Pro Uri Gellar article with crazy innuendos regarding James Randi

jahbrations · 22nd April 2009, 04:32 PM

I just read this crazy article called "Uri Geller and the YouTube Video Smear" by Peter Fotis Kapnistos, and I was blown away by the lowdown accusations of the author.

He basically is accusing James Randi of being an online child predator based on the fact that some internet user who goes by the name Randi Schimnosky - posts pro pedophile content on Mother Jones' website.

It's a shockingly absurd article that borders on pure slander. I was wondering if anyone from the JREF community has seen this?

I can't posts links yet, but if you google Uri Geller and the YouTube Video Smear, you'll find the article.

Sorry if this was posted already, I did a search for the author's last name and didn't turn up any results in the forum.

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 04:36 PM

Aw, whats the matter Uri? Just because did good by exposing you as the fraud you are, you make up harmful rumors that could be damaging to his reputation, due to the fact that the public accepts most crap without critical thinking.

Pantaz · 22nd April 2009, 04:55 PM

It's covered in today's Swift article, A Champion Grubby Speaks Out

Limbo · 22nd April 2009, 05:03 PM

"Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers."

Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this?

Gord_in_Toronto · 22nd April 2009, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

"Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers."

Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this?

Whether such documentation can be produced or not, the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says.

Limbo · 22nd April 2009, 06:43 PM

So that's a no?

I wonder if the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey knows anything about this? Maybe someone should give him a call?

Gord_in_Toronto · 22nd April 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

So that's a no?

I wonder if the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey knows anything about this? Maybe someone should give him a call?

This crap has be hashed and re-hashed over and over by the weak minded believers in woo who have nothing substantive to add to humanity. IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TOO IT, Randi would have been charged. He has not been.

Give him a call yourself.

Kernel Hapablap · 22nd April 2009, 07:07 PM

I feel bad for Randi. I have been reading his books recently, some of which were written in the 80's, and in them, he has so thoroughly debunked the likes of, for example, Uri Geller, and Peter Popoff - that the tone of his writing takes on a "well, they're done for now" sort of attitude. But these douche-nozzles are still around! Is there nothing he can do?

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Kernel Hapablap

I feel bad for Randi. I have been reading his books recently, some of which were written in the 80's, and in them, he has so thoroughly debunked the likes of, for example, Uri Geller, and Peter Popoff - that the tone of his writing takes on a "well, they're done for now" sort of attitude. But these douche-nozzles are still around! Is there nothing he can do?

These scammers and charlatans want to get revenge on Randi, and that is by spreading lies.

Questioninggeller · 22nd April 2009, 08:03 PM

Randi wrote:

Quote:

...
Yes! You finally got something right, "journalist"! I flooded the media, law enforcement, the U.S. Postal Service, and New Jersey police, with that document, and later related the entire matter to an audience at Cal Tech. But you forgot (?) to mention that on that same occasion, as I finished reading the document, I took the opportunity of flooring a nasty chap who had made similar accusations about me, and had been boasting about it loudly. One shot, to the chops. He went down, and was carried out. VERY satisfying, I assure you. Want some, Mr. Kapnistos? I got some...
...

I remember reading about that.

Questioninggeller · 22nd April 2009, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by jahbrations

I just read this crazy article called "Uri Geller and the YouTube Video Smear" by Peter Fotis Kapnistos, and I was blown away by the lowdown accusations of the author.

Search google for "Peter Fotis Kapnistos". There's some funny articles, the guy is crazy.

The following is his own words:

Quote:

Interview with Peter Fotis Kapnistos, American Journalist
Paul Dale Roberts
Alienseekernews.com
February 20 2009
...
Just before dawn on Saturday, April 20, 1974, as I sat near the port of the Aegean island of Mykonos, I met a Man in Black who telepathically revealed to me a metal seal, the cap of a well pipe in the flagstone near my feet, with the design of what he said was the universe engraved on it. The man was well dressed, like a bridegroom, or a young business executive. I could hear his soft voice in my mind with perfect clarity. He told me that his father had claimed the judgment of Hitler's soul. Astonished by that weird idea, I tried to get up from my chair and walk on. But the stranger stopped me. Stepping forward, he stretched out both his arms with his fingers extended in my direction. Then he turned and looked across the bay. Dawn had arrived. But a thick black line or dark rectangular object blocked out part of the orange sun.

