toneyb:

Another very lame talk. Randi is not a psychic, He is an ex magician and a skeptic. He might not know all their tricks but that does not mean its still not a trick. All he is telling them to do is come and display their so called psychic powers under the radar and let people know how real it is, but as usual instead of them taking up the challenge they are all over the place(including their praise singers like you) attacking Randi for failing to take up their own devious challenge.

Sad apologetics, toneyb. Do you have anything of substance to say at all? Randi (according to YOU) witnessed a guy walk on hot coals. He never claimed that it did not happen. It makes no difference WHERE that guy demonstrated it - Randi could have done the same by replicating what he saw. WHY has he failed to do so? Your cheap talk is quite a comedy - go to comedy central: I'll be your devoted viewer!

. My guy no be fight, you are the one that needs to grow up. I got this from wikipedia it cites about 5 different sources that says that the consensus of the scientific community is that psychic abilities have NOt been scientifically shown to exist. Here is just one out of the 5 sources.

Dude, I'm not fighting with you. I saw those and MORE sources of what the scientific community feels about such phenomena. They did not draw up any OFFICIAL conclusion that such phenomena do not exist; rather, they are skeptical about it for a number of reasons (among which is that they are not agreed about what field or branch of scientific discipline is properly suited for such studies).

But as regards what you excerpted, there's something fishy about your conclusion:

"^ Reuters (5 September 2003). "Telepathy gets academic in Sweden". CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/05/offbeat.telepathy.reut/index.html. Retrieved 9 March 2009. [i]"Despite decades of experimental research ,  there is still no proof that gifts such as telepathy and the ability to see the future exist, mainstream scientists say"

. . . however, if we would not quote things out of context but let fairness be displayed, here's what that quote said:

         'Despite decades of experimental research and television performances
         by people such as spoonbending psychic Uri Geller, there is still no proof
         that gifts such as telepathy and the ability to see the future exist,
         mainstream scientists say.'

It is important to note the highlight (in purple) - especially from a newsmedia (CNN). I don't know if CNN is acting on behalf of the "scientific community" to draw any conclusions - and I don't see how Uri Geller's case of spoonbending should act as the totality of all telepathic abilities.

Rather than a conclusion that such things do not exist, CNN on that page reports that Sweden "will take a leap into the unknown by appointing northern Europe's first professor of parapsychology, hypnology and clairvoyance". That report was since 2003, and it does not say that such things do not exist - instead says that the first professor, to be appointed by Lund University Dean Goran Bexell, was expected to start work in 2004. Yet, it reports that "Verifying the existence of paranormal phenomena does not seem to be a promising field of science," said Sven Ove Hansson, professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm - which again answers to what I noted earlier {'they are not agreed about what field or branch of scientific discipline is properly suited for such studies'}."

Bro, let's be objective in what we say rather than just rush to hasty conclusions.

Now, as regards the so-called consensus of the 'scientifi community', let me post the position on this from some of your '5 sources':

Parapsychology website: Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to investigate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method. Parapsychological experiments have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of precognition and psychokinesis with both human and animal subjects and Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception.

While the results of such experiments are regarded by some parapsychologists as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities, the consensus of the scientific community is that psychic abilities have not been demonstrated to exist. Critics argue that methodological flaws may explain any apparent experimental successes. The status of parapsychology as a science has also been disputed. Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience because parapsychologists continue investigation despite not having demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research.

Laboratory and field research is conducted through private institutions and a small number of universities worldwide.

(1)  Parapsychology and Paranormal Phenomenon

(2)  Parapsychology - Wikipedia

. . . and other sources.

The last line that 'Laboratory and field research is conducted through private institutions and a small number of universities worldwide', we don't forget that what a professor in Sweden has said: "Verifying the existence of paranormal phenomena does not seem to be a promising field of science," (Sven Ove Hansson, professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, KTH).

What then does this mean?

Simple: that the field of PARAPSYCHOLOGY is a developing field on its own right. This is why even the Wikipedia page lists parapsychology organizations and publications for that purpose. It is not as if ALL scientists are agreed that the psychic studies have produced zero results - NOT AT ALL. Rather, because the 'establishment' is more a political bloc when it comes to funding, the bias is usually expressed in misleading verbiage that "that psychic abilities have not been demonstrated to exist" - not that they deny its existence; instead, they have no 'science' within their matrix to recognize such phenomena for funding - which is why it is now privately funded.

toneyb:

It also cites those who wrote the science standards for the California State Board of Education in its sources. Vairo please name just ONE respectable or mainstream scientific body that have stated or established that psychic abilities exists scientifically or for ever keep your mouth shut.

You wish!

Dude wake up. As explained above, there are several ORGANISATIONS and PUBLICATIONS of psychic phenomena well staffed by scientists of past and present! You just quibble over matters you never researched yourself so that you can act like a local town-crier for the amazing cheat Randi.

If you want some, here are a few:

From among the list on that Wikipedia page:

[list]~  Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh
~  Parapsychology Research Group at Liverpool Hope University
~  SOPHIA Project at the University of Arizona
~  Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit of Liverpool John Moores University
~  Center for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes at the University of Northampton
~  Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths University of London

~  The Parapsychological Association
~  Society for Psychical Research, (publisher of the Journal of Society for Psychical Research)
~  American Society for Psychical Research, (publisher of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research)
~  Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology, (publisher of the Journal of Parapsychology)
~  Parapsychology Foundation, (publisher of the International Journal of Parapsychology)
~  Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, (publisher of the Australian Journal of Parapsychology)
*  The European Journal of Parapsychology is independently published.[/list]

Scientists, do you care to remind yourself of some? >>>

[list][li]William Barrett, 1844-1925[/li]
[li]Alfred Russel Wallace, 1823-1913[/li]
[li]Stephan Ossowiecki, 1877-1944[/li]
[li]John Elliotson, 1788-1868 [/li][/list]

By no means the only names in the past or present - but I do hope those will help sate your thirst for the moment.

toneyb:

Randi has ALWAYS been open about his magic tricks so there is nothing new there. It his sincerity and fairness that lead him to set up the challenge, but this time he wanted to really know if those shouting at long distances really have anything of value up their sleeves to present instead of empty noise and tricks.

Still yapping, are you?   If he has "always been open", please tell me something: WHY oh WHY did the same Randi not replicate the same results of walking on hot coals? Why are you just dancing in the rain soaked with your saliva?

I'm after results, dude ... RESULTS from Randi's REPLICATIONS of what he witnessed about walking on hot coals! Please stop entertaining and impressing yourself - just give us results! Ha!

Randi does not claim to have the ability to walk on hot coals, The other guy obviously has developed some tricks that enable him to walk on coal but instead of coming out and telling people he assigns it to some supernatural cause which is what Randi is really after.

HAHAHAHAHA-Hahahaha!! Your penchant to be amazingly evasive is golden!
Randi tells you it is some "trick" - you also wrote earlier that Randi uses the same tricks, no? Were you dreaming when you were saying those things on his behalf? Rest your heart - Randi is a cheap talker, a dropout who thinks everyone he hears about is also a dropout! I'm not asking Randi anything other than REPLICATING what he witnessed or just shut up.

If the guy's supernatural agent can enable him walk on hot coal for about 50 seconds then why not also enable him stand the heat of boiling water for 50 seconds. Coal burning at 100degress and water or oil boiling at that temperature and the same no?

Even in simple materials science, water and coal and oil are not the same. Try applying heat and pressure to these materials as far as their critical points and you will see that they do not have the same properties or critical points. Your making them the same is as far as the cheap science that Randi can teach you with his school dropout diploma!

Dude, please don't make me laugh at you! It's been such fun taking you by the nose today - what happened?!?   And what was that about "supernatural agent" you wrote up there?

The guy is obviously a trickster and there is no supernatural agent that is giving him any ability at all. He obviously developed the trick.

Are you now desperate?!? Hehehehehe!!   First, you say posit something about the guy's supernatural agent (yeah, I know it was aconditional "if" - but then you say there was no supernatural agent? Okay - that is why I would wait forever for the professional and amazing cheap talker Randi to use simple natural agency of his own to replicate that same thing. I just want to see Randi produce results - why is that sooooooooo HAAAAARRDD!??

Stop shouting my brother. Randi is NOT a psychic and he does not claim to have such abilities.

Okay, in smaller print, hehe. Randi is a retired magician, so he says - no? Good. Whatever it is he claims, let the dude REPLICATE RESULTS. That's all I ask.

He is only interested in how real such claims are. An external agent that can make you walk on hot coal for 50s seconds should be able to guide you through boiling water of the same temperature no? The fact that the irony escapes you is laughable.

I agree - that fact that such irony escapes both you and Randi is golden! Please take a stroll and peek into materials science and come back telling me they are the same. The amazing duplicity you guys will advertise is why this world is slow!

How do you know that if the guy had walked on boiling water or hot oil that would not have changed Randi's mind? Are you a mind reader?

I truly wish I were a mind reader. Sorry - maybe when I'm bored, then my training on that trickery begins.

Viaro, what's up baba? Regarding Randi's refusal to take some tests and some randi tests psychics dare not take, dont you think the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary claim?
What i mean is this: If you believe ghosts exist, it's up to you to prove it. I should not be the one to prove the non-existence of ghosts.

ilosiwaju:

Viaro, what's up baba? Regarding Randi's refusal to take some tests and some randi tests psychics dare not take, dont you think the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary claim?
What i mean is this: If you believe ghosts exist, it's up to you to prove it. I should not be the one to prove the non-existence of ghosts.

@ilosiwaju,
I like the way you simplified it. Respects.

