger, aren't you? You could care less for the purpose of the preliminary test.

Cause in case you haven't put it together yet, it was the JREF reprensenative who wasn't following the protocol. :D

Yep, and?


Wether he didn't understand or didn't consider minor details important doesn't change the simple fact that the JREF rep clearly was present and made no objections to the way the test was run.

They weren't minor details. I guess you think doublecrossing is ok as well. Nothing wrong with the star of the basketball team point-shaving, eh?

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Are you implying dishonesty on Randi's part here?

No, I think Randi is honest, but everybody makes mistakes and can have minor biases. He did rephrase the protocol slightly in a way that made me think I would like to see the actual protocol that was given to Mr Tri and YB. Mr Tri gives the impression that the protocol was largely informal, seeing what was actually specifically communicated to him would give me better insight into the situation.

On a somewhat related note I think it's interesting to hear actually 54 people have already passed preliminary tests . . .
Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No, it's perfectly reasonable since the protocols requested a tap and a wand. You are a loophole monger, aren't you?

Funny, I was thinking you were the loophole monger.:p

Serious question: How hard would you be laughing if instead of using a bamboo wand the JREF guy had an oak wand, plainly visible to the YB before the test started. But then after the guy was tapped by the wand they say it doesn't count cause it's not bamboo? Or say the guy swung slightly harder than a tap and they said it doesn't count because it wasn't a tap?

Maybe Joko Tri ran at the guy with a big swing cause he thought it would be funnier when he hit 'em. :D

Originally posted by Memehacker
Cause in case you haven't put it together yet, it was the JREF reprensenative who wasn't following the protocol. :D

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yep, and?

Hmm, we appear to have different ideas of what the JREF represenative is. My view is this:
The test is conducted as an agreed upon procedure between to parties. As the JREF represenative present at the test if things aren't going according to how the JREF wants them the JREF rep is responsible for bring that to the attention of the claimants. If the JREF rep makes no objections it seems reasonable for the claimants to think they are operating with JREF approval.

[thaiboxerken]

Serious question: How hard would you be laughing if instead of using a bamboo wand the JREF guy had an oak wand, plainly visible to the YB before the test started. But then after the guy was tapped by the wand they say it doesn't count cause it's not bamboo?

It still wouldn't count, the protocol calls for a bamboo wand.

Or say the guy swung slightly harder than a tap and they said it doesn't count because it wasn't a tap?

Irrelevant question, this particular incident was greatly harder than a tap. Any reasonable person can see that.


Maybe Joko Tri ran at the guy with a big swing cause he thought it would be funnier when he hit 'em. :D

I don't think crushing a guy's skull is funny at all.


Hmm, we appear to have different ideas of what the JREF represenative is.

That's because you're a stupid believer.

My view is this:
The test is conducted as an agreed upon procedure between to parties. As the JREF represenative present at the test if things aren't going according to how the JREF wants them the JREF rep is responsible for bring that to the attention of the claimants. If the JREF rep makes no objections it seems reasonable for the claimants to think they are operating with JREF approval.

And if the JREF rep is bought off, is a plant, or doesn't perform to standard of protocol, then he no longer qualifies as a JREF rep.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by MemeHacker
Serious question: How hard would you be laughing if instead of using a bamboo wand the JREF guy had an oak wand, plainly visible to the YB before the test started. But then after the guy was tapped by the wand they say it doesn't count cause it's not bamboo? Or say the guy swung slightly harder than a tap and they said it doesn't count because it wasn't a tap?

Since the protocol must be agreed by both parties, they would have just as much right to reject the test if the protocol was broken in this way.

I think where argument might come about would be if the two parties disgreed about what constitutes a "tap".

But that's not the issue here. We have specified reasons why the procedure that was followed is unacceptable, since the method of attack which was chosen is a) not what was expected and b) prone to introducing other, non paranormal causes for the attacker to fall over.