I heard him say, Peter, will you look at me? When I did, the man fixed his concentration and asked me; do you know what I must do?

He then broke the metal seal by melting its small central rod with a forceful gaze. I could see a cloud of steam or vapor swirling around his forehead. I heard the loud trumpet-blast of a ship's horn, but I didn't see any large boats moving in the harbor. He walked towards me and said; know the faith, as he passed by my chair. Then he disappeared into the village footpaths behind me. The sun looked normal again.
...
If we describe those mysterious aerial phenomena in the Bible as UFOs, some critics wrongly take it for granted that we have somehow tried to identify them as products of alien technology. But that, of course, doesn't really mean a thing, because the word technology can imply anything from a pair of synthetic slippers to an array of galactic supercomputers. What's more, the Bible seems to describe baffling events like time dilation, such as the stopping of the sun's movement in the sky.
...
Paul: What do you think the alien agenda is?

Peter: There are possibly several alien agendas, according to the exopolitics of Michael Salla and Alex Collier. Just as there are many life forms in the ocean, there are perhaps many different types of intelligent extraterrestrials. Reports of small beings with outsized heads and locust eyes could represent an agenda to manipulate life on earth in a way that might be harmful to humans. If they are occupants of unidentified submersible objects or USOs, they could be mining our planet's oceans for natural resources. Criminal experiments on humans that were abducted could have a sinister aspect with long-term consequences. If they feed on human endocrine products, as some writers have suggested, perhaps they see humans as just another type of core resource.
...
Some people accuse me of saying that Aleister Crowley was Hitler. But that's not true. We know that Hitler had up to three or four doubles or political decoys. I merely suggested that Crowley might have been one of them. After all, he was an originator of the supernatural ideas of Nazism and even wrote the nonsense that when he was born, a few hairs on his chest formed the shape of a swastika.
...
Yes, I have been to Santorini a few times. I did museum photography for Spiridon Marinatos, the archaeologist who discovered the ruins there. Atlantis was a global bronze-age civilization with its hub probably in Santorini. A volcano destroyed it. The sound of that volcano blast could be heard as far away as Spain. Its soot and ashes destroyed all vegetation in the entire Mediterranean. But don't make the mistake of trying to date Atlantis with the volcano. That was only the last of a long series of eruptions. The very old civilization of Atlantis was far more ancient than the last eruption we know of.
...

So Peter Fotis Kapnistos believes he had an experience with a man in black, Crowley was a double for Hitler, he believes Atlantis existed, he knows of an "alien agenda," and websites choose to associate with this type of thinking?

EHocking · 23rd April 2009, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Whether such documentation can be produced or not, the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says.

Limbo is aware of this as he/she had started a thread on this libel in this thread.

The subsequent backpedalling by Limba was embarrassing.

But it doesn't seem to have stopped Limbo spreading the unsubstantiated muck.

Limbo · 23rd April 2009, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

Limbo is aware of this as he/she had started a thread on this libel in this thread.

The subsequent backpedalling by Limba was embarrassing.

But it doesn't seem to have stopped Limbo spreading the unsubstantiated muck.

Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly?

Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed.

Ysidro · 23rd April 2009, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly?

Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed.

Ok then. Call the cops. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Well? Let me guess "I'm not going to do your homework for you" or some other phrase will be your reply. And then I'll point out you made the claim and we'll go back and forth for awhile while you continue to slander and libel someone.

There, I think I just summed up the next five pages. Do I get the million?

EHocking · 23rd April 2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly?

Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed.

I was referring to the original thread you started and your one and only mealy-mouthed follow up post in it, as you well know.

Quite a number of posters gave their opinions of you rehashing this libel, and continuing it here as though you were unaware of this is disingenuous.

Gord_in_Toronto · 23rd April 2009, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly?

Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed.

Snicker.

Senex · 23rd April 2009, 10:02 AM

Some of us like to use our spare time on the internet for the betterment of ourselves and others. I for one would love to know who to write to make whoever wrote this crap about about Mr. Randi think twice about slandering people on the internet.

George152 · 23rd April 2009, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

I was referring to the original thread you started and your one and only mealy-mouthed follow up post in it, as you well know.

Quite a number of posters gave their opinions of you rehashing this libel, and continuing it here as though you were unaware of this is disingenuous.

