• 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.

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.

Indeed.

FWIW, and in addition to Darat's link, there's this, which purports to be James Randi's comments on the matter in 1999.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1
 
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.

It kinda sounds like he punched the guy:

In front of an audience assembled to hear my lecture, I had the great pleasure of punching him out -- to a standing ovation. But it's little satisfaction, considering the damage that he and others like him, along with the principals, Geller, Warth and Byrd, have done to me.)

(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287?pli=1)
 
Last edited:
What he said. And what the hell is this about teenage boys? ANybody care to provide a recap? (No time to google - if it's even worth it)



And the Skeptic (oops, Sceptic) Of The Day Award for June 30, 2010.... The envelope please, Priscilla......

It's Red3!!! (Crowd erupts in delirious shouts of approval and riotous applause)

From a somewhat dismissive, "... if it's even worth it", to digging into ancient articles for proof/evidence in less than 10 hours! That's what JREF is made of. :D
 
Who are you debating with? The professor?


Ha! Is there anywhere that guy hasn't been banned from?

Incidentally, Dave Koenig/"The Professor" dragged this dead horse from it's coffin 12 months ago, and continues to flog it to this day. He even went as far to post a link to a download site where the "sex tapes" were hosted. He went out of is way to thank "whoever posted these so we can all make up our own minds without outside interference". However I think it's likely that Koenig had something to do with the upload, considering his connections to Jim Callahan, and Jim's connection to Uri Geller. The files have since been removed from Uploadpedia, but if you want to read the 40 pages of dribble, along with dozens of pages of other Randi/JREF libel, knock yourself out.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7
 
Slightly off topic...

Whilst I've been rather happy to have nothing to do with Koenig since his permanent ban from both here and the Magic Cafe, something that was predicted by many non-psychics during the course of his MDC application has come to fruition. Koenig is promoting himself as "THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS PERFORMING AMAZING FEATS THAT DEFY EXPLANATION!!!!!". Good to see he hasn't got over his caps lock fixation. ;)

http://www.myspace.com/professorslimking
 
And the Skeptic (oops, Sceptic) Of The Day Award for June 30, 2010.... The envelope please, Priscilla......

It's Red3!!! (Crowd erupts in delirious shouts of approval and riotous applause)

From a somewhat dismissive, "... if it's even worth it", to digging into ancient articles for proof/evidence in less than 10 hours! That's what JREF is made of. :D

Well, what can I say...

It's been a slow morning!
 
Funny, I looked at that page and the word SEX does not come up at all any where, the word "tape" yes, "sex" no.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Okay, wait. Tell me if I've got this wrong. Randi received obscene phone calls, and recorded them in order to provide them to the police. And this is a "sex tape"???

Seriously - Wuh - tuh - fuh?
 
Yea, makes one wonder how we made it out the trees with all the dead weight in the population.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
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?

As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops. Until the cops step forward and back him up with documentation, it’s no different from a person that says he was alone in his apartment on the night of the crime but can’t produce anyone to corroborate his statement. They just have his word for it.

In our legal system the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is up to the accuser to prove their guilt, but when you have conclusive proof of something the accused did, especially by his own admission, the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the accuser’s side in support of their charge and the burden of proof shifts to the accused ‘to explain’.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc. Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement. And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

If you’re going to play the skeptic game you have to be willing to apply it to yourself even when it burns and stings.

It’s exactly as Cavemonster said, the truth is the truth no matter what. It doesn’t matter what Randi or Einstein did; the facts is the facts. The most important thing to remember about Randi is what he’s accomplished and helped create.
 
As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.

...snip...

No he doesn't.
 
This is ancient, Randi's explanation dates back over 10 years and I think even that was a repost. The 'tape' goes back to the 60's.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/ef5c281837993287

The problem you are going to have is that the people involved are very likely no longer at their jobs, it having been decades since this took place. You will need to file motions if you want more information, but frankly I doubt it is easy to come by even with legal help.

What is certain is this:

1) The Rumson police had this tape in their posession for decades and did not arrest Randi. That speaks volumes right there. It means the claims of the scumwads who bring this up (and those who enable their sleazy tactics) are not at all close to reality.

2) The major 'spreader' of this tape, one Eldon 'kid luvin' clown' Byrd was hardly one to accuse anyone of sexual impropriety. He also lost his US Navy job because he abused his position to get ahold of the tape.

3) Earl 'the psychotic psychic' Curley was close to being sued for spreading false claims about this tape, he drank himself to death before the suit could be brought.