If YB could give a reason why oak is not acceptable, they could equally reject the test on those grounds.

[Suezoled]

Where did SpectorDetector go?

Or did anyone miss him to begin with? *sound of crickets*

Why is the Yellow Bamboo test being considered if the criteria for the preliminary testing hasn't been followed? Wouldn't that disqualify everything? Shouldn't they do the test over again, regardless? With someone who can film decent footage at least (assuming it wasn't Randi or someone else who cut the footage to make it look tantilizing and generate discussion)?

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

(said by memehacker) Or say the guy swung slightly harder than a tap and they said it doesn't count because it wasn't a tap?

Irrelevant question, this particular incident was greatly harder than a tap. Any reasonable person can see that.
[/B]
Look at the video again. At the point at which Mr. Tri begings to fall he has barely begun the swing. The swing follows his fall down so it looks like it has his bodys' weight and momentum behind it, but if he is already falling he no longer has complete controll of the stick. What you seem to be assuming was a powerful over head strike to Serregen's skull well may have been intended to be a gentle blow to Serregen's leg. I agree a two handed overhead strike is not what one would first expect for a "tap" but it is entirely possible to do. I actually tested this, you can too. :) Grap a pole/staff and stand 20 feet away from a tree, walk rapdily (or run) towards the tree while holding the pole in a manner similar to the video. It is entirely possible to begin a swing the way Mr. Tri does with the intent of landing a light (gentle) blow to the side of the tree at leg height.

The length of the stick is key to understanding this swing. Even if very light the natural grip for a longer stick is two handed. There are a limited number of ways for a stick to be held two-handed and his choice certainly isn't unreasonable.

Of course you have insisted the protocls required a "wand". But are sure protocol required for a wand? I commented before subtle changes in wording made me want to see the actual protocol, especially since even if Mr. Tri was a plant there was no reason not to follow the protocol. Now someone from Yellow Bamboo is saying they have a notarized contract with JR's signature which has a number of significant differenence in it compared to what Randi is saying the protocol was.


The contract states ".... and is not
required to actually contact Mr Serengen
except by attempting to gently tap him
with a piece of bamboo..."

i. No where does it specify the size of the piece of bamboo.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27804

More interesting things to come . . .
:D

[thaiboxerken]

Look at the video again. At the point at which Mr. Tri begings to fall he has barely begun the swing. The swing follows his fall down so it looks like it has his bodys' weight and momentum behind it, but if he is already falling he no longer has complete controll of the stick.

That's bullcrap and you know it, Mr. Tri bent his knees to sink his weight into the strike. An overhead strike is not a tap. Mr Tri falls after his pole his the dirt.

What you seem to be assuming was a powerful over head strike to Serregen's skull well may have been intended to be a gentle blow to Serregen's leg.

In a path that happens to travel through Serregen's skull.


I agree a two handed overhead strike is not what one would first expect for a "tap" but it is entirely possible to do.

You are really stretching for this, it's not reasonable to consider that strike a tap in any way, shape or form.


I actually tested this, you can too. :) Grap a pole/staff and stand 20 feet away from a tree, walk rapdily (or run) towards the tree while holding the pole in a manner similar to the video. It is entirely possible to begin a swing the way Mr. Tri does with the intent of landing a light (gentle) blow to the side of the tree at leg height.

Now try it while sinking your weight and using the same stick speed.


The length of the stick is key to understanding this swing. Even if very light the natural grip for a longer stick is two handed. There are a limited number of ways for a stick to be held two-handed and his choice certainly isn't unreasonable.

To tap a person, it is.



More interesting things to come . . .
:D

You sure like to BS.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Where did SpectorDetector go?

Or did anyone miss him to begin with? *sound of crickets*

Why is the Yellow Bamboo test being considered if the criteria for the preliminary testing hasn't been followed? Wouldn't that disqualify everything? Shouldn't they do the test over again, regardless? With someone who can film decent footage at least (assuming it wasn't Randi or someone else who cut the footage to make it look tantilizing and generate discussion)?