And the libellers shouldn't think for one moment that Randi won't take action.
A certain Canadian 'psychic' beat a court case by dying (which was a surprise to him)..

Gord_in_Toronto · 23rd April 2009, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by George152

And the libellers shouldn't think for one moment that Randi won't take action.
A certain Canadian 'psychic' beat a court case by dying (which was a surprise to him)..

Well not such a surprise for Earl, actually. The scuttlebutt at the time was that he committed suicide.

Limbo · 23rd April 2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

I was referring to the original thread you started and your one and only mealy-mouthed follow up post in it, as you well know.

Quite a number of posters gave their opinions of you rehashing this libel, and continuing it here as though you were unaware of this is disingenuous.

I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.

Gord_in_Toronto · 23rd April 2009, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.

Randi is not My Hero. This crap has been all over the Internet for years. Considering the number of idiots who hate Randi, do you not think that at least one of them would have pursued this story if it was true?

The fact that nothing has come of this, provides proof that Randi is innocent of the claims made. If you think there is something to it, phone the police.

I am a little pissed by idiots, innuendo, and liars.

desertgal · 24th April 2009, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.

Randi is not my hero. But, the accusation that he is a pederast is a sleazy one, with nothing to back it up. I have enough faith in human nature to hope many people would find such an unfounded accusation disgusting, no matter whom it was levied against. Stating that we are doing so simply because James Randi, our alleged hero, is the one accused is downright stupid.

If someone is going to call anyone a pedophile, then they should be prepared to follow through with some concrete evidence or shut the hell up. It's not a charge to be made or taken lightly. Perhaps you are willing to take it at face value, but others are not. Since you apparently are, then put your money where your mouth is, and call the police.

AndyD · 24th April 2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Today, over half of the Swiss population believes that William Tell really lived. A modern scientific view of the Tell account implies that any healthy adult male should be able to reproduce his success. But in reality, William Tell represents one in a million.

William Tell was real because over half the Swiss population believes so? If this is his standard of evidence, I'm less than convinced. If I found that sort of appeal to popularity convincing, I'd be a Catholic.

About.com: Urban Legends assures us that 65% of Brits believe King Arthur was real yet only 47% believe Richard the Lionheart ever lived. 58% think the fictional Sherlock Holmes was real and 51% give Robin Hood the thumbs up.

Or, to put it another way "over half of the British population believes that fictional characters were real whilst almost half believe the very real Richard the Lionheart was fictional". So much for the general public's grasp of reality.

If historians can't even determine beyond doubt that William Tell even existed (and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that he's fictional), it's going to be an uphill battle to convince me to take legendary superhuman tales about him at face value, no matter how many people think he was real.

chillzero · 24th April 2009, 07:52 AM

Several posts removed. Please remember to post on topic, and not to bicker over personal issues in threads.

Posted By:chillzero

Drudgewire · 24th April 2009, 08:05 AM

Since the non-personal issue part of my post was removed too, I'd like to point out I STILL would love to see a youtube of Randi knocking somebody on his rump.

Senex · 24th April 2009, 08:52 AM

Edited by chillzero:

Edited to remove quoted mod box, and comments. Do not comment on moderation in threads.

On-topic, people who disagree with others and fabricate reasons that their opposition is immoral should be lit up. Can someone provide something I can tangibly use my outrage at?

blutoski · 24th April 2009, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.

It's not about that. One thing that makes skeptics unpopular is that they hold the same standard for everybody. The fact that we don't follow conventional partisanship is just not accepted generally as even possible, much less understood.

Truth is: if an accuser was slandering somebody I didn't like (eg: the Pope) and asserted that he didn't need proof, I'd call that accuser a sleazebag, too.

This assignment of burden of proof to the claimant is not just a skeptical thing: slander and libel are actionable in most nations, and people who invent or circulate false and harmful claims should expect punishment via the law.

kittynh · 24th April 2009, 10:55 AM

Limbo...look to your own life and morality here. It's in serious question. In the end, you know the truth but are posting still because this is the "internet" and not reality to you. It's like going up to someones house and spray painting on it, yet here, you can claim credit and still not feel like it is something you did personally. But, it is.

Just because you can't get "caught" doesn't make it morally correct and in the end that reflection will still be upon you and how the world and even you yourself feel about you.

