• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Looking for documentation of the Randi "sex tape" sting.

Jontg

The Bear Skeptic
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,002
Currently debating one of those Randi-as-Fundamentalist morons, and he's trying to derail the discussion with the sex tape smear--like they all seem to do right out of the gate now that Mr. Randi is out of the closet. I need a link to the documentation that proves Mr. Randi's reasons for creating that tape.
 
Your "need" begs the question of whether or not such a recording exists.

Whose side are you on, anyway?
 
What's wonderful about skepticism is that it isn't a cult of personality. It really doesn't matter if Randi rapes puppies nightly. Both skepticism and the MDC still stand.

Does relativity fail if it turns out Einstein had a fetish for leather?

No. The truth is the truth, and personal attacks have nothing to do with it.
 
True... technically, I haven't even been shown the tape yet. But Randi himself admitted to making it, albeit for altruistic purposes and at the direction of law enforcement officials. If I don't see some concrete proof of this--above and beyond the simple fact that he hasn't been lynched and burned at the stake simultaneously--then my opponent will continue to derail and smear a man I greatly admire, and I admit I myself won't be able to shake some suspicions on my part. Again, it's a given that the tape exists--what I don't know is what it contains and where I can find proof that Mr. Randi's been set up.
 
Deny everything. Demand proof of everything from the person who you are debating with. If he cannot produce the tape it does not exist! If you are lucky he will only have second hand information and be unable to provide anything.

Who are you debating with? The professor?
 
Innocent until proven guilty... is good
Guilty until proven innocent... is bad

As rjh01 rightly says, you are in the position to demand proof.
 
There's no law or obligation forcing you to communicate with that type of person. You won't instill intelligence in anyone over the internet. As the saying goes: "Don't wrestle with pigs. You only get dirty and the pig enjoys it."

Tell the guy he must be wrong as he can't put up any evidence for any of his claims and say buh-bye. Move on to more deserving company. :cool:
 
Here's what I would say: put up or shut up. Being a skeptic means having an open mind (even if it means hearing something awful about someone you revere) but demanding evidence to back up claims. If you've got real evidence (not just hearsay and slander), let's see it. If not, you're making a very nasty, baseless claim about someone.

ETA: This might help?
http://www.randi.org/hotline/1996/0085.html
 
Last edited:
Currently debating one of those Randi-as-Fundamentalist morons, and he's trying to derail the discussion with the sex tape smear--like they all seem to do right out of the gate now that Mr. Randi is out of the closet. I need a link to the documentation that proves Mr. Randi's reasons for creating that tape.

I'm pretty sure Randi wrote in some detail about this on randi.org so have a search on there. I found this SWIFT article that mentions it towards the bottom: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/525-a-champion-grubbie-speaks-out.html
 
If what went on in this alledged tape wasn't illegal then who cares whether the tpae was made or not? If the alledged tape contained illegal activity Mr. randi would have been prosecuted. The tape if it exists is none of any ones business.
 
Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does, and it would be disingenuous of me to demand my opponent prove what I am already fairly sure is true. What I need is proof that the tape was made for the Rumson PD. I know it wasn't illegal--my opponent has already played the fact that it wasn't at the time for all the sleaze he can conjure up--and I know it has no bearing on anybody's rightness or wrongness. Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex. I mean, there has to be documentation, case files, court records of the tape being used to convict somebody, anything--right? Please, I'm not one of those just-looking-for-the-truth trolls, I genuinely am just looking for the truth, for the sake of my own peace of mind.
 
Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does,

I'm not so sure of that. Randi "admits" that he recorded some harassing phone calls. That's not a sex tape.

Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex.

Do you have any reason to suspect he was?
 
Yeah, it's really not healthy to try to emulate someone else in all things. Be your own person. It's fine to be inspired by someone else or to admire someone else, but don't try to be just like them. Hero-worship is unhealthy.
 