SpectorDetector is probably busy starting "More proof that Randi is a fraud" threads over at Ghostvillage.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
That's bullcrap and you know it, Mr. Tri bent his knees to sink his weight into the strike. An overhead strike is not a tap. Mr Tri falls after his pole his the dirt.

Look at the video carefully, can you know for sure that that is what was going on. IT is entierly possible (even if Mr. Tri was faking the fall) that he is NOT sinking his knees to gain power in the swing. It could be he is beginning to fall and his knees are giving out. His center of gravity is lowering before the swing begins it's downward motion. If you look at frame by frame you can seen him sinking before the pole is even vertical. A person sinking there weight into a strike wouldn't normally look that way. Look again.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In a path that happens to travel through Serregen's skull.

Didn't you just say Mr. Tri falls after his pole hits the dirt? If that were the case and he was aiming for the skull why didn't he hit it?

Multiple people have already commented that the swing appears very off target. Look at where the pole hits the ground compared to where the guys head was. How can you be sure that the head was the target. Seriously, your wildly making assumptions that the video does not support conclusively.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You are really stretching for this, it's not reasonable to consider that strike a tap in any way, shape or form.

I think it is impossible to say for certain that the Mr. Tri's swing wasn't totally thrown off by him falling right before he was going to start it. Mr. Tri's own testimony was that he intended to tap the guy but got knocked down, in his version he never even mentions starting the swing.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Now try it while sinking your weight and using the same stick speed.

If I try to do it exactly like the video it feels very bizarre to me, it is not natural at all how Mr Tri moves. In an overhead swing one generates power by sinking the knees in time with the downward arc of the weapon. He begins to sink when the pole hasn't completed the upward arc, it is a counterintuitve movement and feels very clumsy when I mimic it. I have to conclude, for whatever reason, he begins to sink his knees for a purpose different than generating power in the strike.

Try it yourself.

[thaiboxerken]

Look at the video carefully, can you know for sure that that is what was going on. IT is entierly possible (even if Mr. Tri was faking the fall) that he is NOT sinking his knees to gain power in the swing. It could be he is beginning to fall and his knees are giving out. His center of gravity is lowering before the swing begins it's downward motion. If you look at frame by frame you can seen him sinking before the pole is even vertical. A person sinking there weight into a strike wouldn't normally look that way. Look again.

You're simply seeing what you want to see and not what's really happening. You're full of crap.


Didn't you just say Mr. Tri falls after his pole hits the dirt? If that were the case and he was aiming for the skull why didn't he hit it?

The other guy stepped out of the way. I don't blame him, I certainly wouldn't want to get hit in the skull either.


Multiple people have already commented that the swing appears very off target. Look at where the pole hits the ground compared to where the guys head was. How can you be sure that the head was the target. Seriously, your wildly making assumptions that the video does not support conclusively.

Hardly, you're the one that is stretching reality.


I think it is impossible to say for certain that the Mr. Tri's swing wasn't totally thrown off by him falling right before he was going to start it. Mr. Tri's own testimony was that he intended to tap the guy but got knocked down, in his version he never even mentions starting the swing.

Mr Tri is an idiot.


If I try to do it exactly like the video it feels very bizarre to me, it is not natural at all how Mr Tri moves. In an overhead swing one generates power by sinking the knees in time with the downward arc of the weapon. He begins to sink when the pole hasn't completed the upward arc, it is a counterintuitve movement and feels very clumsy when I mimic it. I have to conclude, for whatever reason, he begins to sink his knees for a purpose different than generating power in the strike.

Is Mr Tri proficient in martial arts or the staff? That can easily account for why he doesn't know how to swing the stick properly. Also, looking at the video, I don't see what you believe you see. He sinks his weight into the swing.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You're simply seeing what you want to see and not what's really happening. You're full of crap.