Do yourself a favor. Think and act like you would in "real" life, because this is "real" and sadly these posts of yours are going to eat your soul away.

blutoski · 24th April 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Truth is: if an accuser was slandering somebody I didn't like (eg: the Pope) and asserted that he didn't need proof, I'd call that accuser a sleazebag, too.

I just thought of a concrete example...

Back about ten years ago when there was that tragic death during that quack therapy called holding therapy (treating kids that don't bond with their adopted mothers by squashing them in a sleeping bag and re-enacting birth &c). The kids are often stripped down to their underwear, to get as close as possible to their 'birthday suit'.

A journalist wrote that that these quacks invented a therapy where they have to strip kids down to their underwear and hold them entirely because they were sexually attracted to juveniles.

I wrote a letter to the editor to point out that while there was no question that these people were quacks, bu there was no evidence for these other serious allegations, and it behooves a newspaper to think twice about such serious slander.

It's considered very serious by the law because the impact is so hard to reverse despite proving one's innocence.

kittynh · 24th April 2009, 03:09 PM

very good point. Slander and spreading lies only reflects back on the person telling the lies. Unless Uri himself is posting this stuff, it's going to look bad for him.

Limbo · 24th April 2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by kittynh

Limbo...look to your own life and morality here. It's in serious question. In the end, you know the truth but are posting still because this is the "internet" and not reality to you. It's like going up to someones house and spray painting on it, yet here, you can claim credit and still not feel like it is something you did personally. But, it is.

Just because you can't get "caught" doesn't make it morally correct and in the end that reflection will still be upon you and how the world and even you yourself feel about you.

Do yourself a favor. Think and act like you would in "real" life, because this is "real" and sadly these posts of yours are going to eat your soul away.

It's just that the whole False Memory Syndrome Foundation accused members thing concerns me a little. There is a potential for a conflict of interest, perhaps? Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? Note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just looking for more information. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously I'm not a Randi fan, but if I was I'm sure I would be offended by my posts too. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.

blutoski · 24th April 2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

It's just that the whole False Memory Syndrome Foundation accused members thing concerns me a little. There is a potential for a conflict of interest, perhaps? Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? Note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just looking for more information. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously I'm not a Randi fan, but if I was I'm sure I would be offended by my posts too. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.

Ah, yes... the "non-apology-apology" that is so popular with politicians.

My favourite version: [Pope Forgives Molested Children]

Can we seek your forgiveness for being so irrationaly upset with you for merely circulating shocking slander?

kerikiwi · 24th April 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.

Can you be specific as to which 'guys' you are referring to?
Give an example of 'too emotional', 'personal loyalty' and 'partiality'?

Limbo · 24th April 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Can you be specific as to which 'guys' you are referring to?
Give an example of 'too emotional', 'personal loyalty' and 'partiality'?

You know who you are.

blutoski · 24th April 2009, 03:55 PM

User CP... Edit Ignore List... Add a Member to Your List... "limbo"... [Okay]

desertgal · 24th April 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation?

If you read the description of FMSF, I think it is fairly apparent that Randi brings the principles of skepticism to the advisory board, along with a number of other board members.

Quote:

But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.

So, you have some impartial evidence that shows these allegations are true, then? Other than theories about Randi's own suppressed memories?

The Professor · 24th April 2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

"Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers."

Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this?

These tapes came out in another legal case I believe. They seem to be a matter of public record I would guess.

I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died.

Gord_in_Toronto · 24th April 2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Professor

These tapes came out in another legal case I believe. They seem to be a matter of public record I would guess.

I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died.

"I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died."? OK.

The Professor · 24th April 2009, 04:35 PM

I could be wrong. If so .... Why haven't they been asked about this?
The tapes are extremely obvious.

Azrael 5 · 24th April 2009, 04:37 PM

Snipped from an email sent to me by The Professor:

Quote:

Were you the one who molested the young boys like your hero did? Is that why you want to be like him.

I think most know the implication of "hero".