Frankly, if the sleazeworm who is using this as defamation, he (or she) doesn't really deserve any replies.
 
Last edited:
As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops. Until the cops step forward and back him up with documentation, it’s no different from a person that says he was alone in his apartment on the night of the crime but can’t produce anyone to corroborate his statement. They just have his word for it.

In our legal system the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is up to the accuser to prove their guilt, but when you have conclusive proof of something the accused did, especially by his own admission, the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the accuser’s side in support of their charge and the burden of proof shifts to the accused ‘to explain’.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc. Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement. And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

If you’re going to play the skeptic game you have to be willing to apply it to yourself even when it burns and stings.

It’s exactly as Cavemonster said, the truth is the truth no matter what. It doesn’t matter what Randi or Einstein did; the facts is the facts. The most important thing to remember about Randi is what he’s accomplished and helped create.

Just let us know when you have evidence of wrongdoing. Does a tape exist? Maybe. Is there evidence of wrongdoing? Not that I've seen. When a very nasty allegation is made against someone, it should be supported with evidence, otherwise it's slander. Again, you can't prove a negative. It's not up to us show that Randi is innocent, it's up to the accusers to provide evidence. Put up or shut up.
 
Ha! Is there anywhere that guy hasn't been banned from?

Incidentally, Dave Koenig/"The Professor" dragged this dead horse from it's coffin 12 months ago, and continues to flog it to this day. He even went as far to post a link to a download site where the "sex tapes" were hosted. He went out of is way to thank "whoever posted these so we can all make up our own minds without outside interference". However I think it's likely that Koenig had something to do with the upload, considering his connections to Jim Callahan, and Jim's connection to Uri Geller. The files have since been removed from Uploadpedia, but if you want to read the 40 pages of dribble, along with dozens of pages of other Randi/JREF libel, knock yourself out.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7

The Professor has not posted there since April 2010. No idea why he left or where he has been since.
 
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

Somewhat off-topic, but I don't think Randi comes across very well in that article. I know he was obviously angry at the things being said about him, but bragging about punching people out -- and hinting that he might do so to others -- is not very admirable. If Uri Geller started threatening to punch out anyone who called him a phony, Randi would be the first to chastise him for resorting to intimidation.

And offering the million dollar prize for proof that Randi said certain things? There's nothing paranormal about a claim that "James Randi said such-and-such," and the prize is supposed to belong to the JREF and not be Randi's personal property to offer up (even rhetorically) every time he's in a snit about something. In fact, by April 2009 when that Swift article was written, Randi was no longer even the JREF President -- so why is he acting like it's his to hand over if he loses an argument?
 
Going from memory......

The thing about the tape was it was claimed as proof that Randi was a pedophile, the problem being the people he was talking to were, I believe 17 years old in the case of the youngest. Even if that is technically below the legal age of consent for the jurisdiction it is a million miles from pedophilia.

The purported court transcripts have been posted online at times, you could try searching for those.

I read them years ago and a couple of purely personal opinion observations......

I seem to recall that the judge was none too happy with Randi at times and made it clear he did not believe Randi was entirely truthful.

After reading what Randi said his coming out was the least surprising announcement in history. The words on those tapes are obviously not those of a straight man. I spent a great deal of my teenage youth hitch hiking the US and met plenty of Randis. Not, btw that there is anything wrong about a gay man hitting on teenage, of age guys. There are plenty of adult straight men that chase 18 year old girls. I think it says something about them but it's legal and you can do it if you want.

Randi makes claims about his anatomy that are indeed impressive when viewed in relation to his height.

In short the whole thing is damming if gay men make you feel icky or if you are a big Randi fan and can't handle gods with feet of clay. Otherwise a whole bunch of nothing.

Again this is based on my memory of the court transcript that was posted online, if in error please feel free to point me to the true transcript and I will stand corrected.
 
Last edited:
James Randi "sex" tapes.

Where JREF sceptics lose their reasoning.

The clamour to excuse the dirty old bugger is almost homophobic. FFS wake up.
 
Does ANYONE have any actual facts to post or are we all just winging it for the fun of it?
 
Facts and evidence are helpful; speculation and hearsay not so much.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc. Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement. And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

Yes, there should be no double standard. When folks make claims, Randi often asks for evidence (and offers a million bucks if the evidence is properly presented). The onus is not on Randi or anyone here to prove a negative. The onus is on anyone who claims Randi is guilty of some kind of wrongdoing. So if someone can specifically state what he did that was wrong, and provide evidence, then do it. Otherwise let's stop the innuendos.
 