No, I am putting time an effort into anlyzing and describing what I see in the video, you can't dispute what I am saying so you resort to insults.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The other guy stepped out of the way. I don't blame him, I certainly wouldn't want to get hit in the skull either.

He isn't visible till the last moment but there is no video evidence for that at all. You are the one "seeing what you want to see".

A few questions for you.

1) Are you saying you can see the guy step out of the way on the video or is that just an assumption?

2) Can you see Mr. Tri starting to "sink" before the swing begins the downward arc? (since you can't clearly see his legs compare his height frame to frame)

3)At what point do you think he is beginning to fall and why are you convinced he has begun his fall in that moment?

4)How sure are you about when the fall begins?
a)100% sure
b)pretty sure
c)sorta sure
d)it's my best guess, can't be sure

5)Can you find the frame where the pole is almost vertical? In that frame Mr. Tri is very hunched forward, maybe 40 degrees from parrell to the ground. But the stick still has not even passed the vertical line.

When I make a full power, sink the knees, consciously bend the torso much more than I normally do kind of swing, I have finished the strike before I am as bent over as much as Mr. Tri is in that frame. I will admit I have had a little training so perhaps my body is more prgrammed than I realize but when I make a swing exactly like Mr. Tri's I feel like I am "falling" into it.

6)Does making a swing like that honestly feel natural to you?(specifically having your torso that leaned forward before the the pole has gone pass vertical in the swing).

7) What do think the odds are that YB has a notarized contract (signed by JR) that mentions protocols that are different than what JR is now saying they were?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by MemeHacker

I agree a two handed overhead strike is not what one would first expect for a "tap" but it is entirely possible to do.


I am wondering 'why hold the staff like that in the first place?' Why not just hold it sticking out in front of you or slightly to the side. Why even raise it above your head if you were planning on giving a light tap with it?

Perhaps running with other people to your sides almost 100% forces the staff to be held above the head.. ?

[thaiboxerken]

No, I am putting time an effort into anlyzing and describing what I see in the video, you can't dispute what I am saying so you resort to insults.

Hardly an analysis at all. You're seeing things that just aren't happening.


He isn't visible till the last moment but there is no video evidence for that at all. You are the one "seeing what you want to see".

No, unless you feel that the target is an idiot, it's reasonable to assume that he stepped out of the way. OR, the whole thing is staged and the striker intended to miss.


1) Are you saying you can see the guy step out of the way on the video or is that just an assumption?

See above.


2) Can you see Mr. Tri starting to "sink" before the swing begins the downward arc? (since you can't clearly see his legs compare his height frame to frame)

No, but you apparently did.


3)At what point do you think he is beginning to fall and why are you convinced he has begun his fall in that moment?

After the pole strikes the ground, he topples over.


4)How sure are you about when the fall begins?
a)100% sure
b)pretty sure
c)sorta sure
d)it's my best guess, can't be sure

A


5)Can you find the frame where the pole is almost vertical? In that frame Mr. Tri is very hunched forward, maybe 40 degrees from parrell to the ground. But the stick still has not even passed the vertical line.

Maybe, if so, then he's simply putting his body into the swing. The pole follows the body movement.

When I make a full power, sink the knees, consciously bend the torso much more than I normally do kind of swing, I have finished the strike before I am as bent over as much as Mr. Tri is in that frame. I will admit I have had a little training so perhaps my body is more prgrammed than I realize but when I make a swing exactly like Mr. Tri's I feel like I am "falling" into it.

That's how untrained people swing poles.


6)Does making a swing like that honestly feel natural to you?(specifically having your torso that leaned forward before the the pole has gone pass vertical in the swing).

Yes, I bend my knees though to keep balance. Mr. Tri did not. Now that I look at his swing more, it's perfectly plausible that he caused his own fall because he sucks with a pole. The act at the end, however, shows something more than clumsiness (probably purposeful acting).