22nd April 2009, 04:32 PM	#1
jahbrations New Blood Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5	Pro Uri Gellar article with crazy innuendos regarding James Randi I just read this crazy article called "Uri Geller and the YouTube Video Smear" by Peter Fotis Kapnistos, and I was blown away by the lowdown accusations of the author. He basically is accusing James Randi of being an online child predator based on the fact that some internet user who goes by the name Randi Schimnosky - posts pro pedophile content on Mother Jones' website. It's a shockingly absurd article that borders on pure slander. I was wondering if anyone from the JREF community has seen this? I can't posts links yet, but if you google Uri Geller and the YouTube Video Smear, you'll find the article. Sorry if this was posted already, I did a search for the author's last name and didn't turn up any results in the forum.
jahbrations New Blood Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5

22nd April 2009, 05:03 PM	#4
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	"Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers." Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this?
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

22nd April 2009, 05:38 PM	#5
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Limbo "Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers." Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this? Whether such documentation can be produced or not, the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

22nd April 2009, 06:43 PM	#6
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	So that's a no? I wonder if the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey knows anything about this? Maybe someone should give him a call?
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

22nd April 2009, 06:48 PM	#7
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Limbo So that's a no? I wonder if the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey knows anything about this? Maybe someone should give him a call? This crap has be hashed and re-hashed over and over by the weak minded believers in woo who have nothing substantive to add to humanity. IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TOO IT, Randi would have been charged. He has not been. Give him a call yourself.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick Last edited by Gord_in_Toronto; 22nd April 2009 at 06:50 PM. Reason: Removed explectives!

22nd April 2009, 04:36 PM	#2
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Aw, whats the matter Uri? Just because did good by exposing you as the fraud you are, you make up harmful rumors that could be damaging to his reputation, due to the fact that the public accepts most crap without critical thinking.

22nd April 2009, 04:55 PM	#3
Pantaz Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Van Nuys, CA Posts: 898	It's covered in today's Swift article, A Champion Grubby Speaks Out

22nd April 2009, 07:07 PM	#8
Kernel Hapablap Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 85	I feel bad for Randi. I have been reading his books recently, some of which were written in the 80's, and in them, he has so thoroughly debunked the likes of, for example, Uri Geller, and Peter Popoff - that the tone of his writing takes on a "well, they're done for now" sort of attitude. But these douche-nozzles are still around! Is there nothing he can do?
Kernel Hapablap Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 85

22nd April 2009, 07:14 PM	#9
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by Kernel Hapablap I feel bad for Randi. I have been reading his books recently, some of which were written in the 80's, and in them, he has so thoroughly debunked the likes of, for example, Uri Geller, and Peter Popoff - that the tone of his writing takes on a "well, they're done for now" sort of attitude. But these douche-nozzles are still around! Is there nothing he can do? These scammers and charlatans want to get revenge on Randi, and that is by spreading lies.

22nd April 2009, 08:03 PM	#10
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Randi wrote: Quote: ... Yes! You finally got something right, "journalist"! I flooded the media, law enforcement, the U.S. Postal Service, and New Jersey police, with that document, and later related the entire matter to an audience at Cal Tech. But you forgot (?) to mention that on that same occasion, as I finished reading the document, I took the opportunity of flooring a nasty chap who had made similar accusations about me, and had been boasting about it loudly. One shot, to the chops. He went down, and was carried out. VERY satisfying, I assure you. Want some, Mr. Kapnistos? I got some... ... I remember reading about that.