So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.
Stop right there. Randi admits to no such thing. Randi admits to having recorded a phone call (for whatever reason). Possibly more than one - I didn't read it that closely.

To get from there to "sex tape" involves a cognitive leap of truly heroic proportions.
 
Everybody has sexual details that (while not illegal) aren't things they'd want to communicate to the world.

Christ, that's how Scientology keeps the troops in order. All those embarrassing details recorded during those "audits".

So Randi is gay and likes young guys.
Well, imagine my shock. NOT.
 
I think that if there were any sexual talk by Randi on the tape it would probably have been done in order to keep the obscene caller talking to gather more evidence for the police.
 

Given that even some of Randi's supporters have not bothered to read Randi's 1999 statement, but prefer instead to make uninformed comments and submit questions about what has been plainly written and is a matter of public record, I'm quoting Randi's relevant comments from the above linked document.

James Randi said:
The tape cassette which formed part of the blackmail package, rather than being the product of a "tap" on my phone, as the blackmail package claimed, was a copy of a tape that I was specifically asked to make back in 1968, by the police chief -- Zerr -- of Rumson, New Jersey, where I lived at that time. That request was because of obscene phone calls I'd been receiving at home, at all hours of the day and night. The object of my conversations on that tape had been to keep the callers on the line and thereby trace and identify the persons responsible. Zerr informed me that though a recording could probably not be admitted into evidence, it would be a powerful tool to possess. (At that time, to establish a trace, it was necessary to keep a caller on the line a minimum of four minutes.) That investigation resulted in a minor in a neighboring town being identified
and charged with the crime. At that time, the minor's lawyer was informed
by the local police that I possessed a recording of the phone calls. The
very next night, my home was broken into, and only my small reel-to-reel
tape recorder that had been connected to the telephone, was taken; no other valuables were touched.

Police subsequently found the minor in possession of the recorder and its
tape reel, and he was then also charged with the break-in.


...

The fact that all the calls on that tape are calls made to me and not by me, shows the true nature of the tape. The tape was made by me, at the instruction of the Chief of Police of Rumson, New Jersey, for the purpose of obtaining evidence on the night callers. A careful listening to the tape establishes this beyond doubt. The distributors cite references that are simply not on the tape, and they fail to mention its provenance.

...

Shortly thereafter, I was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in a hall in Newark,
New Jersey. I relate this event to show that my whole record was and is
known to the U.S. government, yet I was granted citizenship.
Had there been any truth to the horrendous canards that are presently being circulated,
that would not have happened. Furthermore, when the would-be parapsychologist Eldon Byrd sued me in Baltimore a few years ago, his lawyer brought up the famous tape recording as evidence against my character. My own lawyer, at my insistence, asked that the entire tape be played for the courtroom and jury, so that the true nature of the record would be understood, instead of being misrepresented as it usually was. It was played, and Postal Inspector Ray Mack, who followed this matter from its inception, was a witness we brought in to validate the true nature of the recording. His evidence was accepted by the jury, who then gave Eldon Byrd zero of the four penalties he was demanding of me, totaling thirteen million dollars. My detractors claim that at that trial, I was established to be "a malicious liar," and that I was found guilty. ... I was notconvicted of having made that statement; it was already part of the record. I had said that Byrd was "a convicted child molester," while I should have said that he was "an admitted child molester," ... In any case, I certainly won that case, since I was represented pro bono most efficiently, and paid Byrd not a nickel.

I've snipped out the stuff about Xanthos, which is related to the case but ancillary to the main points of this thread. The entire tape in question was played in a separate but related trial to establish to the satisfaction of a jury that Randi has indeed been working for the Rumson police when he made the tape, a fact supported by a US government investigator Ray Mack.

This is all a matter of public record and can be investigated by interested parties seeking to corroborate or refute Randi's claims.
 
As it stands right now Randi acknowledges making the tape, so apparently the tape is/was out there. His stated reason for doing so is anecdotal and hearsay on his part.

No, it was played in its entirety for a judge and jury on a separate charge of which Randi was unanimously cleared. Far from being anecdotal, the reason the tape was made is a matter of public record.

So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops. Until the cops step forward and back him up with documentation, it’s no different from a person that says he was alone in his apartment on the night of the crime but can’t produce anyone to corroborate his statement. They just have his word for it.

See above. A US jury heard the tape and the testimony of Postal Inspector Ray Mack, and decided the tape was exactly as Randi has described. It has been proven in a court of law, and is supported by a federal investigator; "allegedly" is not an adverb that accurately describes this case.