But I don't necessarily agree it is that simplistic. The question is not that this or that exists or does not exist - no. Rather, if one is saying that NOTHING defined as paranormal or psychic exists, then it is up to him to explain those which he has witnessed but cannot deny their existence. This is where he ought to replicate what he claims he "uses the same tricks" for, just as he witnessed in those cases (walking on hot coals a ready example).

Of course, in every endeavour we know that frauds exist. But we are not concerned more about frauds than about genuine cases. It is not whether or not we can find some naturalistic explanations for what we observe; instead, we ought to acknowledge the fact of what is being observed even when we sometimes fail to find explanations for them. It is quite duplicitous to find a means to "discredit" people just because we fail to find a means of explaining what we have observed, especially where we claim to use the same 'tricks' and YET CANNOT replicate them!

It is all the more worrying that those who have invited Randi to consider some other genuine cases have not received serious responses from him as to taking up their challenges - and he is not willing to take up those challenges. WHY?

It's quite easy to dispel frauds - the easiest of things to do in the world. There are also frauds in science; but should we therefore ridicule science on account of many frauds in science?

But if you leave the frauds aside and be willing to examine other cases which present a protocol that matches standard precedures that the investigator agrees with, there would be no doubts raised about the investigator's credibility. Other investigators do that same thing - they go out to examine what is presented before them, see if such things could be replicate on site under controlled protocol, and then make any conclusions you want to. But no - not in Randi's case: he has something to protect far more than any 1 million US dollars, and that is why his debunking theatricals cannot stand up to match these other challenges. So he busies himself "discrediting" what he neither could deny nor replicate. What objectivity is in such a behaviour?

Why is viaro dancing all over the place? . . . . .The same convoluted spin master is at work. . LOL!!

viaro:


But I don't necessarily agree it is that simplistic. The question is not that this or that exists or does not exist - no. Rather, if one is saying that NOTHING defined as paranormal or psychic exists, then it is up to him to explain those which he has witnessed but cannot deny their existence. This is where he ought to replicate what he claims he "uses the same tricks" for, just as he witnessed in those cases (walking on hot coals a ready example).

Where did Randi state that the paranormal does NOT exist, Pls produce any source that says he ever made such a statement. Thank you.

Let me quickly address some points here. I have meet, listened to and watch so many of Randi's videos. I was opportuned to meet him in London about 2 years ago(2008) when he came and delivered a lecture in London, I did not really know who he was at that time, A friend happened to be a member of the association(The Skeptic magazine) that invited him. He got the tickets for us and we went. After the lecture and demonstration from him and other speakers we went forward and meet him. We took some pictures with him and chatted a little. I personally asked if he was truly willing to give out 1 million dollars to any body that could stand his test and he said yes, In fact he said he will be very happy to. He told me that he truly wanted to know if these abilities are real. He is a skeptic who is willing to see if those alleged abilities can stand for themselves or if they are mere charade as he suspects them to be. . . . . . . .

Why does Randi need to replicate anything? . OK let me address the talk about the guy who walked on hot coal. Toneyb got it wrong when he said that the guy walked on hot coal for 50 seconds. The guy walked very fast on hot coal for 30 seconds not 50 as toneyb said. I watched a video on you tube soem time ago where one of the guy's fans was calling Randi a dishonest criminal for throwing a challenge against the guy(I will look it up and see, If I get it I will post it here). After the show according to the guy Randi was interviewed on TV, when asked if the guy's abilities are supernatural or fake Randi said that he believes that all these demonstrations are fake because the guy had to prove to him beyound reasonable doubt that his abilities were real. When asked if he could replicate the guys ability Randi simply said no. The guy went on to say that Randi was a dishonest liar just because Randi said on another TV show that the guy's ability could be relpicated. He did not say that he could replicate the guy's ability but he said that any body that knows the trick behind it can also walk very fast on hot coal like the guy did. How then is Randi a dishonest lair?

I have meet Randi and from the discussion we had I can conclude that he is only after the truth behind the claims people make or some of the abilities people have demonstrated. Randi's first challenge to the guy who walked on the hot coal for 30 seconds was stand on the hot coal for half the time he walked on the hot coal so that he can see if his abilities were true. If the guy has some spuernatural agent or agents protecting him from the heat and allowing him to walk fast on the hot coal as he claims, such supernatural agent/agents should also be able to protect the guy's feet and allow him to stand on the hot coal for half the time he spent walking on the coal Randi said. As expected the guy refused, His second challenge to the guy was to place his feet in boiling water or hot oil for the same duration he used in walking over the hot coal. His reason as pointed out by tony is that if the guy's supernatural agents could protect his feet and make him walk on hot coal they should also be able to protect him and make him stand on the hot coal for half the time he used in walking on the hot coal or protect him from boiling or hot oil that is of the same tempreture.

You keep coming up with this bizzare talk about Randi lacking the ability to replicate what others have done. That does not even come close to making any sense at all because Randi has never claimed that their psychic abilities do not exists, all he wants for them to do is to come and demonstrate evidence of their paranormal, supernatural or occult power under test conditions agreed to by both parties so that skeptics like him will accept and forever shut their mouths. That is all what he is after. He is only after the veracity of such claims. The fact that he is unable to replicate their tricks does not give credence or legitimize their tricks as supernatural events. I may not be able to replicate the so called abilities of 419 tricksters that used to trick people back in the days when we were kids by openly demonstarting their ability to turn ordinary paper into naira notes and claim that the source of their ability is juju or some other external agent but that does not stop their tricks from what it is. Randi does not have to replicate anything, If the psychics are so sure of themselves why not just take up his challenge and shut him up for ever as tony pointed out?

His challenge still remains, If you claim to have or have demonstrated supernatural abilities(Such as the ability to withstand or deflect bullets fired from a gun, walk on hot coal, heal blind people or people who are suffering from paralysis) come and demonstrate evidence for this supernatural under test conditions and win a million dollars. The fact that people are all over the place making noise from long distances as my man tony said instead of standing up to his challenge is very very telling. Non of them will like to go and embarass him or herself as expected.

What I can personally say about these things is that there is that the veracity of such claims is zero. There is only anecdotal evidence, which is ALWAYS the evidence you have when you have no evidence. It's bollocks. Basically, if you translate the words "religious", "spiritual", "mystical", and "supernatural" as meaning "great steaming pile of crap" you won't go far wrong. The problem is that there is NEVER any verifiable evidence? ONLY special pleadings and them say them say. My point is that pretending that their is verifiable and objective evidence for the supernatural is no way to get around the fact their is isn't objective evidence to support any supernatural activity or process.

mazaje:

Why is viaro dancing all over the place? . . . . .The same convoluted spin master is at work. . LOL!!

Howdy my man?

Actually, I'm not spinning or dancing around - my case is simple and factual. Please identify where you disagree and make some case for what you want to present. That would be more interesting to read rather than argue in empty box.

mazaje:

Where did Randi state that the paranormal does NOT exist, Pls produce any source that says he ever made such a statement. Thank you.

Did you read me make a claim that Randi stated that the paranormal does not exist?

I hope you saw clearly the first part of the quote from my comment that you quoted? I said "The question is not that this or that exists or does not exist - no." And by that it should be clear to any objective reader that I did not lay a direct charge at Randi for such a claim as you supposed.

For those clamouring after Randi, my direct call to them is for them to smart up and stand for what they are saying. Example, toneyb (as well yourself, I suppose) is convinced that the abilities which have been demonstrated in the presence of Randi are "not real" - therefore, he wants to convince himself that such a thing as could be defined as paranormal or psychic does not exist. I may be wrong; but IF either you or toneyb are not saying that such a thing does not exist, then why all the pains to defend the what you cannot credibly dismiss on any objective grounds other than the usual sob atheist stories you have been singing all along?

Let me quickly address some points here. I have meet, listened to and watch so many of Randi's videos. I was opportuned to meet him in London about 2 years ago(2008) when he came and delivered a lecture in London, I did not really know who he was at that time, A friend happened to be a member of the association(The Skeptic magazine) that invited him. He got the tickets for us and we went. After the lecture and demonstration from him and other speakers we went forward and meet him. We took some pictures with him and chatted a little. I personally asked if he was truly willing to give out 1 million dollars to any body that could stand his test and he said yes, In fact he said he will be very happy to. He told me that he truly wanted to know if these abilities are real. He is a skeptic who is willing to see if those alleged abilities can stand for themselves or if they are mere charade as he suspects them to be.

I have not met Randi in person - nor do I need to. Your good fortune that you did and got to hear him say for himself that he suspects those abilities to be mere charade. Yes, you also said that he lectured and demonstrated - whatever. But with reference to the case presented earlier by toneyb, I would have been delighted to see him replicate the case of walking on coals in the same manner that he witnessed and could not have denied!

Anyone could try to discredit another person - that is easy-peazy. But it is quite another world to go beyond mere talk and replicate what someone else has done which you cannot deny. That is where you convince the objective person that you're not preaching to the choir merely because Randi "suspects" that those other cases are mere charade. Objectivity does not rest on someone's "suspicion" - otherwise, if it did, then anyone could dismiss Randi on mere suspicion and call it a fine day!

Why does Randi need to replicate anything? .

Because toneyb on his behalf claims that he (Randi) uses the same tricks to discredit others. Let him therefore use any number of that same trick to walk on hot coals - then we know that he understands what he is saying and there would be substance in what he claims.

OK let me address the talk about the guy who walked on hot coal. Toneyb got it wrong when he said that the guy walked on hot coal for 50 seconds.