7) What do think the odds are that YB has a notarized contract (signed by JR) that mentions protocols that are different than what JR is now saying they were?

I doubt there is a notorized contract at all. I am thinking this isn't an official prelim.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No, unless you feel that the target is an idiot, it's reasonable to assume that he stepped out of the way. OR, the whole thing is staged and the striker intended to miss.

So, you admit your not sure if the guy moved or even if he was the target of the swing. Did it even register in your mind how different those theories of what happend are?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

2) Can you see Mr. Tri starting to "sink" before the swing begins the downward arc? (since you can't clearly see his legs compare his height frame to frame)

No, but you apparently did.

Hehe, smart reply.
Mr. Tri is noticably shorter in frame 11 compared to frame 10. Someone posted the frames here:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27750

Now some of the height diffrence is beacuse he is starting to lean forward but it looks to me like he probably starting to lower his knees because the lean isn't big enough to explain the height drop. Notice the pole position, maybe 75 degrees.

By frame 12 he is waaaay lower and looks to me to be totally off balance. Pole isn't even vertical yet.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

3)At what point do you think he is beginning to fall and why are you convinced he has begun his fall in that moment?

After the pole strikes the ground, he topples over.

I asked when do you think it "began", do you really think it didn't "begin"till after he completed the swing.

Think of the implications of that. It would mean Mr. Tri would have to be a stooge who aimed for the dirt (if he wasn't a stooge he would have noticed serregen jumping out of the way) and then fell over. I can't say for sure what happend but that seems rather unlikely to me.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken


4)How sure are you about when the fall begins?
a)100% sure
b)pretty sure
c)sorta sure
d)it's my best guess, can't be sure

A

LOL.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

5)Can you find the frame where the pole is almost vertical? In that frame Mr. Tri is very hunched forward, maybe 40 degrees from parrell to the ground. But the stick still has not even passed the vertical line.

Maybe, if so, then he's simply putting his body into the swing. The pole follows the body movement.

When I make a full power, sink the knees, consciously bend the torso much more than I normally do kind of swing, I have finished the strike before I am as bent over as much as Mr. Tri is in that frame. I will admit I have had a little training so perhaps my body is more prgrammed than I realize but when I make a swing exactly like Mr. Tri's I feel like I am "falling" into it.

That's how untrained people swing poles.

Certainly if you got enough people eventually you would see some pretty odd techniques but I do insist I don't think that movement is natural. For the record it's not like a body mechnaics expert or anything, are you though?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
6)Does making a swing like that honestly feel natural to you?(specifically having your torso that leaned forward before the the pole has gone pass vertical in the swing).

Yes, I bend my knees though to keep balance. Mr. Tri did not. Now that I look at his swing more, it's perfectly plausible that he caused his own fall because he sucks with a pole. The act at the end, however, shows something more than clumsiness (probably purposeful acting).

It is not normal for even an untrained person to fall while swinging a light pole. Your reasonable conlsuion that he could have plausibly caused his own fall goes aginst your other conclusion that he swung how an untrained person would swing.

If it's perfectly plausible he caused his own fall because he sucks with the pole, when did the fall begin? see above. ;)

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
7) What do think the odds are that YB has a notarized contract (signed by JR) that mentions protocols that are different than what JR is now saying they were?

I doubt there is a notorized contract at all. I am thinking this isn't an official prelim.
Sigh, if you thought it wasn't an official prelim why were you insisting that it didn't count as the preliminary test becasue the specific protocols weren't followed?

[thaiboxerken]

So, you admit your not sure if the guy moved or even if he was the target of the swing. Did it even register in your mind how different those theories of what happend are?

Did it register that he is supposed to be the target?


Hehe, smart reply.
Mr. Tri is noticably shorter in frame 11 compared to frame 10.