In our legal system the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is up to the accuser to prove their guilt, but when you have conclusive proof of something the accused did, especially by his own admission, the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the accuser’s side in support of their charge and the burden of proof shifts to the accused ‘to explain’.

He has explained it to the satisfaction of a judge, jury and a federal investigator. If you have or know of some material that disputes this documented fact or proves it false, please submit it.

Now you know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be sneering and mocking and demanding proof, evidence, links, charts, graphs, etc.

Your insight into human nature is so remarkably prescient that you can actually certify the behaviors and responses to a certain stimulus of a person you've never met and have only corresponded with via the Internet. Color me impressed!

Right now all we have is anecdotal evidence via his uncorroborated statement.

Right now you've willfully ignored the actual facts of this matter, which are that a judge, jury and federal investigator have unanimously agreed that the tape is precisely what Randi claims it is.

And you know how debunkers love to tear into someone else’s anecdotal evidence. Randi should be put
under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards that he demands of others. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what’s bad for the gander is bad for the goose.

Debunkers, ganders and geese aside, Randi has been put under the very scrutiny you demand, specifically in a US court of law, where his statement has been corroborated and certified by a judge, jury and federal investigator.

If you’re going to play the skeptic game you have to be willing to apply it to yourself even when it burns and stings.

Quoted for Truth. Please follow your own advice in this regard. Does it "burn and sting" yet? Have the beneficial remedies for large water fowl of the male sex been certified as equally beneficial for the females? ;)

It’s exactly as Cavemonster said, the truth is the truth no matter what. It doesn’t matter what Randi or Einstein did; the facts is the facts. The most important thing to remember about Randi is what he’s accomplished and helped create.

Great, now you can actually apply the principles he prescribes, investigate the documents under review, see for yourself that Randi's assertions have been proven valid in a court of law, and shut up already.
 
No, it was played in its entirety for a judge and jury on a separate charge of which Randi was unanimously cleared.

Nitpick: Randi wasn't exactly cleared. It was a civil trial where Randi was the defendant and the jury found for the plaintiff - because they had to as Randi admitted to the error of 'slandering' the plaintiff during the trial*. But they found Randi liable to the tune of $0 as the plaintiff had no reputation to smear.**


* Randi had called the man a convicted child molester, when in fact the plaintiff was merely convicted for having child pornography. During the trial the plaintiff admitted, among other unsavory antics, that he had sex with his then underage girl who he was the legal guardian. Such a prize!

** The added benefit with this result is that the plaintiff could not appeal the verdict. That didn't stop him from whining that everyone except him in Baltimore doesn't understand civil law.
 
Sidebar of note (probably mentioned elsewhere on the forum, but the first I've seen of it): Randi's defence counsel for the Byrd v Randi lawsuit included very-soon-to-be US Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan!

Here's a library record of the defense presentation, also listed as one of the ten most significant cases she'd handled (see 16-d) in her C.V. questionnaire for Solicitor-General. :pedant
 
Last edited:
Given that even some of Randi's supporters have not bothered to read Randi's 1999 statement, but prefer instead to make uninformed comments and submit questions about what has been plainly written and is a matter of public record, I'm quoting Randi's relevant comments from the above linked document.



I've snipped out the stuff about Xanthos, which is related to the case but ancillary to the main points of this thread. The entire tape in question was played in a separate but related trial to establish to the satisfaction of a jury that Randi has indeed been working for the Rumson police when he made the tape, a fact supported by a US government investigator Ray Mack.

This is all a matter of public record and can be investigated by interested parties seeking to corroborate or refute Randi's claims.

Thanks for those quotes, Vortigern99.

Sidebar of note (probably mentioned elsewhere on the forum, but the first I've seen of it): Randi's defence counsel for the Byrd v Randi lawsuit included very-soon-to-be US Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan!

Here's a library record of the defense presentation, also listed as one of the ten most significant cases she'd handled (see 16-d) in her C.V. questionnaire for Solicitor-General. :pedant

Nice find, blobby.
 
Seconded. Let's remember to keep this all around for the next time for I'm sure as long as Woo exists there will be a next time.

Indeed. I saved the link (from which Vortigern quoted) a year or two ago, when I found it after much searching because I was in a debate similar to the OP's. Not that the Woos bothered to read it, unless that's what stopped them posting. Still, it came in handy again here, and blobby's link will, sadly, probably be useful.
 
Back
Top Bottom