Please I beg you - I deeply beg you, mazaje. You guys are changing your diapers far too quickly for me to keep track of anything. I don't think toneyb claimed that the guy walked on hot coals for 50 seconds - rather he said it was Randi that threw the challenge to the guy "to do the same with boiling water and hot oil, stating that if the guy could walk on hot coal for about 50 seconds (or there about) without hurting his feet, he should also be able to put his feet in boiling water or boiling oil for the same duration and come out unscathed." Randi was the one (supposedly in toneyb's account) who yapped about 50 seconds, not that he said the guy walked for 50 secs on hot coals. Yet, I don't see where Randi denied that such an event did occur.

The guy walked very fast on hot coal for 30 seconds not 50 as toneyb said.

Okay - here's wishing Randi some good luck to walk on hot coals for 30 seconds as did that guy! It does not matter how fast Randi does it - 30 seconds is scientific enough! Okay, Randi ... over to you. Roger me when you're done!

mazaje:

What I can personally say about these things is that there is that the veracity of such claims is zero. There is only anecdotal evidence, which is ALWAYS the evidence you have when you have no evidence. It's bollocks.

So it is your own anecdotal evidence of meeting Randi is London that is not bollocks? Please pass.

If you and Randi want to be serious, stop sitting lazily in one dark corner and congratulating yourself on what you have not found out. There are free passes where Randi could prove his mettle by taking up the challenges offered him on fairness and objectivity. What is keeping the amazing Randi from such simple issues?

Basically, if you translate the words "religious", "spiritual", "mystical", and "supernatural" as meaning "great steaming pile of crap" you won't go far wrong.

Fortunately, no one else translates them as such - only lazy atheists with ready-made pat-answers for their laziness often do so. No big deal there.

The problem is that there is NEVER any verifiable evidence? ONLY special pleadings and them say them say. My point is that pretending that their is verifiable and objective evidence for the supernatural is no way to get around the fact their is isn't objective evidence to support any supernatural activity or process.

Dude, wake up. Randi will not tell you where studies have been carried out for EVIDENCE. That is because you're too lazy to check, simply don't care, or far too drunk on your own bollocks to be man enough to source Randi out. Enjoy your misery.

When you do wake up and desire to find evidence on the same plane, please search - you may surprise yourself far beyond your anecdotes for Randi. The case below is not a nightmare to the atheist, but it might help to take a peak and see that what Randi claims to be looking for has been studied and applied ALREADY - just an example:

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 103 -1 18, 1987
Pergamon Press plc Printed in the USA.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_01_2_schmidt.pdf

Abstract -This paper discusses evidence for a psychokinetic effect acting on chance events. Emphasis is laid on action on pre-recorded random processes and its interpretation in terms of two general hypotheses, the weak violation hypothesis, and the equivalence hypothesis. These hypotheses imply that psychokinesis can act on the outcome of indeterministic quantum events only, and that, basically, all such events are affected to the same degree.

mazaje:

I watched a video on you tube soem time ago where one of the guy's fans was calling Randi a dishonest criminal for throwing a challenge against the guy(I will look it up and see, If I get it I will post it here). After the show according to the guy Randi was interviewed on TV, when asked if the guy's abilities are supernatural or fake Randi said that he believes that all these demonstrations are fake because the guy had to prove to him beyound reasonable doubt that his abilities were real. When asked if he could replicate the guys ability Randi simply said no. The guy went on to say that Randi was a dishonest liar just because Randi said on another TV show that the guy's ability could be relpicated. He did not say that he could replicate the guy's ability but he said that any body that knows the trick behind it can also walk very fast on hot coal like the guy did. How then is Randi a dishonest lair?

Thanks for trying to advocate for Randi. The thing is that Randi is a liar all the same.

It is not in reference to the said case of hot coals that I drew that inference; but on other cases that cast doubts on his credibility as an objective seeker of genuine cases.

However, I wonder that Randi came to the conclusion that the guy's case was fake - just because he believes it so. Not that he could demonstrate it, replicate it, or explain it away with credible protocol. Just Randi says this and that, and voila! he's alright, no? Please. Randi's claim that what he saw was fake amounts to nothing - afterall, there are cases where he has believed others to be frauds and went on to demonstrate them. Why does this one case elude him, and then he thinks he could just yap and leave it at that?

I have meet Randi and from the discussion we had I can conclude that he is only after the truth behind the claims people make or some of the abilities people have demonstrated.

Anecdotal news have their place - but not here and not now, sorry mazaje bro. I respect what you want to conclude for yourself; but that does not have any value just because he says this and that. If Randi is actually after the truth, he could honour the invitation and challenges of those who are willing to show him certain other phenomena. He went elsewhere outside his 'studio' and you met him in London - he could also go anywhere he has been invited. Why is he evading those other challenges if he does not have something to be ashamed of? Playing hanky panky works well for those who wishes to pander to - but he would not do honour the challenges where it really matters.

Randi's first challenge to the guy who walked on the hot coal for 30 seconds was stand on the hot coal for half the time he walked on the hot coal so that he can see if his abilities were true. If the guy has some spuernatural agent or agents protecting him from the heat and allowing him to walk fast on the hot coal as he claims, such supernatural agent/agents should also be able to protect the guy's feet and allow him to stand on the hot coal for half the time he spent walking on the coal Randi said.

Randi knows too well that if that guy had done that same thing, there's always another silly request up Randi's sleeve. The question at all that the said guy walked on hot coals for 30 secs says so much for Randi to do the same. Asking him to do so with boiling water is also dubious - Randi himself has said that he would refuse any scenario where there's a potential for the persons to get hurt. If that guy did what he knew best, and did so for 30 secs, and Randi could not deny the evidence of what he saw, one should expect at the very least that such a 'trick' could be replicated. That is where it truly matters much more than standing idle and asking someone to do this and that before you believe anything. What happened to the one that he saw but could not deny?

As expected the guy refused, His second challenge to the guy was to place his feet in boiling water or hot oil for the same duration he used in walking over the hot coal. His reason as pointed out by tony is that if the guy's supernatural agents could protect his feet and make him walk on hot coal they should also be able to protect him and make him stand on the hot coal for half the time he used in walking on the hot coal or protect him from boiling or hot oil that is of the same tempreture.

I've already explained that issue with regards to materials science. I wonder that this should escape you guys and you don't seem to recognise that hot coals and boiling water and oil are not the same. Please refer to my previous comments, thanks.

You keep coming up with this bizzare talk about Randi lacking the ability to replicate what others have done. That does not even come close to making any sense at all because Randi has never claimed that their psychic abilities do not exists, all he wants for them to do is to come and demonstrate evidence of their paranormal, supernatural or occult power under test conditions agreed to by both parties so that skeptics like him will accept and forever shut their mouths. That is all what he is after.

You're carping, dude. The conditions he seeks is what those other challengers offer him. Randi is too much of a dubious fellow to face up to those challenges. Period.

I did not assert anywhere what empty noise you are alleging here. If Randi believes that the paranormal exists, he would do well to address the divide that indeed such a thing exists although there are frauds. You yourself have stated that Randi confided to you in your acquaintance in London that he suspects these abilities to be "mere charade". He did not tell you that he believes SOME are frauds but was rather happy to make a sweeping remark about their being charade - you were impressed because that is what folks like you wanted to hear from him. If I were you, right there and then I would have posed the obvious question to him: Randi, are you saying that ALL CASES in all possibilities are mere charade, since that is what you "suspect" them to be? Rather than talk sensibly, you're arguing an empty case that keeps Randi's amazing duplicity at large.

He is only after the veracity of such claims.

Then he should go to where it matters and put himself out of his misery instead of hooting that he suspects them to be mere charade. A man who draws such sweeping conclusions is obviously dubious, no offence.

The fact that he is unable to replicate their tricks does not give credence or legitimize their tricks as supernatural events.

Of course not - and I agree. But again, the fact he is unable to replicate them is the more reason he should not be dismissing them hastily and emptily. He calls them 'tricks' - how does he know? If that is what that particular case was, then let him use the same tricks to replicate what he witnessed. QED. Either that, or he should just shut up about "using the same tricks" (as in toneyb's earlier) comments.

I may not be able to replicate the so called abilities of 419 tricksters that used to trick people back in the days when we were kids by openly demonstarting their ability to turn ordinary paper into naira notes and claim that the source of their ability is juju or some other external agent but that does not stop their tricks from what it is. Randi does not have to replicate anything, If the psychics are so sure of themselves why not just take up his challenge and shut him up for ever as tony pointed out?

If Randi has any case to make, the challenges are there - he should just simply take them up and put his old drunken heart at rest. The challenges I have seen are not asking Randi to demonstrate that he has any psychic ability which he believes to be supernatural - that is not the point. Please see the link in my initial replies and see what it was all about (you [or toneyb] seemed to have hastily dismissed it as new ageism WITHOUT even giving it a good look over).

His challenge still remains, If you claim to have or have demonstrated supernatural abilities(Such as the ability to withstand or deflect bullets fired from a gun, walk on hot coal, heal blind people or people who are suffering from paralysis) come and demonstrate evidence for this supernatural under test conditions and win a million dollars.

Please shut up. The 1 million dollars is a farce - just because Randi told you he would be happy to give a million dollars he does not have does not therefore settle it. He can keep his boast about what he cannot give - does not surprise me, judging from his records to lie anyhow. Someone (ala toneyb's report earlier) walked on hot coals - Randi did not deny what he saw, but he simply would find some way of discrediting so that his million dollars would not dissolve through his fingers. Please.

The fact that people are all over the place making noise from long distances as my man tony said instead of standing up to his challenge is very very telling. Non of them will like to go and embarass him or herself as expected.

