Why have no remote viewers tried to claim the Randi Prize?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The Randi Prize?
- Thread starter Goggs Mackay
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
same reason silvia brown has not won the lottery.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
It's because they have never been able to do what they claim. Many people have tried to claim the prize, but they always say that something goes wrong.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
The last I looked there really were not that many takers. I think they get bogged down early on in disagreements with the protocols and whatnot. There is a lot of hoo-ha about the protocols being unfair, nah-na-nah-nah. Fact of the matter is if someone could perform on demand they would have already snagged the prize. If I could just get the laser beams to shoot out of my eyes on demand I would be a millionaire right now. As it is, its intermittent.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
There was that time I thought of an episode of a tv show and there it was, a few minutes later. It was the Seinfeld where George wants to get the Frogger arcade machine.
Agreed with all of the above, the exact point of the post. So, why did the CIA, DIA and Stanford Research Institute think there was something to it? That's the bit that makes no sense to me. Surely it must have been a push in the first place for such agencies to be actively involved in such a fringe subject so you would assume they had seen evidence that had convinced them it worked, at least sometimes, which is still a lot better than chance.
If you get 10% above the expected hit rate that is considered a reality. I believe trained viewers were supposed to be better than that. I don't know but would think that even Randi would have accepted consistent achievements of that order. Not 100% or even 90, but being right just sometimes above what is expected from chance is enough to prove there is something to it. How on earth could such a respected institution be fooled over such a long time? From what I've read, the scrutiny under which the testing/research was carried out was extreme. Not the kind of set-up that your average mentalist could easily fool and we are not talking about mentalists on the whole, we are talking soldiers taken from zero to being able to gather information at a distance that is way above chance!
My stance is that there may indeed be something to remote viewing. I can not only believe that conciousness can transcend the physical brain - I instinctively feel that it probably has to be the case. But that is a personal way of viewing the universe and not something that can be put to the test.
I could even believe that a security agreement prevented the remote viewers from taking part in such a test (Randi's) but that does not account for the thousands of people since who claim to have learned how to remote view.
Either there is a clause in Randi's offer that precludes something that is not 100% or the agencies mentioned above and some top scientists were consistently fooled or completely wrong in their interpretation of the results - over a staggeringly long period of time.
Each way I try to balance this equation I am left with a remainder that bugs me!
If you get 10% above the expected hit rate that is considered a reality. I believe trained viewers were supposed to be better than that. I don't know but would think that even Randi would have accepted consistent achievements of that order. Not 100% or even 90, but being right just sometimes above what is expected from chance is enough to prove there is something to it. How on earth could such a respected institution be fooled over such a long time? From what I've read, the scrutiny under which the testing/research was carried out was extreme. Not the kind of set-up that your average mentalist could easily fool and we are not talking about mentalists on the whole, we are talking soldiers taken from zero to being able to gather information at a distance that is way above chance!
My stance is that there may indeed be something to remote viewing. I can not only believe that conciousness can transcend the physical brain - I instinctively feel that it probably has to be the case. But that is a personal way of viewing the universe and not something that can be put to the test.
I could even believe that a security agreement prevented the remote viewers from taking part in such a test (Randi's) but that does not account for the thousands of people since who claim to have learned how to remote view.
Either there is a clause in Randi's offer that precludes something that is not 100% or the agencies mentioned above and some top scientists were consistently fooled or completely wrong in their interpretation of the results - over a staggeringly long period of time.
Each way I try to balance this equation I am left with a remainder that bugs me!
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
My limited reading suggests:
They were concerned that the Russians were working and producing results in this field and the USA was racing to catch up. This fear, coupled with pressure to deliver results, may have affected objectivity.
Psychics are performers, and they may have charmed the "audience" into believing their hits were far better than they were. Along with that they glossed over their many misses. They were able to produce some interesting things from time to time, but couldn't produce actionable intelligence. On the whole, their results were only slightly better than luck.
But isn't that fractional result interesting? It's a fascinating number just like the fraction of UFO unknowns. It's there like a tease, too big to ignore, but somehow always outside our grasp.
Kieran
Paranormal Adept
How many people are aware of this prize and how many people could trust him giving the cash over? Why doesn't he advertise this more (million quid afterall) or why not appeal to the TV stations to do a show? Its all done in the background were nobody can see what's going on Angel, if i had abilities of any kind i wouldn't go to Randi because i wouldn't know if he would be truthful at the end of it.
Well, he can consciously or subconsciously weigh the evaluation in a way that nobody can possibly ever collect. At the same time, he does seem to be honest in his skepticism. Often wrong, but honest.
I wouldn't suggest anyone, but welcome suggestions.
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
well as i said in my thread remote veiwer challange I have an item of uniqe historical and personal value. i will place the item face up on the center of my dining room table. IF a remote veiwer can tell me what the item is EXACTLY he will win my respect and beleif that he can do as he says he can do. the protical is simple you tell me when you want to try to remote veiw the item i will post that the item is desplayed and IF you are correct I WILL be honest and tell you that your right futher if some one here accully WANTS to try it i will private email Gene AND Chris the nature of the item to be remote veiwed AT the START of the challange.
I tried to get george Noory to do this with Ed Dames and he never responded. but there it is I have my thread "Remote viewer challange" if any one wants to disscuss the challange or go over protocalls ECT.
BOB
I tried to get george Noory to do this with Ed Dames and he never responded. but there it is I have my thread "Remote viewer challange" if any one wants to disscuss the challange or go over protocalls ECT.
BOB
Well what about Daz, forum member (at least before) who is English and was on the Paracast about his own remote viewing. He said he would take part in a test with the show, not sure what came of it. It was going to be a rigorous test but I think your idea would be a very simple quick one to see whether it is even worth going further with more extensive tests.
I have downloaded an RV instruction manual from Daz' site but as yet have not read it! I keep meaning to give it an honest go, it is one of those situations where maybe the chance of success is low but the effort trying is relatively small so the pay-off if it works is very high.
I have downloaded an RV instruction manual from Daz' site but as yet have not read it! I keep meaning to give it an honest go, it is one of those situations where maybe the chance of success is low but the effort trying is relatively small so the pay-off if it works is very high.
yeah I hear Randi has so many get-ou
t clauses it would be nigh-on impossible to meet all the criteria. I think Randi is such a hardened skeptic/debunker that a real event in his mind would just remain a fake that he cannot explain as of yet. Nothing would be enough proof for him I think, even though I admire his exposure of frauds that make money or ruin lives like psychics gaining from grieving parents etc.
t clauses it would be nigh-on impossible to meet all the criteria. I think Randi is such a hardened skeptic/debunker that a real event in his mind would just remain a fake that he cannot explain as of yet. Nothing would be enough proof for him I think, even though I admire his exposure of frauds that make money or ruin lives like psychics gaining from grieving parents etc.
dyingsun
Paranormal Adept
I like him too for exposing and calling out frauds, the challenge per se seems un-winnable though, which all in all is probably a good thing. I think I'm pretty skeptic myself, and as said before, I can't think of anyone even trying to take that challenge. Ingo Swann just sprung to mind, but well.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
You should see if Randi will come on the Paracast and discuss the challenge and folks who have tried for it. It has been a while since I looked into it, but I think the test procedures are pretty fair and takes James Randi out of the loop. I think some folks complain about some of the legal things they have to sign about their rights concerning Randi publishing the test results and that sort of thing. I really think having either Jame Randi or someone from the organization come on and talk about the challenge would be entertaining and informative.
T.O - agreed.