James Randi in the above-linked 1996 message said:
Just in case these mysterious "people" would like to be saved a trip,
I'll tell them now that the "tape" is not one of "solicitation," but
was prepared by me (and not as a wire-tap, as Mr. Curley has chosen to
believe) to trap some bad guys.
It worked, and the bad guys were
identified, charged, and convicted. I will bring along a COMPLETE
file of the newspaper files alluded to (not from Rumson, which had no
newspaper back then, but from Asbury Park) including the articles that
supported my allegations against the Middletown police, and the record
of the conviction of those who I trapped by means of the "tape."

[bolding mine]

What else do you need to know?
 
Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does, and it would be disingenuous of me to demand my opponent prove what I am already fairly sure is true.
Can you provide a link to the alleged admission? It is not ingenuous to ask for proof of claim -- it is stupid not to.
What I need is proof that the tape was made for the Rumson PD.
What you need first if proof of the tape itself. Subpoena the Rumson PD for the alleged artifact.
I know it wasn't illegal--my opponent has already played the fact that it wasn't at the time for all the sleaze he can conjure up--and I know it has no bearing on anybody's rightness or wrongness.
So what's the point? If nothing's wrong, then why try to "fix" it?
Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex.
First, you can not prove that something did not happen. May as well try to prove that G-d does not exist.

Second, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. That person is your alleged opponent.

Third, if your alleged opponent was merely trying to make you doubt Mr. Randi, then he has already won the conflict.

Fourth, you are asking a bunch of website members to provide evidence that something did not happen -- why not contact Mr. Randi instead? I'm sure that his lawyers would especially love to hear from you regarding any attempt to defame Mr. Randi.
I mean, there has to be documentation, case files, court records of the tape being used to convict somebody, anything--right?[
Subpoena the Rumson police for the evidence. Of course, you'll first have to convince a judge that you have the need-to-know, and that might take some doing. For that you will need a good lawyer, rather than a bunch of website forum members, to do your dirty work for you.
Please, I'm not one of those just-looking-for-the-truth trolls, I genuinely am just looking for the truth, for the sake of my own peace of mind.
Evidence, please? Your story seems improbable, and full of holes.

I've been approached a few times by investigative reporters who claimed that they only wanted to "uncover the truth" about my company's operations in order to "defend" us against some nasty rumors that we had not heard of before. Previous to that, there was always someone who would want to do the same regarding operations inside whichever military base or on board whichever naval ship I happened to be assigned to at the time -- always claiming to be supportive in trying to suppress one or more previously unknown, yet nasty rumors form an anonymous source.

It turns out, without exception, that these people were fakes. They were looking for confirmation of something -- anything -- that they could report in a negative way reminiscent of the sleaziest kinds of tabloid journalism.

I strongly suggest that this smear campaign be brought fully to light. I further suggest that protecting the source of these rumors regarding an alleged sex-tape amounts to condoning their actions in smearing Mr. Randi's good name.

... something that I'm sure any professional "psychic" might do to divert attention away from his or her own scandalous behavior ... n'est-ce pas?
 
Randi has always in the past posted video's on youtube about the alleged frauds he caught out such as Peter Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne,dowsers, pyschics , blah blah etc......... So why not produce the tapes that he claims he caught BAD GUYS?

Or are people only permitted to accept Randi's word on the matter? How Scientific is that ?.
 
Randi has always in the past posted video's on youtube about the alleged frauds he caught out such as Peter Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne,dowsers, pyschics , blah blah etc......... So why not produce the tapes that he claims he caught BAD GUYS?

Or are people only permitted to accept Randi's word on the matter? How Scientific is that ?.

Have you stopped beating your cat yet? Please post proof. :rolleyes:
 
Vortigern, the files Mr. Randi mentioned are exactly what I'm looking for--some kind of real-world records proving that he's the one telling the truth. If nobody here has thought to look for them, then fine--what do I need to do to get a look at them?
And Fnord, don't you dare give me that crap. If you don't know where I can find what I'm looking for, admit it and abandon the thread--but don't paint me as a muckraking troll with a bad cover story because I don't accept something on faith. I've been here longer than you have, for chrissakes!
 