22nd April 2009, 08:15 PM	#11
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	UFOs and the Bible Originally Posted by jahbrations I just read this crazy article called "Uri Geller and the YouTube Video Smear" by Peter Fotis Kapnistos, and I was blown away by the lowdown accusations of the author. Search google for "Peter Fotis Kapnistos". There's some funny articles, the guy is crazy. The following is his own words: Quote: Interview with Peter Fotis Kapnistos, American Journalist Paul Dale Roberts Alienseekernews.com February 20 2009 ... Just before dawn on Saturday, April 20, 1974, as I sat near the port of the Aegean island of Mykonos, I met a Man in Black who telepathically revealed to me a metal seal, the cap of a well pipe in the flagstone near my feet, with the design of what he said was the universe engraved on it. The man was well dressed, like a bridegroom, or a young business executive. I could hear his soft voice in my mind with perfect clarity. He told me that his father had claimed the judgment of Hitler's soul. Astonished by that weird idea, I tried to get up from my chair and walk on. But the stranger stopped me. Stepping forward, he stretched out both his arms with his fingers extended in my direction. Then he turned and looked across the bay. Dawn had arrived. But a thick black line or dark rectangular object blocked out part of the orange sun. I heard him say, Peter, will you look at me? When I did, the man fixed his concentration and asked me; do you know what I must do? He then broke the metal seal by melting its small central rod with a forceful gaze. I could see a cloud of steam or vapor swirling around his forehead. I heard the loud trumpet-blast of a ship's horn, but I didn't see any large boats moving in the harbor. He walked towards me and said; know the faith, as he passed by my chair. Then he disappeared into the village footpaths behind me. The sun looked normal again. ... If we describe those mysterious aerial phenomena in the Bible as UFOs, some critics wrongly take it for granted that we have somehow tried to identify them as products of alien technology. But that, of course, doesn't really mean a thing, because the word technology can imply anything from a pair of synthetic slippers to an array of galactic supercomputers. What's more, the Bible seems to describe baffling events like time dilation, such as the stopping of the sun's movement in the sky. ... Paul: What do you think the alien agenda is? Peter: There are possibly several alien agendas, according to the exopolitics of Michael Salla and Alex Collier. Just as there are many life forms in the ocean, there are perhaps many different types of intelligent extraterrestrials. Reports of small beings with outsized heads and locust eyes could represent an agenda to manipulate life on earth in a way that might be harmful to humans. If they are occupants of unidentified submersible objects or USOs, they could be mining our planet's oceans for natural resources. Criminal experiments on humans that were abducted could have a sinister aspect with long-term consequences. If they feed on human endocrine products, as some writers have suggested, perhaps they see humans as just another type of core resource. ... Some people accuse me of saying that Aleister Crowley was Hitler. But that's not true. We know that Hitler had up to three or four doubles or political decoys. I merely suggested that Crowley might have been one of them. After all, he was an originator of the supernatural ideas of Nazism and even wrote the nonsense that when he was born, a few hairs on his chest formed the shape of a swastika. ... Yes, I have been to Santorini a few times. I did museum photography for Spiridon Marinatos, the archaeologist who discovered the ruins there. Atlantis was a global bronze-age civilization with its hub probably in Santorini. A volcano destroyed it. The sound of that volcano blast could be heard as far away as Spain. Its soot and ashes destroyed all vegetation in the entire Mediterranean. But don't make the mistake of trying to date Atlantis with the volcano. That was only the last of a long series of eruptions. The very old civilization of Atlantis was far more ancient than the last eruption we know of. ... So Peter Fotis Kapnistos believes he had an experience with a man in black, Crowley was a double for Hitler, he believes Atlantis existed, he knows of an "alien agenda," and websites choose to associate with this type of thinking?

23rd April 2009, 07:12 AM	#12
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto Whether such documentation can be produced or not, the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says. Limbo is aware of this as he/she had started a thread on this libel in this thread. The subsequent backpedalling by Limba was embarrassing. But it doesn't seem to have stopped Limbo spreading the unsubstantiated muck.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

23rd April 2009, 07:19 AM	#13
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	Originally Posted by EHocking Limbo is aware of this as he/she had started a thread on this libel in this thread. The subsequent backpedalling by Limba was embarrassing. But it doesn't seem to have stopped Limbo spreading the unsubstantiated muck. Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly? Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 23rd April 2009 at 07:24 AM.

23rd April 2009, 08:10 AM	#14
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	Originally Posted by Limbo Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly? Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed. Ok then. Call the cops. Go ahead. I'll wait. Well? Let me guess "I'm not going to do your homework for you" or some other phrase will be your reply. And then I'll point out you made the claim and we'll go back and forth for awhile while you continue to slander and libel someone. There, I think I just summed up the next five pages. Do I get the million?
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

23rd April 2009, 09:36 AM	#15
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Limbo Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly? Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed. I was referring to the original thread you started and your one and only mealy-mouthed follow up post in it, as you well know. Quite a number of posters gave their opinions of you rehashing this libel, and continuing it here as though you were unaware of this is disingenuous.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage Last edited by EHocking; 23rd April 2009 at 09:42 AM. Reason: spelling

23rd April 2009, 09:47 AM	#16
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Limbo Aware of what? The scandal? Yes, I was aware of it. How is that "backpedaling", exactly? Or perhaps you think that "the fact that Randi was not arrested as a result of this incident proves the truth of what he says" is what I should be aware of. If you're willing to make that fanboi assumption, go right ahead. I'm not. Such an assumption, coming from the "skeptical" folk, smacks of hypocrisy. I doubt Randi fanbois would make such a generous assumption if the tables were reversed. Snicker.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