The fact that Randi has NOT answered those who have invited him to what he was seeking actually speaks volumes about his cedibility - more as a sham, a dupe and a liar whose theatricals appeals to those meeting him in London.

viaro:

Howdy my man?

Actually, I'm not spinning or dancing around - my case is simple and factual. Please identify where you disagree and make some case for what you want to present. That would be more interesting to read rather than argue in empty box.

What else do you do around here beside crying, singing, spinning and shouting? And please learn not to abuse the word factual because its very clear that you do not understand what it means at all. What have you stated that is a fact? . . . . .Look who is talking about agruing in an empty box. . .Mirror, mirrior on the wall .

Did you read me make a claim that Randi stated that the paranormal does not exist?

Yes you did. You also stated it as the reason why he dropped 1 million dollars as a challenge.

I hope you saw clearly the first part of the quote from my comment that you quoted? I said "The question is not that this or that exists or does not exist - no." And by that it should be clear to any objective reader that I did not lay a direct charge at Randi for such a claim as you supposed.

Then what exactly are you crying and ranting endlessly about?

For those clamouring after Randi, my direct call to them is for them to smart up and stand for what they are saying. Example, toneyb (as well yourself, I suppose) is convinced that the abilities which have been demonstrated in the presence of Randi are "not real" - therefore, he wants to convince himself that such a thing as could be defined as paranormal or psychic does not exist. I may be wrong; but IF either you or toneyb are not saying that such a thing does not exist, then why all the pains to defend the what you cannot credibly dismiss on any objective grounds other than the usual sob atheist stories you have been singing all along?

Will you shut up already? How does walking on coal equate to paranormal? . There are documentaries on National geographic (Super Humans) where a US navy seal survived for an hour inside ice, something no normal human can do by employing some tricks coupled with the help he recieved with his training as a navy seal. Even Randi himself was encased in a block of ice for 55 minutes and that action bagged him a Guinness world record award. IF a person can use external or supernatural agents to walk fast on hot coal for 30 second I bet the same supernatural agents should be able to protect the person and make him stand on the hot coal for 15 seconbs no? Instead of addressing that part you are busy crying all over the place and chasing your tail with your empty talk about Randi replicating the tricks involved. If there truly is a supernatural agent that can make a person walk on hot coal why not stand on it for half the time you used in walking on the hot coal? Why can't the same supernatural agent protect against other hot substances of the same degree? . . . . .That irony escapes cry babies like you I guess. . . . . . . .So what you are saying is that Randi should replicate ALL tricks? . . .How lame. . . . .

I have not met Randi in person - nor do I need to. Your good fortune that you did and got to hear him say for himself that he suspects those abilities to be mere charade. Yes, you also said that he lectured and demonstrated - whatever. But with reference to the case presented earlier by toneyb, I would have been delighted to see him replicate the case of walking on coals in the same manner that he witnessed and could not have denied!

You are now sounding like the broken record that you are. He does not have to replicate anything. He is only interested in the truth about the person's so called supernatural ability. I have seen frauds openly demonstrate magical things that I could not understand talkless of replicating but they were later exposed as the fraudsters that they were. Those that live in the Northern parts of Nigeria know very well about Maitasine and Ahmadu Maye. . .these are people that openly demonstrate their so called supernatural abilities in the open for all to see, abilities that others could not even understand but had to take as supernatural only for the fraudsters to be later exposed. One of them was killed while the other was permanently put out of business and shamed. Your lame and empty talk about replication is asinine because it makes NO sense at all. . . . .Must every body replicate every trick? . . . .I can't even believe that you are sounding this vacuous. . .

Anyone could try to discredit another person - that is easy-peazy. But it is quite another world to go beyond mere talk and replicate what someone else has done which you cannot deny. That is where you convince the objective person that you're not preaching to the choir merely because Randi "suspects" that those other cases are mere charade. Objectivity does not rest on someone's "suspicion" - otherwise, if it did, then anyone could dismiss Randi on mere suspicion and call it a fine day!

Thanks to Randi we know that Uri the spoon bender is a fraud, Randi has also exposed other people whose abilities he could NOT even replicate for the frauds they are.

Because toneyb on his behalf claims that he (Randi) uses the same tricks to discredit others. Let him therefore use any number of that same trick to walk on hot coals - then we know that he understands what he is saying and there would be substance in what he claims.

The tricks he used does not have to be the same as the ones the tricksters use. He uses his own special tricks to get them and that is what pisses you and them the most . . . .You guys can not just accept that some guy can cleverly use your own methods to discredit or expose the various frauds or myths you strongly believe. . . . .Back to the guy that walked on hot coal, If the guy is for real and not a fraud what is stopping his supernatural agent from protecting his foot against for 15 seconds and make him stand on the same coal he walked on for 30 seconds? Instead of answering the obvious you are busy chasing your long tail. . . . .

Please I beg you - I deeply beg you, mazaje. You guys are changing your diapers far too quickly for me to keep track of anything. I don't think toneyb claimed that the guy walked on hot coals for 50 seconds - rather he said it was Randi that threw the challenge to the guy "to do the same with boiling water and hot oil, stating that if the guy could walk on hot coal for about 50 seconds (or there about) without hurting his feet, he should also be able to put his feet in boiling water or boiling oil for the same duration and come out unscathed." Randi was the one (supposedly in toneyb's account) who yapped about 50 seconds, not that he said the guy walked for 50 secs on hot coals. Yet, I don't see where Randi denied that such an event did occur.

Will you shut up already and stop sounding like the broken record that you are?. . . . . . . . .Is it about occurance or about the veracity of the claim of an external or supernatural agent?. . . .Randi himself was encased in a block of ice for 55 minutes and survived. . . . .If he were someone that ascribes all his tricks to the supernatural. I bet you will be on your knees licking his boots already. . . . .Abeg go siddon for corner make we hear word. . . .

Okay - here's wishing Randi some good luck to walk on hot coals for 30 seconds as did that guy! It does not matter how fast Randi does it - 30 seconds is scientific enough! Okay, Randi ... over to you. Roger me when you're done!

When you get tired of sounding like the broken record that you are you can pls let me know. . . . .

viaro:

So it is your own anecdotal evidence of meeting Randi is London that is not bollocks? Please pass.

If you and Randi want to be serious, stop sitting lazily in one dark corner and congratulating yourself on what you have not found out. There are free passes where Randi could prove his mettle by taking up the challenges offered him on fairness and objectivity. What is keeping the amazing Randi from such simple issues?

I heard you mention that you know people that have supernatural abilities . . . . .What supernatural abilities exactly do they posses? Can they use their so called supernatural abilities to heal amputees, heal blind people that have lost their eye balls, stop raging hurricanes, Tsunamis, build destroyed buildings, fly around, walk on water, make people grow taller by layimng hands on them, make barren women istantly get pregnant?. . . .Ohh I know you will come here and start telling us how some psychics or pastors you know instantly healed a person from malaria, or headache . . . .Or how some pastor predicted the future after the event had alread happened . . . . .By the way if christianity is true then you yourself should be a magician walking around doing magic as your god promised you guys in his alleged book no? . . . . .

Fortunately, no one else translates them as such - only lazy atheists with ready-made pat-answers for their laziness often do so. No big deal there.

Dude, wake up. Randi will not tell you where studies have been carried out for EVIDENCE. That is because you're too lazy to check, simply don't care, or far too drunk on your own bollocks to be man enough to source Randi out. Enjoy your misery.

. . . . .

When you do wake up and desire to find evidence on the same plane, please search - you may surprise yourself far beyond your anecdotes for Randi. The case below is not a nightmare to the atheist, but it might help to take a peak and see that what Randi claims to be looking for has been studied and applied ALREADY - just an example:

The conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are axiomatic from the paper you pasted is WHAT? . . . .Stop trying too hard my man. . . . .

viaro:

Thanks for trying to advocate for Randi. The thing is that Randi is a liar all the same.

Randi might be a liar but so are the other psychics no?

It is not in reference to the said case of hot coals that I drew that inference; but on other cases that cast doubts on his credibility as an objective seeker of genuine cases.

However, I wonder that Randi came to the conclusion that the guy's case was fake - just because he believes it so. Not that he could demonstrate it, replicate it, or explain it away with credible protocol. Just Randi says this and that, and voila! he's alright, no? Please. Randi's claim that what he saw was fake amounts to nothing - afterall, there are cases where he has believed others to be frauds and went on to demonstrate them. Why does this one case elude him, and then he thinks he could just yap and leave it at that?

No, not because he believes so but because it is. A guy that uses supernatural agents to enable him walk on hot coal for 30 seconds should be able to solicit the help of the said supernatural external agents to protect his feet against and enable him to stand in one position on the same coal he walked on for half the time. What part of that do you not understand? . Hot coal is hot coal no?. . . . .Debunking people's claims does not always have to involve a person replicating what they do, Intelligent points can be noted and such intelligent points can be used in debunking such claims. It happens all the time.

Anecdotal news have their place - but not here and not now, sorry mazaje bro. I respect what you want to conclude for yourself; but that does not have any value just because he says this and that. If Randi is actually after the truth, he could honour the invitation and challenges of those who are willing to show him certain other phenomena. He went elsewhere outside his 'studio' and you met him in London - he could also go anywhere he has been invited. Why is he evading those other challenges if he does not have something to be ashamed of? Playing hanky panky works well for those who wishes to pander to - but he would not do honour the challenges where it really matters.