Now some of the height diffrence is beacuse he is starting to lean forward but it looks to me like he probably starting to lower his knees because the lean isn't big enough to explain the height drop. Notice the pole position, maybe 75 degrees.

By frame 12 he is waaaay lower and looks to me to be totally off balance. Pole isn't even vertical yet.

The center of gravity of the pole is not behind the guy. He is not off balance at that point. You are still seeing what you believe and not what's really happening.


I asked when do you think it "began", do you really think it didn't "begin"till after he completed the swing.

Yes, he toppled over after his lame-ass swing.


Think of the implications of that. It would mean Mr. Tri would have to be a stooge who aimed for the dirt (if he wasn't a stooge he would have noticed serregen jumping out of the way) and then fell over. I can't say for sure what happend but that seems rather unlikely to me.

It is obvious to me.


Certainly if you got enough people eventually you would see some pretty odd techniques but I do insist I don't think that movement is natural. For the record it's not like a body mechnaics expert or anything, are you though?

Yes.


It is not normal for even an untrained person to fall while swinging a light pole. Your reasonable conlsuion that he could have plausibly caused his own fall goes aginst your other conclusion that he swung how an untrained person would swing.

Hardly, he is running, he is excited and he is untrained, it's very likely that he caused his own fall.


If it's perfectly plausible he caused his own fall because he sucks with the pole, when did the fall begin? see above. ;)

After the pole hits the ground.


Sigh, if you thought it wasn't an official prelim why were you insisting that it didn't count as the preliminary test becasue the specific protocols weren't followed?

Because the "protocols" were being argued. Does it have to be "official" in oder to argue the protocols used?

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
By frame 12 he is waaaay lower and looks to me to be totally off balance. Pole isn't even vertical yet.

The center of gravity of the pole is not behind the guy. He is not off balance at that point. You are still seeing what you believe and not what's really happening.
[/B]
The pole's weight is neglible compared to his own mass and his own center of gravity is way to far forward. We seem to be going in circles here, maybe you should look at what others have said.

Notice Pyrrho's post and pics here:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28067
Originally posted by Pyrrho
A few critical frames:

In frame 1, Mr. Tri approaches.

In frame 2, something other than a person appears behind Mr. Tri.

In frame 3, the object is quite evident. Looks like a fabric tube of some kind, possibly a sleeve?

In frame 4, immediately after this object appears, Mr. Tri falls.
His frame 4 is the exact same frame as the one numbered 12 that I was refeering to. Bluemonk (who's thread I linked to before and called it frame 12 http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27750) thought that was when the fall began also. Interestingly, though there is much doubt and debate about what the object behind him is nobody in either thread has challenged the notion that that is when the fall began. And you say you are "100% sure" that the fall did not begin there.

To me it is really clear that you are the person "seeing what they want", your coming across like a religious nut who just happens to believe in "skepticism", you don't even seem to understand the basic princples of it .

Before the video was even released I said Mr. Tri could be lying or bizzarely hypnotized. I wouldn't have considered this test proof even if it had been videotaped in broad daylight with Mr. Tri holding a 12" bamboo stick awalking at a snails pace towards Serregen. Yet you called me a"stupid believer" . . .
Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I asked when do you think it "began", do you really think it didn't "begin"till after he completed the swing.

Yes, he toppled over after his lame-ass swing.
[/B]
I was just giving you a chance to back out in case you missed the exact wording. Sort of like how I gave you a chance to say you were "pretty sure" instead of "100% sure" before.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Think of the implications of that. It would mean Mr. Tri would have to be a stooge who aimed for the dirt (if he wasn't a stooge he would have noticed serregen jumping out of the way) and then fell over. I can't say for sure what happend but that seems rather unlikely to me.

It is obvious to me.
[/B]
It's obvious to you that Mr. Tri was a stooge who aimed for the dirt completed his swing, and then fell over???
Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It is not normal for even an untrained person to fall while swinging a light pole. Your reasonable conlsuion that he could have plausibly caused his own fall goes aginst your other conclusion that he swung how an untrained person would swing.