23rd April 2009, 10:02 AM	#17
Senex Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: An autobody repair shop in Connecticut Posts: 3,549	Some of us like to use our spare time on the internet for the betterment of ourselves and others. I for one would love to know who to write to make whoever wrote this crap about about Mr. Randi think twice about slandering people on the internet.
	__________________ I am the one who knocks! Walter White

23rd April 2009, 05:43 PM	#18
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,043	Originally Posted by EHocking I was referring to the original thread you started and your one and only mealy-mouthed follow up post in it, as you well know. Quite a number of posters gave their opinions of you rehashing this libel, and continuing it here as though you were unaware of this is disingenuous. And the libellers shouldn't think for one moment that Randi won't take action. A certain Canadian 'psychic' beat a court case by dying (which was a surprise to him)..
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

23rd April 2009, 05:48 PM	#19
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by George152 And the libellers shouldn't think for one moment that Randi won't take action. A certain Canadian 'psychic' beat a court case by dying (which was a surprise to him).. Well not such a surprise for Earl, actually. The scuttlebutt at the time was that he committed suicide.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

23rd April 2009, 07:20 PM	#20
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	Originally Posted by EHocking I was referring to the original thread you started and your one and only mealy-mouthed follow up post in it, as you well know. Quite a number of posters gave their opinions of you rehashing this libel, and continuing it here as though you were unaware of this is disingenuous. I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

23rd April 2009, 07:33 PM	#21
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Limbo I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story. Randi is not My Hero. This crap has been all over the Internet for years. Considering the number of idiots who hate Randi, do you not think that at least one of them would have pursued this story if it was true? The fact that nothing has come of this, provides proof that Randi is innocent of the claims made. If you think there is something to it, phone the police. I am a little pissed by idiots, innuendo, and liars.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

24th April 2009, 04:58 AM	#22
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,252	Originally Posted by Limbo I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story. Randi is not my hero. But, the accusation that he is a pederast is a sleazy one, with nothing to back it up. I have enough faith in human nature to hope many people would find such an unfounded accusation disgusting, no matter whom it was levied against. Stating that we are doing so simply because James Randi, our alleged hero, is the one accused is downright stupid. If someone is going to call anyone a pedophile, then they should be prepared to follow through with some concrete evidence or shut the hell up. It's not a charge to be made or taken lightly. Perhaps you are willing to take it at face value, but others are not. Since you apparently are, then put your money where your mouth is, and call the police.
	Last edited by desertgal; 24th April 2009 at 05:04 AM.

24th April 2009, 05:54 AM	#23
AndyD Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 527	Quote: Today, over half of the Swiss population believes that William Tell really lived. A modern scientific view of the Tell account implies that any healthy adult male should be able to reproduce his success. But in reality, William Tell represents one in a million. William Tell was real because over half the Swiss population believes so? If this is his standard of evidence, I'm less than convinced. If I found that sort of appeal to popularity convincing, I'd be a Catholic. About.com: Urban Legends assures us that 65% of Brits believe King Arthur was real yet only 47% believe Richard the Lionheart ever lived. 58% think the fictional Sherlock Holmes was real and 51% give Robin Hood the thumbs up. Or, to put it another way "over half of the British population believes that fictional characters were real whilst almost half believe the very real Richard the Lionheart was fictional". So much for the general public's grasp of reality. If historians can't even determine beyond doubt that William Tell even existed (and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that he's fictional), it's going to be an uphill battle to convince me to take legendary superhuman tales about him at face value, no matter how many people think he was real.
AndyD Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 527	__________________ Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) Perth homeopaths Last edited by AndyD; 24th April 2009 at 05:59 AM. Reason: My spirit guides failed me repeatedly - again

24th April 2009, 08:05 AM	#25
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Since the non-personal issue part of my post was removed too, I'd like to point out I STILL would love to see a youtube of Randi knocking somebody on his rump.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet Last edited by chillzero; 24th April 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason: Removing mod box

24th April 2009, 10:36 AM	#27
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,989	Originally Posted by Limbo I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story. It's not about that. One thing that makes skeptics unpopular is that they hold the same standard for everybody. The fact that we don't follow conventional partisanship is just not accepted generally as even possible, much less understood. Truth is: if an accuser was slandering somebody I didn't like (eg: the Pope) and asserted that he didn't need proof, I'd call that accuser a sleazebag, too. This assignment of burden of proof to the claimant is not just a skeptical thing: slander and libel are actionable in most nations, and people who invent or circulate false and harmful claims should expect punishment via the law.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