Like what? Using the name of Jesus, Allah or Vishnu to heal amputees and make their amputated limbs regrow? How about using Juju to immediately stop hurricanes or deflect bullets fired from a gun?. . . . .So walking on hot coal is also a super natural ability eh?. . . . . .What challenges is Randi evading?

Randi knows too well that if that guy had done that same thing, there's always another silly request up Randi's sleeve. The question at all that the said guy walked on hot coals for 30 secs says so much for Randi to do the same. Asking him to do so with boiling water is also dubious - Randi himself has said that he would refuse any scenario where there's a potential for the persons to get hurt. If that guy did what he knew best, and did so for 30 secs, and Randi could not deny the evidence of what he saw, one should expect at the very least that such a 'trick' could be replicated. That is where it truly matters much more than standing idle and asking someone to do this and that before you believe anything. What happened to the one that he saw but could not deny?

If the guy was for real and had the ability he would have done it just to prove a point. His refusal is very telling. . . .Will he just do it and shut Randi up forever? The same lame talk of replication. . . .How many times are you going to sing that stale song? Maybe your name needs to be changed to vairo-replication . . . . .

I've already explained that issue with regards to materials science. I wonder that this should escape you guys and you don't seem to recognise that hot coals and boiling water and oil are not the same. Please refer to my previous comments, thanks.

What ever why not stand on the same coal for half the time he used waking on it? Its the same coal no?

You're carping, dude. The conditions he seeks is what those other challengers offer him. Randi is too much of a dubious fellow to face up to those challenges. Period.

Stop crying. . .Randi is no psychic, And he does NOT know all the tricks involved, If the guys are for real they would have simply agreed to his challenge and shut him up instead of setting or throwing their own devious and empty challenges. . . .By the way paranormal challenges were also put forth by John Nevil Maskelyne and Harry Houdini and no body ever stepped forward and acceped the challenge which is very telling. . . . .

I did not assert anywhere what empty noise you are alleging here. If Randi believes that the paranormal exists, he would do well to address the divide that indeed such a thing exists although there are frauds. You yourself have stated that Randi confided to you in your acquaintance in London that he suspects these abilities to be "mere charade". He did not tell you that he believes SOME are frauds but was rather happy to make a sweeping remark about their being charade - you were impressed because that is what folks like you wanted to hear from him. If I were you, right there and then I would have posed the obvious question to him: Randi, are you saying that ALL CASES in all possibilities are mere charade, since that is what you "suspect" them to be? Rather than talk sensibly, you're arguing an empty case that keeps Randi's amazing duplicity at large.

Is there any that is NOT a charade? If there is why not accept his challenge and take the test under test conditions agreed to by both parties? Will you and them stop crying and take the challenge already?. . . .All these empty talk from a distance and endless crying is tiring, take the challenge and shut him up forever. . . .I don tire abeg . . . . . .

Then he should go to where it matters and put himself out of his misery instead of hooting that he suspects them to be mere charade. A man who draws such sweeping conclusions is obviously dubious, no offence.

. . . .My man you need to take a cold drink its obvious that you are tensed up. . . . .

Of course not - and I agree. But again, the fact he is unable to replicate them is the more reason he should not be dismissing them hastily and emptily. He calls them 'tricks' - how does he know? If that is what that particular case was, then let him use the same tricks to replicate what he witnessed. QED. Either that, or he should just shut up about "using the same tricks" (as in toneyb's earlier) comments.

How many times are we going to hear the word replicate on one thread alone? . . . . .he does NOT need to replicate because that is NOt what he is after. . .he is after the veracity of their so called supernatural abilities. . . .

If Randi has any case to make, the challenges are there - he should just simply take them up and put his old drunken heart at rest. The challenges I have seen are not asking Randi to demonstrate that he has any psychic ability which he believes to be supernatural - that is not the point. Please see the link in my initial replies and see what it was all about (you [or toneyb] seemed to have hastily dismissed it as new ageism WITHOUT even giving it a good look over).

Pls just outline what the challenge is all about and lets have a look at it, thank you. . . . I don't really have time reading long new age drivels. . . . .

Please shut up. The 1 million dollars is a farce - just because Randi told you he would be happy to give a million dollars he does not have does not therefore settle it. He can keep his boast about what he cannot give - does not surprise me, judging from his records to lie anyhow. Someone (ala toneyb's report earlier) walked on hot coals - Randi did not deny what he saw, but he simply would find some way of discrediting so that his million dollars would not dissolve through his fingers. Please.

Will you shut up and stop blowing hot air? Facts can not be discredited no?

The fact that Randi has NOT answered those who have invited him to what he was seeking actually speaks volumes about his cedibility - more as a sham, a dupe and a liar whose theatricals appeals to those meeting him in London.

As somebody rightly said If you believe ghosts exist, it's up to you to prove it. I should not be the one to prove the non-existence of ghosts. . . . .Will you tell your people out there to go take the test and stop the endless crying and biting of their tails?

@mazaje/toneyb/viaro:
I am using my phone right now so I wont say a lot.

The supernatural is not science that can extrapolate situations based on a single occurence.

E.g. If a man claims that he can walk on water for 1440 seconds (24 minutes) then it does not mean that he can STAND on water for 5 seconds or even 1 second. Maybe he needs to keep moving?

Its not logic at work, because IF it was truly a supernatural circumstance, then the spiritual guide is the one in control and defines the experience. On the premise that it JUST might be possible that the magician is not a fraud, it is not proper to start changing the rules if one wants to honestly consider his/her claims.

If a man says he can drink one litre of HCl acid because the hydrochloric spirit says so, dont ask him to drink 50cl because that may kill him. In fairness, test him on HIS CLAIMS and evaluate his fraudulence/integrity.

I repeat, the physical does not bend the supernatural laws at will. Its vice-versa if at all.

InesQor:

@mazaje/toneyb/viaro:
I am using my phone right now so I wont say a lot.

Thanks InesQor. The vacuous and rabid yappings of atheists when it comes to applauding cheats like Randi is simply golden. I have not seen anything that my two friends mazaje and toneyb have said that is new.

This i know, walking on hot coal is not supernatural. It's just elementary physics. Below is an excerpt from HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS FOR A NEW AGE:

Firewalking is a physical feat, not a mental one. It is possible because charcoal, especially when coated with ashes, does not transfer heat rapidly to other objects. Its heat-transmission characteristics are similar to those of air. You can stick your hand into a very hot oven without burning yourself, but if you touch metal in the oven, you can be badly burned. The metal is no hotter than the air, but it transfers its heat much more quickly. . . .
Glowing hot charcoals, of course, are not the same as hot air. The firewalkers walk (usually rapidly) on the charcoals — they don't stand around. If they did so they would be burned. Each foot is in contact with the heat for only about a second before being lifted. Moreover, the entire walk generally lasts less than seven seconds. Any longer exposure and the risk of burns is much greater. Walking on hot coals without sustaining injury is not a miraculous feat

If Randi wanted a demonstration of this in a lab, he'll get it but he'll be making a mistake to stake a million on hot coal walking which is not a super skill to begin with. For the guy walking on coal, it's miraculous but not so for some of us who know the principles. So for me, there are 2 flaws:
a. Walking on hot coal is not something a regular joe wants to do and being able to do that makes anyone special or at least feel super.
b. A way to debunk him would have been to just replicate what the guy did since we are so sure it's possible without supernatural abilities. Increasing the stake by telling him to walk on fire or hot oil is asking him to prove the negative(something he did not claim he could do) and that upsets the whole thing.

InesQor:

E.g. If a man claims that he can walk on water for 1440 seconds (24 minutes) then it does not mean that he can STAND on water for 5 seconds or even 1 second. Maybe he needs to keep moving?
If a man says he can drink one litre of HCl acid because the hydrochloric spirit says so, dont ask him to drink 50cl because that may kill him. In fairness, test him on HIS CLAIMS and evaluate his fraudulence/integrity.

Exactly, and not stretch his ability based on one's expectation or attempt to retain one's $1m. Makes sense to me InesQor.


_{where the heck is deepsight?}

mazaje:

What else do you do around here beside crying, singing, spinning and shouting?

I don't understand anything about all the noise you guys have been making. I pointed out certain simple issues which until now you guys have not shifted one dot to counter.  

And please learn not to abuse the word factual because its very clear that you do not understand what it means at all.

What does it mean, mazaje? Have you shown anything close enough of its meaning other than your golden prevarications?

What have you stated that is a fact? . . . . .Look who is talking about agruing in an empty box. . .Mirror, mirrior on the wall .

Please stop crying. You sound again like you're holding your nose close to an empty box and belching even worse than before.

Yes you did. You also stated it as the reason why he dropped 1 million dollars as a challenge.

Please show me where I stated so. I am really ashamed that you no longer understand simple English constructs.

Then what exactly are you crying and ranting endlessly about?

I have not cried nada - just asking you guys to take your amazing cheat Randi to one step closer than his lying adventures. That is all.

Will you shut up already? How does walking on coal equate to paranormal? .

Why don't you ask Randi to simply replicate it and end your noise? Your bleating is beginning to be too embarrassing to read, dude. I did not come forward to claim anything about hot coals other than using that narration from toneyb to ask that Randi replicates it. If that were not real as toneyb asserted, no worries - he should just replicate it. That was all. Where are the results? When you guys have nothing to produce, then you enter into unnecessary excuses to prevaricate on your empty drivels. Please mazaje, your noise is unnecessary - just produce results on Randi's behalf and let's move forward, if you may. If neither you nor randi could produce any results, please shut up and let's attend to something else.

There are documentaries on National geographic (Super Humans) where a US navy seal survived for an hour inside ice, something no normal human can do by employing some tricks coupled with the help he recieved with his training as a navy seal.