Randi has always in the past posted video's on youtube about the alleged frauds he caught out such as Peter Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne,dowsers, pyschics , blah blah etc......... So why not produce the tapes that he claims he caught BAD GUYS?

He doesn't have the tape, because someone stole it from his house and later tried to blackmail him with it. And it's an audio tape (on reel-to-reel, cassettes weren't available in 1968), not a video.
 
Vortigern, the files Mr. Randi mentioned are exactly what I'm looking for--some kind of real-world records proving that he's the one telling the truth. If nobody here has thought to look for them, then fine--what do I need to do to get a look at them?

This happened in 1968 and the person allegedly arrested for harassing phone calls was a minor. If the records haven't been expunged, they'd be sealed.

And Fnord, don't you dare give me that crap. If you don't know where I can find what I'm looking for, admit it and abandon the thread--but don't paint me as a muckraking troll with a bad cover story because I don't accept something on faith.

Seems to me you accepted the existence of a "sex tape" on faith.
 
Last edited:
Look, my opponent doesn't need to prove the tape exists--Randi admits it does, and it would be disingenuous of me to demand my opponent prove what I am already fairly sure is true. What I need is proof that the tape was made for the Rumson PD. I know it wasn't illegal--my opponent has already played the fact that it wasn't at the time for all the sleaze he can conjure up--and I know it has no bearing on anybody's rightness or wrongness. Right now, I'm doing this for me, because I respect and idolize James Randi and I want to prove to myself beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the man I seek to emulate in all things was not soliciting teenage boys for sex. I mean, there has to be documentation, case files, court records of the tape being used to convict somebody, anything--right? Please, I'm not one of those just-looking-for-the-truth trolls, I genuinely am just looking for the truth, for the sake of my own peace of mind.

I don't know of any documentation other than what's been linked to on this thread. The point is there is no evidence of wrongdoing. You can't prove a negative. That's why earlier I said that Randi critics who mention this issue should put up or shut up. Got evidence that he was up to no good? Let's see it. If not, this is a waste of time. It's been through the legal system already.
 
Last edited:
What's wonderful about skepticism is that it isn't a cult of personality. It really doesn't matter if Randi rapes puppies nightly. Both skepticism and the MDC still stand.

Does relativity fail if it turns out Einstein had a fetish for leather?

No. The truth is the truth, and personal attacks have nothing to do with it.

You rock.

This is a point that ought to be stressed more often in skeptical circles.
 
... And Fnord, don't you dare give me that crap.
What crap?
If you don't know where I can find what I'm looking for, admit it and abandon the thread
I have suggested where you can begin your search; in the most logical place, and by the most logical means. A court-issued subpoena would seem to be the most effective means of obtaining cooperation from law-enforcement for your "investigation".
--but don't paint me as a muckraking troll with a bad cover story...
If you are not muckraking, then why pursue a dead issue, especially one that has allegedly occurred so long ago that any statute of limitations will have expired by now? If your cover story is valid, then can you provide evidence?
... because I don't accept something on faith.
You accepted the existence of the alleged tape on faith alone. What is it that validates faith in your "opponent" over faith in a website full of skeptics?
I've been here longer than you have, for chrissakes!
However long you've been here is irrelevant. Appealing to Precedence must be some kind of fallacy.
 
Vortigern, the files Mr. Randi mentioned are exactly what I'm looking for--some kind of real-world records proving that he's the one telling the truth. If nobody here has thought to look for them, then fine--what do I need to do to get a look at them? ...


If these tapes are as damning as his critics allege, as sceptics we might well ask why there were never any charges stemming from them. Files of the tapes have been around for years. Most jurisdictions waive statute-of-limitations in such abuse cases -- charges could still be brought, presumably. Yet... no charges, then, since, or now?