Hardly, he is running, he is excited and he is untrained, it's very likely that he caused his own fall.
[/B]
According to you he falls after he has completed the swing anyways. Really he just kinds of flops over weirdly at that point, more like he fainted. It would be highly unusual for a person to fall at any time while swinging a light pole and the timing and nature of his fall isn't consistent with a "normal" fall either.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Certainly if you got enough people eventually you would see some pretty odd techniques but I do insist I don't think that movement is natural. For the record it's not like a body mechnaics expert or anything, are you though?

Yes.
[/B]
Typo on my part (you might have read it how I intended anyways but I thought I would clarify first). The 2nd sentence should have read, "For the record, it's not like I'm a body mechanics expert or anything, are you though?

Is your answer "Yes" to that question?

[thaiboxerken]

It's obvious to you that Mr. Tri was a stooge who aimed for the dirt completed his swing, and then fell over???

Strawman, I never said that or implied it.


According to you he falls after he has completed the swing anyways. Really he just kinds of flops over weirdly at that point, more like he fainted.

Flopping over is the same as falling over. He didn't faint, he is conscious.. he may have feignted the convulsions though.

It would be highly unusual for a person to fall at any time while swinging a light pole and the timing and nature of his fall isn't consistent with a "normal" fall either.

That's false, untrained fools fall while trying to use a pole as a weapon all of the time, especially when they are running and excited. Maybe we're crossing wires here, but an untrained person usually swings big weapons like this in a way that looks like semi-controlled falls.... and often they do fall. Just take a look at the Star Wars Kid for a good example www.jedimaster.net .


Is your answer "Yes" to that question?

Yes.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It's obvious to you that Mr. Tri was a stooge who aimed for the dirt completed his swing, and then fell over???

Strawman, I never said that or implied it.

Yes, you did. In fact, I virutally repeated back what I had said before that you called obvious.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Think of the implications of that. It would mean Mr. Tri would have to be a stooge who aimed for the dirt (if he wasn't a stooge he would have noticed serregen jumping out of the way) and then fell over. I can't say for sure what happend but that seems rather unlikely to me.

It is obvious to me.

You certainly can re-explain what you meant by "it's obvious to me" but calling my question a straw man is lame. I was surprised at your previous answer myself and was only trying to illustrate how beliveing that nothing out of the ordinary was going on with Joko's balance untill after he completed the swing sets up a really ridiculous series of events to explain why he missed. The specific scenario I described which you called a strawman was one of a very few possibilites that would take into account all the details of that night as you were asserting them.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

According to you he falls after he has completed the swing anyways. Really he just kinds of flops over weirdly at that point, more like he fainted.

Flopping over is the same as falling over. He didn't faint, he is conscious.. he may have feignted the convulsions though.

Funny pun. :)
Flopping is an especially ungraceful or uncordinated form of falling. I said, "more like fainted" beacuse ther is no indication of him trying to even keep his balance at the end of the fall. It's almost like he is frozen for moment after the swing is completed and doesn't have any muscle control to stop from falling sideways . . .

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It would be highly unusual for a person to fall at any time while swinging a light pole and the timing and nature of his fall isn't consistent with a "normal" fall either.

That's false, untrained fools fall while trying to use a pole as a weapon all of the time, especially when they are running and excited.
[/B]
Perhaps all the beginners in my dojos and all the friends I ever horsed around with were unusually agile but I can't remember ever seeing a person fall from a basic swing ever. I agree it is statistically possible for sure, especially in excited enviroments, but there is no way you can convince me that it "happens all time".