. . . hehe - the story begins again! Carry on!

Even Randi himself was encased in a block of ice for 55 minutes and that action bagged him a Guinness world record award.

. . . clap for yourself. That is not a surprising thing to do. People have survived very cold temperature without asking any dime from Randi - and it so happens that we know that lower temperature reduce the body's metabolism.

There are people who do not claim to have any special abilities but have survived unusual circumstances. A two year old, Oluchi Nwaubani, survived after spending about 18 minutes (three times longer than the brain can usually survive) at the bottom of a pool in Bromley, London. Doctors say while the case is highly unusual, it is not unprecedented.

Randi being encased in a block of ice for 55 mins is not special. You're only deluding yourself to think, 'oh, hooray . . . that must be awesome!' Dream on - medical practitioners know what affects the body in lower temperatures.

IF a person can use external or supernatural agents to walk fast on hot coal for 30 second I bet the same supernatural agents should be able to protect the person and make him stand on the hot coal for 15 seconbs no?

All the same mazaje, please shut up. Give me where your super-Randi has walked on hot coals even for 15 secs. Stop making useless excuses on his behalf. I did not claim that the said case was supernatural, nor was I the person who talked about a man walking on hot coals. 30 secs, 50 secs, 15 secs - it's all breeze you're blowing if you can't go beyond excuses and show results of Randi replicating them. Standing in a block of ice is easy-peasy ... anyone can sit in cold temperature for long periods of time. You ask Randi to walk on hot coals and I will send you a check of my next month's pay. I just want results, not 3 pages of useless arguments for the sham that Randi has shown himself to be.

Why can't the same supernatural agent protect against other hot substances of the same degree? . . . . .That irony escapes cry babies like you I guess. . . . . . . .So what you are saying is that Randi should replicate ALL tricks? . . .How lame.

I see you're at the end of your imagination.
Did I ever ask Randi to replicate ALL tricks? Why are you beginning to fall all over yourself with vacuous statements that do not appear in my comments? Bro, again I ask in all humility: only this one that toneyb yapped on about - please show me Randi walking (not standing) on hot coals for the same period (30 secs as you say) in the same way that you and toneyb are pushing your luck for Randi. That is all.

It amazes me that all through your reply this one case of walking on hot coals is what you're fighting. Pity. Even more hilarious is that you make all excuses and yet show absolutely zilch of Randi doing same. It's a 'trick', you want to believe - that's fine, for the story was not mine. So please show me results of that same trick on Randi's behalf. That is all I ask. Excuses and lame excuses for your Randi is not cutting it and makes me laugh at the empty noise you further attempt. I did not ask Randi to replicate ALL tricks - just that one that toneyb yapped about.

Your lame and empty talk about replication is asinine because it makes NO sense at all. . . . .Must every body replicate every trick?

Asinine or not, I asked for ONLY ONE, not "every trick". Please give me that simple one I asked and stop wasting pages with further excuses.

You sorry lot know how to demand this and that from others while you stand lame at the sidewalks unable to put your mouth where your money is. It is not a case of standing on hot coals - let Randi WALK on hot coals since that was what the guy did. QED.

Thanks to Randi we know that Uri the spoon bender is a fraud, Randi has also exposed other people whose abilities he could NOT even replicate for the frauds they are.

Blowing empty air is your favourite pasttime. I did not present Uri Geller's case to you for anything - you want to deviate from this simple example of the guy who walked on hot coals and run under the case of Uri. Sorry bro, come back to base and stop dancing in the air.

The tricks he used does not have to be the same as the ones the tricksters use.

I didn't say they have to be the same. Nor did I say that the guy had the same tricks to stand on hot coals. If anyone ever argued for "the same" in walking and standing and then making hot coals "the same" with water and oil and all that, it is you and toneyb. You make such frivolously empty charade because you don't know the difference - but when a simple request is made for your super-Randi, you grow blue and red in the face complaining and making further excuses for Randi's empty bragado.

Is it about occurance or about the veracity of the claim of an external or supernatural agent?.

You are beginning to sound like an entertainer out to impress himself. I'm after veracity - which is why I ask for RESULTS and REPLICATION. That again was why I stated that I did not read Randi denying its occurence. Whether veracity or occurence, pick your poison and stop quarrelling with yourself over words that elude your understanding - just give me credible results of Randi having replicated same.

Randi himself was encased in a block of ice for 55 minutes and survived.

How many times will you be repeating that story as if it is the biggest part of your dream world? It still does not take anything from the simple issue of the case before you - I ask this once again: GIVE ME RESULTS OF RANDI REPLICATING WHAT HE COULD NOT DENY HAD TAKEN PLACE IN HIS PRESENCE. That is all, and many thanks as you look again for desperate excuses to cover up.

I have missed out on this but my man did a very good job already. What the hell is this sophist (vairo) saying?  I am tired of this endless sophism. Vairo is calling Randi a fraud and a cheat for failing to honor an invitation. What then will vairo call those who keep failing honor or to take up his challenge? Cheats and frauds?

ilosiwaju:

b. A way to debunk him would have been to just replicate what the guy did since we are so sure it's possible without supernatural abilities.

In fact, I hold my peace - you have just stated the same thing I wanted to pass on to our friends toneyb and mazaje.  

Increasing the stake by telling him to walk on fire or hot oil is asking him to prove the negative(something he did not claim he could do) and that upsets the whole thing.

There, thank you again. It is only Randi's sorry attendants who never see that point, all in their desperate attempts to cover up for the sham of their amazing cheat. Randi will keep asking people to do what they never claimed was their own ability to do - and if anyone does the same by asking that Randi faces up to obliging what he did not claim for himself, the irony eludes his local-town criers.

toneyb:

I have missed out on this but my man did a very good job already.

I agree - he did a very "good job" in sounding quite ridiculous in the same way you tried to excuse sanity for Randi.

What the hell is this sophist (vairo) saying?

I am not saying anything than what I have already said and which others are already making sense of. Your own sophistry - that is quite golden, but I pass . . . hehe.

I am tired of this endless sophism.

I know the feeling . . after trying to dribble round and round until you became dizzy by your own yoyo.

Vairo is calling Randi a fraud and a cheat for failing to honor an invitation.

No - that is not why I call him a fraud and a cheat. I have tried to correct your misconception that it was not due to the story about walking on hot coals or because of whatever else you suppose that Randi is known as a cheat and a liar. I said plainly that such a point is predicated on other issues that attest to it. If Randi, on the other hand, wants us to believe he's got nothing up his sleeves, there is no reason why he should decline those other challenges that are based on fairness and not on fraud. Based on fairness because they match the very same criteria he has stated would be his guiding principle in "investigating" those phenomena, as well that they follow scientific and intelligent protocol that he just cannot refuse unless he wants to confirm he's a sham just like those frauds he discredits.

What then will vairo call those who keep failing honor or to take up his challenge? Cheats and frauds?

I don't call anyone anything until they show they have reason to be so addressed. This kind of quip shows it's either you have never done your own background sourcing of the Randi issues or you just want to keep blinding yourself to it simply because you can't bear to see Randi exposed. Choose your poison whichever way suits you best.

mazaje:

By the way if christianity is true then you yourself should be a magician walking around doing magic as your god promised you guys in his alleged book no? .

This is not about whether Christianity is true or whether I have claimed anywhere to be a magician. I have not, and I am not a magician.

But I do want to see how you drop your shadow boxing and take up something of more substance in the topic of this thread. I have offered you and toneyb some links, pointed out a few things in them, and answered some of your objections on this issue of Psychokinesis. If you have checked the links and resources provided, I would have seen you say something about them rather than being so evasive.

The same thing with toneyb - the few resources and links I provided in my answers are still standing. Would I have the fortune of reading you (toneyb) discussing them instead of playing evasive on them?

The conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are axiomatic from the paper you pasted is WHAT?

Please mazaje bro ... please do it easy and try to calm down to simple issues so you first understand yourself before expecting that others might understand you.

1.   I did not present any paper with a conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are 'axiomatic'. To state that such was what that paper had argued is quite ironic, not to even say that you're arguing against yourself.

2.   The irony is that the paper did not argue that psychic abilities are 'axiomatic' - for the word 'axiomatic' basically means that "evident without proof or argument". Instead, the paper was published in the Journal of  Scientific  Exploration, and posits in its abstract that -

       This paper discusses evidence for a psychokinetic effect acting on chance events. . . .
       These hypotheses imply that psychokinesis can act on the outcome of indeterministic
       quantum events only, and that, basically, all such events are affected to the same degree.

3.   If you had taken a look at the paper itself, you would not be beating yourself over with the irony of supposing it was arguing "conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are axiomatic" (that is, 'evident without proof or argument') - quite the opposite is what the papar argues!

4.   And if you want the evidence from the arguments presented by that paper, please read the paper itself - it discusses its methodology, analysis and outcomes - which was why it abstracts that it implies that psychokinesis can act on the outcome of indeterministic quantum events only. Yes, it bases its conclusions and evidence on the arguments that it presents in the paper.

5.   If you have anything to counter in the paper, please come forward and DISCUSS rather than 'dismiss' it. To dismiss it the way you did only demonstrates the lazy man's perfect escape hatch.

viaro:

I agree - he did a very "good job" and sounding quite ridiculous in the same way you tried to excuse sanity for Randi.

The same empty drivel again.

I am not saying anything than what I have already said and which others are already making sense of. Your own sophistry - that is quite golden, but I pass . . . hehe.

What exactly have you said that comes close to sense? . Since when did vacuous sophism equate to "making sense"?