24th April 2009, 10:55 AM	#28
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,707	Limbo...look to your own life and morality here. It's in serious question. In the end, you know the truth but are posting still because this is the "internet" and not reality to you. It's like going up to someones house and spray painting on it, yet here, you can claim credit and still not feel like it is something you did personally. But, it is. Just because you can't get "caught" doesn't make it morally correct and in the end that reflection will still be upon you and how the world and even you yourself feel about you. Do yourself a favor. Think and act like you would in "real" life, because this is "real" and sadly these posts of yours are going to eat your soul away.
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

24th April 2009, 11:04 AM	#29
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,989	Originally Posted by blutoski Truth is: if an accuser was slandering somebody I didn't like (eg: the Pope) and asserted that he didn't need proof, I'd call that accuser a sleazebag, too. I just thought of a concrete example... Back about ten years ago when there was that tragic death during that quack therapy called holding therapy (treating kids that don't bond with their adopted mothers by squashing them in a sleeping bag and re-enacting birth &c). The kids are often stripped down to their underwear, to get as close as possible to their 'birthday suit'. A journalist wrote that that these quacks invented a therapy where they have to strip kids down to their underwear and hold them entirely because they were sexually attracted to juveniles. I wrote a letter to the editor to point out that while there was no question that these people were quacks, bu there was no evidence for these other serious allegations, and it behooves a newspaper to think twice about such serious slander. It's considered very serious by the law because the impact is so hard to reverse despite proving one's innocence.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett Last edited by blutoski; 24th April 2009 at 12:21 PM.

24th April 2009, 03:09 PM	#30
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,707	very good point. Slander and spreading lies only reflects back on the person telling the lies. Unless Uri himself is posting this stuff, it's going to look bad for him.
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

24th April 2009, 03:13 PM	#31
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	Originally Posted by kittynh Limbo...look to your own life and morality here. It's in serious question. In the end, you know the truth but are posting still because this is the "internet" and not reality to you. It's like going up to someones house and spray painting on it, yet here, you can claim credit and still not feel like it is something you did personally. But, it is. Just because you can't get "caught" doesn't make it morally correct and in the end that reflection will still be upon you and how the world and even you yourself feel about you. Do yourself a favor. Think and act like you would in "real" life, because this is "real" and sadly these posts of yours are going to eat your soul away. It's just that the whole False Memory Syndrome Foundation accused members thing concerns me a little. There is a potential for a conflict of interest, perhaps? Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? Note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just looking for more information. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously I'm not a Randi fan, but if I was I'm sure I would be offended by my posts too. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 24th April 2009 at 03:30 PM.

24th April 2009, 03:37 PM	#32
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,989	Originally Posted by Limbo It's just that the whole False Memory Syndrome Foundation accused members thing concerns me a little. There is a potential for a conflict of interest, perhaps? Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? Note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just looking for more information. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously I'm not a Randi fan, but if I was I'm sure I would be offended by my posts too. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality. Ah, yes... the "non-apology-apology" that is so popular with politicians. My favourite version: [Pope Forgives Molested Children] Can we seek your forgiveness for being so irrationaly upset with you for merely circulating shocking slander?
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

24th April 2009, 03:44 PM	#33
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by Limbo But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality. Can you be specific as to which 'guys' you are referring to? Give an example of 'too emotional', 'personal loyalty' and 'partiality'?

24th April 2009, 03:45 PM	#34
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Can you be specific as to which 'guys' you are referring to? Give an example of 'too emotional', 'personal loyalty' and 'partiality'? You know who you are.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

24th April 2009, 03:55 PM	#35
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,989	User CP... Edit Ignore List... Add a Member to Your List... "limbo"... [Okay]
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

24th April 2009, 04:01 PM	#36
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,252	Originally Posted by Limbo Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? If you read the description of FMSF, I think it is fairly apparent that Randi brings the principles of skepticism to the advisory board, along with a number of other board members. Quote: But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality. So, you have some impartial evidence that shows these allegations are true, then? Other than theories about Randi's own suppressed memories?

24th April 2009, 04:25 PM	#37
The Professor Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 721	Originally Posted by Limbo "Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers." Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this? These tapes came out in another legal case I believe. They seem to be a matter of public record I would guess. I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died.
The Professor Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 721