By far the likeliest explanation is that Randi did nothing wrong. The issue only resurfaces periodically because over a long career debunking frauds and cranks he's made a lot of enemies.
 
Last edited:
As has been said (and linked to) repeatedly in this thread alone, I accept the existence of the tape because Randi admits on this very website that the tape exists. I threw out my join date because Fnord is acting like I'm just some random guy who popped up last night Looking For The Truth, when I've been a regular on this forum for six years--or was I just building a cover identity? I was trying to find evidence because I know it would be the goddamn atom bomb for Randi's enemies--something I could use, not just evasive-sounding bluster about how they can't prove anything and it has no bearing on his rightness or wrongness. Don't get me wrong, I know they're both true--but they're "soft" truths with no dramatic impact or stopping power. You can't use them to counter something with as much emotional punch as this--if you're going to get a debate back on the rails after somebody accuses a man of pederasty, you need a "hard" truth, something the audience can see or hear. As it is, I'm like a legal counsel in old Salem trying to defend a witch by asserting that the prosecution can't prove there's such a thing as God--I'm right, and it would be obvious if everyone were thinking straight, but nobody is going to listen to me until I dose somebody with Ergot, or hypnotize Abigail Williams, or something similarly dramatic. My best bet seems to be using the fact that, as Godless_Dave pointed out, nobody's likely to have any of the records, and more importantly if Mr. Randi was lying, odds are somebody would have noticed by now.
 
Last edited:
So, why not tell us who you are arguing with and through what medium?

If you can provide a link to the argument in question that might do wonders to prove that you are not "muckraking".
 
Jontg, I will be seeing Randi tomorrow, why don't you tell me all about when he said there was a tape. Please show me where that is on the internet.

Paul

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp
 
Seriously? O.o Thanks for taking the time to bother him... I was referring to his statements near the bottom of this article. Again, thank you so much!
 
Has Google gone missing from some peoples' Universe? Give it a try. Filter out all the woo-sites and the truth is easy to find. :(
 
Jontg, I will be seeing Randi tomorrow, why don't you tell me all about when he said there was a tape. Please show me where that is on the internet.

Paul

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp


Paul, do be careful.... Here's a portion of the closing paragraphs of that SWIFT article....

... I took the opportunity of flooring a nasty chap who had made similar accusations about me, and had been boasting about it loudly. One shot, to the chops. He went down, and was carried out. VERY satisfying, I assure you. Want some, Mr. Kapnistos? I got some...

I won't do this again. I'm finished having to inform idiots of the facts about these Grubbies. If they want to listen to what my adversaries say, and choose to repeat it without checking - as any honorable "journalist" would do - they can become misinformed easily and happily. Fantasy is their territory, and I leave them to it...

I'd hate to think of you ruining your friendship if he decides to give you a smack in the chops :eye-poppi . (Seriiously - I always took that paragraph figuratively. Not so sure upon re-reading it. Did Randi actually rough someone up? Now Uri's stooges will be out there saying that The Amazing One admits to using violence to silence his opponents. :D )
 
Think of all the charlatans Randi has debunked going back decades. If there was serious dirt out there don't you think one of them would have found it?

Folks are grasping at straws with this. Let us know when someone has evidence of wrongdoing. No one here is going to come up with a magic bullet that proves a negative.
 
Paul, do be careful.... Here's a portion of the closing paragraphs of that SWIFT article....



I'd hate to think of you ruining your friendship if he decides to give you a smack in the chops :eye-poppi . (Seriiously - I always took that paragraph figuratively. Not so sure upon re-reading it. Did Randi actually rough someone up? Now Uri's stooges will be out there saying that The Amazing One admits to using violence to silence his opponents. :D )

How many people's chops can Randi reach? Was he standing on a chair? Unless his opponent was tiny, I would say it was hyperbole or figurative language.
 
Back
Top Bottom