I know the feeling . . after trying to dribble round and round until you became dizzy by your own yoyo.

Carry on with the flawed reasoning,

No - that is not why I call him a fraud and a cheat. I have tried to correct your misconception that it was not due to the story about walking on hot coals or because of whatever else you suppose that Randi is known as a cheat and a liar. I said plainly that such a point is predicated on other issues that attest to it. If Randi, on the other hand, wants us to believe he's got nothing up his sleeves, [b]there is no reason why he should decline those other challenges that are based on fairness and not on fraud. Based on fairness because they match the very same criteria he has stated would be his guiding principle in "investigating" those phenomena, as well that they follow scientific and in[/b]telligent protocol that he just cannot refuse unless he wants to confirm he's a sham just like those frauds he discredits.

Will you stop sounding like a broken record? Your are still sounding lame and vacuous. If the nameless psychics who you are busy ranting and sounding like a village town crier on their behalf have nothing on their sleeves you would expect them to agree with the criteria that Randi has stated. Will they go over and display their supernatural abilities, shut Randi up forever, Become more famous and win the cash price? They have challenges for Randi that match his proposed criteria yet the can not come and simply display their supernatural abilities under the same criteria they allegedly agree too. What is hard there, will you tell the psychics or super naturalist out there out there whom you are desperately trying to sell without any success at all to man up and take up on Randi's simple challenge?

I don't call anyone anything until they show they have reason to be so addressed. This kind of quip shows it's either you have never done your own background sourcing of the Randi issues or you just want to keep blinding yourself to it simply because you can't bear to see Randi exposed. Choose your poison whichever way suits you best.

At least Randi has exposed so many people, will you tell the nameless psychics who you are desperately trying to sell without any success to hurry up, take on Randi's challenge, prove themselves, discredit Randi, earn 1 million dollars, earn more popularity and shut Randi up for ever? When will the nameless charlatans you are desperately crying on their behalf accept or agree to the challenge and do it once  and for all. Randi made a very simple proposal, If you have psychic, supernatural or occultist abilities come prove yourself under a controlled environment and will 1 million dollars, Instead of the charlatans taken up the challenge they are busy sending town criers and sophist like you to tell Randi to come and accept their own devious challenge . How cleaver.

toneyb:

The same empty drivel again.

Suit yourself but please answer my simple request or just shut up.

What exactly have you said that comes close to sense?

Other have seen the sense in what I argued (Ilosiwaju and InesQor refers) - but only mazaje and you toneyb are riding the wind to have missed it. Clap for yourselves.

Since when did vacuous sophism equate to "making sense"?

Nobody else made such a claim other than yourself. If only you and mazaje were making sense, you would not have been thumbing your sophistry over and over again in your empty boxes.

Carry on with the flawed reasoning,

Please grow up. I answered your objections and posted resources to attest what I was saying. If you can't stand up to reason them out, stop trying so hard to impress yourself - we're done laughing on your old jokes.

At least Randi has exposed so many people, will you tell the nameless psychics who you are desperately trying to sell without any success to hurry up, take on Randi's challenge, prove themselves, discredit Randi, earn 1 million dollars, earn more popularity and shut Randi up for ever?

Randi has no US$1 million to give anybody - that is why he is asking people to do what they have not claimed to do. Besides, you must be a very, very funny fellow with your hangovers to have missed the links and resources I posted. Refer to the one I left mazaje that he was ironically arguing his own dismissive misunderstanding as expected. If your beloved Randi has ANYTHING to match genuine quest for truth, nothing stops him from actually taking up the challenges offered him in fairness - those I have pointed out are not after any dime that Randi does not have in the first place. The sham he is can keep lying all he wants and ducking forever so he could ride high on your applause ... but please tell him to grow up on his acts - fresh comedy will do for a start.

When will the nameless charlatans you are desperately crying on their behalf accept or agree to the challenge and do it once and for all.

They are not charlatans - that is why I posted links for your consideration. Does it surprise me that you guys will not take up those links and come forward to discuss anything? Nevermind, I'm open and willing to put up with Randi's dropout noise making.

Randi made a very simple proposal, If you have psychic, supernatural or occultist abilities come prove yourself under a controlled environment and will 1 million dollars, Instead of the charlatans taken up the challenge they are busy sending town criers and sophist like you to tell Randi to come and accept their own devious challenge . How cleaver.

Randi does not make any proposal he can keep track of. It shows you still are too shamed on his behalf to go source him out. Ever wondered why you guys keep ducking pertinent issues so dismissively? Is this all you can do in your amazing defence of the amazing cheat randi?

viaro:

There are people who do not claim to have any special abilities but have survived unusual circumstances. A two year old, Oluchi Nwaubani, survived after spending about 18 minutes (three times longer than the brain can usually survive) at the bottom of a pool in Bromley, London. Doctors say while the case is highly unusual, it is not unprecedented.

Randi being encased in a block of ice for 55 mins is not special. You're only deluding yourself to think, 'oh, hooray . .

The last time I checked guniess awards only go to special people, special events or special occurrences no? How many people do you know have been able to achieve this feat? What is even pathetic is that NOWHERE did mazaje say that Randi's display was something that no body else can do, he even alluded to a guy that survived in ice for an hour. The message he was putting across to you that if Randi ascribed his abilities to some super natural agent you will be on your knees crying, praising and licking his boots. .

All the same mazaje, please shut up. Give me where your super-Randi has walked on hot coals even for 15 secs. Stop making useless excuses on his behalf. I did not claim that the said case was supernatural, nor was I the person who talked about a man walking on hot coals. 30 secs, 50 secs, 15 secs - it's all breeze you're blowing if you can't go beyond excuses and show results of Randi replicating them. Standing in a block of ice is easy-peasy ... anyone can sit in cold temperature for long periods of time. You ask Randi to walk on hot coals and I will send you a check of my next month's pay. I just want results, not 3 pages of useless arguments for the sham that Randi has shown himself to be.

So Randi must walk on hot coal else that performance is a supernatural event? . I must be able to divide the moon into 2 else I must accept that the prophet of Islam once divided the moon into two.   . Your flawed reasoning truly deserves an award.

toneyb:

The last time I check guniess awards only go to special people, special events or special occurrences no? How many people do you know have been able to achieve this feat? What is even pathetic is that NOWHERE did mazaje say that Randi's display was something that no body else can do, he even alluded to a guy that survived in ice for an hour. The message he was putting across to you that if Randi ascribed his abilities to some super natural agent you will be on your knees crying, praising and licking his boots. .

You're a very funny fellow now - specially gifted at saying the ridiculous.
Did I argue that Randi's case was special? I said kindly "Randi being encased in a block of ice for 55 mins is not special" - and after coming forward to argue that guiness gives awards to SPECIAL people and special this and that, you still made my point? I can't laugh enough.

So, let me guess - Guiness awarded Randi an award for your argument that he was not special, yes? And how does that square with what I said that Randi's case was NOT SPECIAL?

You see toneyb, you've lost track of comprehension. I feel sorry for you - but please show me where I either said that mazaje was arguing for Randi's ice bolck case as "special", or kindly learn to shut up instead of desperately trying to read issues into my post that I never argued.

So Randi must walk on hot coal else that performance is a supernatural event?

So the man who walked on hot coals MUST also stand/walk in boling water/oil ELSE his performance is "not real"? It is okay for you to excuse Randi's dubious case, but when it comes to facing the same kind of argument you pose for him, it becomes questionable, yes? Please.

I must be able to divide the moon into else I must accept that the prophet of Islam once divided the moon into two. . Your flawed reasoning truly deserves an award.

You can do so IF that is what you are claiming - I did not claim any such on your behalf. Randi will be glad to ask you to do more than splitting the moon and the sun perhaps . . . just so he can be sure your claim was "real". Enjoy your excuses and provide us with more comedy.

viaro:

They are not charlatans - that is why I posted links for your consideration. Does it surprise me that you guys will not take up those links and come forward to discuss anything? Nevermind, I'm open and willing to put up with Randi's dropout noise making

If they are not charlatans as you are so desperately trying to sell them without any success, why not tell them to man up, cite their supernatural abilities go meet Randi and shut him up with their abilities. What is hard there? Posting links to some obscured new age site will not help your campaign here.

Randi has no US$1 million to give anybody - that is why he is asking people to do what they have not claimed to do

Where did Randi formally ask a person to do what they have not claimed to do? One example will do.

toneyb:

If they are not charlatans as you are so desperately trying to sell them without any success, why not tell them to man up, cite their supernatural abilities go meet Randi and shut him up with their abilities. What is hard there? Posting links to some obscured new age site will not help your campaign here.

Toneyb, please show me where I have ever claimed that those in particular who challenge Randi are themelves claiming to possess supernatural abilities. Please quote me and let me address your misgivings, thanks.

Where did Randi formally ask a person to do what they have not claimed to do? One example will do.

Let me use your own example of the man who walked on hot coals. I don't read that he claimed the ability to stand - but you have noted that Randi requested that IF he could stand on hot coals or in boiling water or boiling oil, then you/Randi/others of your ilk would then consider it 'real', no?

viaro:

You're a very funny fellow now - specially gifted at saying the ridiculous.
Did I argue that Randi's case was special? I said kindly "Randi being encased in a block of ice for 55 mins is not special" - and after coming forward to argue that guiness gives awards to SPECIAL people and special this and that, you still made my point? I can't laugh enough.

Stop patting your self on the back yet, I said Randi's case is a special one, that you are trying to make light his achievement does not mean it is not special it is. I then went on to say that the world record awards goes only to special people or special events. But that was not what mazaje was talking about, his emphasis was on one point and that is if Randi had ascribed his special(very few people can do what he did) abilities to the supernatural you will be all over the place licking his boots.