Keep in mind I have already argued the way his center of balance lowers on the upswing isn't right for a clumsy "semi-controlled fall swing" but I do agree many beginners might naturally swing a big weapon in a way in which they sort of fall forward with the swing.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Maybe we're crossing wires here, but an untrained person usually swings big weapons like this in a way that looks like semi-controlled falls.... and often they do fall. Just take a look at the Star Wars Kid for a good example www.jedimaster.net
Well, just to show you how crossed our wires are I was considering using the SWK video as evidence for my case. ;)He gyrates maniaclly while furiously fighting off imaginary attackers from every direction in a manner that is so clumsy it is slapstick yet he still doesn't fall!
Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Is your answer "Yes" to that question?

Yes.
Really? What makes you an expert?


Lastly, Randi it seems is favoring a theory in which MR Tri was being honest and that YB used some sort of trick (stungun/taser???) to cause the fall.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by MemeHacker


Really? What makes you an expert?



I am an instructor in martial arts with 8 years of training under Guro Dan Inosanto, Frank Cucci and Chai Sirisute.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Anyone else think Aforce is back?

First post in about 18 months for me...been away, but it would take too long to explain why - not that many people missed me except Lucianarchy perhaps...

Anyway Impy...No I don't because if he WAS then ALL the posts would CONTAIN RANDOM capitals ...HA HA HA....and so on!

[Hannibal]

Two posts so soon after each other...I must be like a bus (you wait for ages etc..)

It seems to me that the whole YB thing is getting a significance WAYYY beyond what it actually is. Basically if YB could do what they claim then they would be able to demonstrate it in a well lit, properly filmed gymnasium/sports hall with an experienced and capable martial artist delivering the strike/tap. I can assure you that if I were asked to strike YB then I would NOT do it late at night on the beach and he would be nursing a broken nose right now.

There is a Japanese system that I heard about years ago called "dim lik" which laid similar claims to YB. I didn't believe it then and I don't now.

Hey YB - why not enter the UFC and win loads of cash by shouting at the fighters? I am sure that guys like Frank Shamrock would be really impressed as they bounced your face off the mat....

[gnome]

Regarding your sig:

It's from Jack Handy's "Deep Thoughts" from SNL:


Before you criticize someoe, walk a mile in their shoes. That way if they don't like it you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

[SpectorDetector]

It has become obvious that the Master is making my point for me.

He has more crap with him than the idiots he exposes to be frauds.

When it comes time to get the checkbook down from the closet and pay the Yellow Bamboo his integrity will be tested once again. He will fail . His excuses are as laim as his ploy for attention by using the money of others to claim his fame .

One more point : What happens when the money gets paid out? What next ? I guess Mr Randi will have to develop a new angle in order to market his nonsense.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
It has become obvious that the Master is making my point for me.

He has more crap with him than the idiots he exposes to be frauds.

When it comes time to get the checkbook down from the closet and pay the Yellow Bamboo his integrity will be tested once again. He will fail . His excuses are as laim as his ploy for attention by using the money of others to claim his fame .

One more point : What happens when the money gets paid out? What next ? I guess Mr Randi will have to develop a new angle in order to market his nonsense.
If you really think a dark carpy video constitutes convincing evidence, you are out of touch with reality.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by gnome
Regarding your sig:

It's from Jack Handy's "Deep Thoughts" from SNL:

[/B]

Cheers Gnome!:rub:

Oh and Spector - I wouldn't hold my breath about Randi paying YB either. This is because they are fraudulent though - not because Randi is dishonest

Bahala Na!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
It has become obvious that the Master is making my point for me.

He has more crap with him than the idiots he exposes to be frauds.

When it comes time to get the checkbook down from the closet and pay the Yellow Bamboo his integrity will be tested once again. He will fail . His excuses are as laim as his ploy for attention by using the money of others to claim his fame .

One more point : What happens when the money gets paid out? What next ? I guess Mr Randi will have to develop a new angle in order to market his nonsense.

Would you like to make a wager on whether the Yellow Bamboozlers will win the JREF challenge? Yellow Bamboo didn't take an official preliminary test. They didn't follow any protocols for such a test.