So, let me guess - Guiness awarded Randi an award for your argument that he was not special, yes? And how does that square with what I said that Randi's case was NOT SPECIAL?

How is Randi's case NOT special, How many people have been able to do what he did? Every body would have bagged that award if it wasn't special no?

You see toneyb, you've lost track of comprehension. I feel sorry for you - but please show me where I either said that mazaje was arguing for Randi's ice bolck case as "special", or kindly learn to shut up instead of desperately trying to read issues into my post that I never argued.

Please be quite Mr man. What part of my writing do you not understand?  . if Randi has ascribed his special abilities or magic tricks to the supernatural you will be on your knees crying and licking his boots no?

So the man who walked on hot coals MUST also stand/walk in boling water/oil ELSE his performance is "not real"? It is okay for you to excuse Randi's dubious case, but when it comes to facing the same kind of argument you pose for him, it becomes questionable, yes? Please.

Randi was asked for his opinion by a television station as mazaje rightly said after the event and he said that he would have taken the guy seriously if the guy stayed on the hot coal for half the time he used on walking on the coal or steeped on other hot substances. He just laid out the criteria on which he will take the guys abilities serious enough. He said that the guy has to stand on the coal or some other hot substance for him to take him seriously. The TV crew sent the message to the guy and the guy started ranting and swearing. Randi did not formally tell the guy, he just gave his thoughts to a television station and went on to say that the guys abilities can be replicated by some body that knows the trick. I don't even accept that walking on hot coal has anything supernatural about it.

You can do so IF that is what you are claiming - I did not claim any such on your behalf. Randi will be glad to ask you to do more than splitting the moon and the sun perhaps . . . just so he can be sure your claim was "real". Enjoy your excuses and provide us with more comedy.

Are you now singing a different song? Will you tell the people you are crying on their behalf to hurry up, take on Randi's challenge and discredit him already?

@ilosiwaju: Big bro, thanks for the input jare. I am hardly missing Deep Sight much anymore 'cos it's like viaro's got Mazaje and Toneyb nowadays, just that viaro vs toneyb/mazaje does not seem as hot and engaging as viaro vs deep sight 

You know who I am, right? 

Enjoy the holidays! 

@viaro: LOL na real wa, my brother! 

@mazaje & toneyb: Any response from you two about my immediate previous post?

InesQor:

@ilosiwaju: Big bro, thanks for the input jare. I am hardly missing Deep Sight much anymore 'cos it's like viaro's got Mazaje and Toneyb nowadays, just that viaro vs toneyb/mazaje does not seem as hot and engaging as viaro vs deep sight

@viaro: LOL na real wa, my brother!

I just don't know what has happened to our friends mazaje and toneyb. If ever I thought the day would come for these two to be chasing their tales with loads of excuses, I never guessed it would be so soon.

toneyb:

Stop patting your self on the back yet, I said Randi's case is a special one, that you are trying to make light his achievement does not mean it is not special it is. I then went on to say that the world record awards goes only to special people or special events. But that was not what mazaje was talking about, his emphasis was on one point and that is if Randi had ascribed his special(very few people can do what he did) abilities to the supernatural you will be all over the place licking his boots.

Okay, let me guess. I said that Randi's case was NOT SPECIAL. You believe it was "special". What made it special for Randi? I don't lick Randi's boots as you do, so let's cut to the chase - you believe Randi is special, please tell us why that is so in respect of the particular subject about paranormal/supernatural/psychokinesis that we have been discussing. Remember, I made clear that Randi's case was not special, no?

How is Randi's case NOT special, How many people have been able to do what he did? Every body would have bagged that award if it wasn't special no?

I did not claim that Randi's case was special - you did. You also objected to my stating clearly that it was not special even though you can't quote me anywhere saying that mazaje had argued such. You really have your issues confused here and that is why I feel so sorry for you lately. You who argue that his case was special, I will bet you will come back to argue the direct opposite. Just tell us how Randi's case was special.

You ask how many people have been able to do what Randi did? I don't know - but I do know that some people survive far more precarious circumstances longer than 55 minutes. Ever heard of a man who survived two weeks trapped in snow-covered car? No, he wasn't asking a dime from Randi, nor was he seeking any award from Guiness - but I don't know what 55 minutes mean to you in surviving such a situation for TWO WEEKS.

Please be quite Mr man. What part of my writing do you not understand?  .

Hehe . . perhaps the part where you load us with tomes of excuses for Randi's inability to replicate results?

if Randi has ascribed his special abilities or magic tricks to the supernatural you will be on your knees crying and licking his boots no?

Absolutely NO. Why? Because I'm not impressed by charlatans!
Thus, a charlatan (Randi) 'debunking' charlatans like himself is no screaming, bleeping headline news!

Randi was asked for his opinion by a television station as mazaje rightly said after the event and he said that he would have taken the guy seriously if the guy stayed on the hot coal for half the time he used on walking on the coal or steeped on other hot substances. He just laid out the criteria on which he will take the guys abilities serious enough. He said that the guy has to stand on the coal or some other hot substance for him to take him seriously. The TV crew sent the message to the guy and the guy started ranting and swearing. Randi did not formally tell the guy, he just gave his thoughts to a television station and went on to say that the guys abilities can be replicated by some body that knows the trick. I don't even accept that walking on hot coal has anything supernatural about it.

^^ Awwww . . . here we go again with worn-out stories again!
Dude, of all the excuses that you can garner, I am asking simply for results. You argued on Randi's behalf that he uses "the same tricks" on people as those charlatans so - all I ask is that you show me where he used "the same tricks" to replicate results. QED.

Are you now singing a different song? Will you tell the people you are crying on their behalf to hurry up, take on Randi's challenge and discredit him already?

I never shifted one inch from what I said - and Randi remains the sham he is. 

@toneyb and mazaje,

I'm not going to tell stories, but please hear me out.

In particular reference to the thread topic (ie., on Psychokinesis), I woulod say that a subject of this sort is basically pointing to just one thing: are such things as psychokinesis 'real'? And is there any evidence from any study at all published in a recognized journal as evidence at all for psychokinesis?

It does not help us to keep arguing on and on about Randi - you have your praise for him, I have reasons why I'm not impressed by his theatricals. But as regards the question of psychokinesis, one would be asking in particularly (if you're like me) - "is there any evidence of sorts for psychokinesis?"

Perhaps it seems pertinent to state the obvious, that discussions on psychokinesis might as well have a bearing on such things regarded as 'paranormal', and this takes many forms. It is not just a stereotypical idea which some of us might hold, especially if we're inclined to pride ourselves as 'skeptics' on such things. Basically, some sources present the paranormal as involving events which are 'impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science' (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary). I am not asking that anyone "must" adhere to only that definition - and readers are quite free to think differently.

Therefore, examining the phenomenon about paranormal and psychokinesis is not just a matter of whether "someone is claiming" to have a paranormal ability which they personally possess and are able to demonstrate at will. Beyond that, the question of whether the 'paranormal' exists at all should move us to want to examine cases where such things might have occured independently of anyone making any claims of possessing a paranormal ability. Are you agreed on this?

So what happens where certain events are reported (from rigorous studies, of course) that cannot be explained by known natural forces or by science? Perhaps we might agree that the weight of such studies is in the question of whether they are published in credible journals.

Let me leave you one example:

JSE:
Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol. 3, No. I, pp.  81 - 101,  1989
Pergamon  Press  plc.  Printed  in the  USA.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_03_1_stevenson.pdf

A Case of the Possession Type in India With Evidence of Paranormal Knowledge

Abstract - A young married woman, Sumitra, in a village of northern India, apparently died and then revived.  After a period of confusion she stated that she was one Shiva who had been murdered in another village. She gave enough details to permit verification of her statements, which corresponded to facts in the life of another young married woman called Shiva. Shiva had lived in a place about 100km away, and she had died violently there - either by suicide or murder - about two months before Sumitra's apparent death and revival.

Subsequently, Sumitra recognized 23 persons (in person or in photographs) known to Shiva. She also showed in several respects new behavior that accorded with Shiva's personality and attainments. For example, Shiva's family were Brahmins (high caste), whereas Sumitra's were Thakurs  (second caste); after the change in her personality Sumitra showed Brahmin habits that were strange in her family. Extensive interviews with 53 informants satisfied the investigators that the families concerned had been, as they claimed, completely unknown to each other before the case developed and that Sumitra had had no normal knowledge of the people and events in Shiva's life.  The authors conclude that the subject demonstrated knowledge of another person's life obtained paranormally.

^^^
The investigators were:

   ~   Ian Stevenson, Department of Behavioral  Medicine  and Psychiatry,
        University  of Virginia, Charlottesville:  VA 22908.

   ~   Satwant Pasricha, Department of Clinical Psychology,
        National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
        (NIMHANS),  Bangalore,  India.

  ~   Nicholas McClean-Rice, Department of Behavioral Medicine
       and Psychiatry, Universily of Virginia, Charlottesville,  VA 22908.


Please just objectively go through that published study - and then think of your own reasons for any conclusions you may draw as to whether such a phenomenon is possible or not possible. Also note here that the subjects involved in that study do not claim to have 'abilities' which they could demonstrate at will.

In proffering the case study above, I have this from mazaje in mind:

Is it about occurance or about the veracity of the claim of an external or supernatural agent?

Further, I am not asking anyone to 'replicate' anything, since here we are only seeking to establish any inferences about 'veracity'. Cheers.

^^^ viaro, thanks for setting the thread back on track