• 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

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

Gord_in_Toronto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Orphia Nay said:
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.
Click to expand...

ditto

and

ditto

And I feel kinda like a lazy schlub, myself. I've been here through at least three (maybe four) such witch hunts, and should be able to access the stuff at the drop of an innuendo.


ETA: Tags? Have I got my VB settings mucked up or are there no Tags for this thread? Seems to me that'd be one real easy way to make sure we can find the info in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
So, Randi admits to making a sex tape ‘allegedly’ to help the cops.
Click to expand...

Not really. He admitted to keeping a teenage crank caller talking after receiving an obscene phone call, so the cops could trace it. Which they did and the kid was caught.

Why would anyone make a sex audio tape?
 
Last edited:
TShaitanaku said:
ROFLOL!
Thanks, been a rough week, that was enjoyably relaxing!

"...one to the chops,..."

with apple-sauce!
Click to expand...

I am, to coin a phrase, a bit skeptical about that story. Randi punched someone, knocking them down in front of an audience that then gives Randi an ovation as the person is carried out? That sounds a little too good to take at face value.

I am not saying it didn't happen, but I would like a little more proof before I buy that. Particularly since this person, who is supposedly out to get Randi, apparently did not press charges?

This Link:http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=155&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30 has a different version.
An excerpt from the opposing post:
De Herrera says he did indeed receive a copy of the Blackmail Tape anonymously, and wrote to the FBI about it. Randi knew about this, and fearing that de Herrera would show up at the lecture, he had armed guards posted at the door. (Uri Geller once did a similar thing, to avoid Randi at a lecture in New Jersey.)

De Herrera says that he sat down quietly in the back row of the auditorium, but after the lecture he went up on stage. Randi rolled up his sleeves dramatically, and took a punch at de Herrera, after which he pushed Randi into a wall. De Herrera's arms were then grabbed by a guard and he was eventually escorted from the hall in an armlock. Rather than "a standing ovation", there was nothing but shocked silence from the crowd.
Click to expand...
 
Mostly becauser after reading debunkingskeptic, one can only laugh at what's on that web site. That's basically why. To be more explicit : I am pretty sure randi's version is embelished, but debunkingskeptic is about as trustable as far as I can throw it.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Mostly becauser after reading debunkingskeptic, one can only laugh at what's on that web site. That's basically why. To be more explicit : I am pretty sure randi's version is embelished, but debunkingskeptic is about as trustable as far as I can throw it.
Click to expand...

Not just the site, but this is from a post by the Professor.
 
My answer to the sex tapes would be: what's your point? Even though people like the Professor won't just come out and say so, these allegations boil down to an ad hominem attack on refusing to accept magical thinking. If I were convinced that Randi really did solicit sex from underage boys, I wouldn't support him in any way. But it doesn't mean that I'd reject skepticism.
 
I linked a post in this thread on Scepcop, there is an odious cretin there called Craig Browning who is like Professor-lite, a magician woo. He is possibly only woo left there who bothers participating in Randi threads.
 
Can we put this to rest please?

Yes there is a tape. If I remember it was 3 mp3 files about 3-4 mins each or so.
I downloaded them last year when that sleezeball started slandering randi and they coincidentally became available for download.
I wanted to hear for myself if my idol was what they said.
I probably still have the mp3's on my HDD somewhere. I see NO reason to release them to anyone and if I come across them I will probably delete them.

Things that I remember from the tapes:
It is a recording of incoming calls to randi on his side. Meaning he is recording.
It is numerous young men calling looking for sex.
Randi seems to be entertaining them to try to get them to stay on the phone for a minute or so.
Randi does say some sexual things but they are very vague and he does not go into detail. Things like, "We'll have fun." "I have a large penis" Nothing specific.
In every call randi seems to get frustrated and terminates the call.
It does not sound like he is enjoying himself or the phone calls.
The youngest sounding caller ask's randi to talk dirty to him. Randi refuses, gets angry, and terminates the call.
These are not the actions of a pedophile or sexual deviant.

As far as the physical confrontation on stage goes. I have never known randi to lie. Fight or flight syndrome during a confrontation makes memory very inaccurate. Perhaps he misremembered. I am sure he did get a good punch in though. But who cares?!?
 
blobru said:
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
Click to expand...


Another sidebar: Actually, it appears that Ms. Kagan represented the publisher defendants in that action, not Mr. Randi.

ETA yet another sidebar: Byrd sued Mr. Randi again in 2000 (for assault, libel and slander) and that action was also dismissed on a motion to dismiss November 13, 2000.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Another sidebar: Actually, it appears that Ms. Kagan represented the publisher defendants in that action, not Mr. Randi.

ETA yet another sidebar: Byrd sued Mr. Randi again in 2000 (for assault, libel and slander) and that action was also dismissed on a motion to dismiss November 13, 2000.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the sidebarrage [& clarification], LashL. :D I see the publishers are listed as co-defendants, with Kagan etal arguing their motion for summary judgment.

Interesting to read the background material therein she compiled on the case: how Geller's metal-bending chicanery was so widely accepted in the 80's that Congress had struck a group to discuss its implications, the Dept of Defense were conducting experiments on its military potential, the CIA had hired Byrd as their liason with Geller, even Soviet arms dealers were interested. Have to wonder how many millions of US taxpayer $$$ were wasted on Geller & Byrd's little psychic circus.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Mostly becauser after reading debunkingskeptic, one can only laugh at what's on that web site. That's basically why. To be more explicit : I am pretty sure randi's version is embelished, but debunkingskeptic is about as trustable as far as I can throw it.
Click to expand...

Without a neutral witness I suppose we will never know what happened, but honestly the lies told by the woo crowd that center around this 'tape' have dropped their credibility to nil.

I once talked about the Randi vs Byrd case on USENET (I didn't bring it up, but I had more details). Byrd actually emailed me to 'correct' me on several issues. The first issue it was obvious he was lying and I confirmed it with an email to Randi. The second issue was him trying to defend his conviction for possession of kiddie porn (he said it was OK because it was the arty kind - no really). The third point was easily shown to be wrong by a simple glance at the trial transcript and was the worst example of spin I have seen from a woo in a while.

Byrd's fourth point was that the judge didn't understand the law and that he should have been awarded money despite the ruling for $0 - that the jury _had_ to make Randi pay if they found for the plaintiff. I doubt what he claims about the law is true (LashL?) in the least but I can imagine him thinking he was somehow vindicated for getting $1 from Randi. Hell, the USFL got $3.

He then ranted for a couple of sentences on how I could be written off because I had made spelling errors in my post and how he would not reply. I did reply and pointed out his lies, and referred to his spelling mistake in trying to correct Martin Gardener in 'The New Age'.

Byrd was an unbelievable liar even without the trial. When Gardner criticized his experimental write-up on Geller playing with Nitinol he kept magically adding controls it was obvious he didn't have in place in the first place.
 
kookbreaker said:
Byrd's fourth point was that the judge didn't understand the law and that he should have been awarded money despite the ruling for $0 - that the jury _had_ to make Randi pay if they found for the plaintiff. I doubt what he claims about the law is true (LashL?) in the least but I can imagine him thinking he was somehow vindicated for getting $1 from Randi.
Click to expand...


Your doubt is well placed, as Byrd's claim is incorrect. The judge most certainly understood the law, and Byrd does not. A judge or jury can indeed make a finding of liability and then go on to order $0 payable in damages because the assessment of liability and the assessment of damages are two distinct and separate things.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That would be the infamous Earl Gordon Curley? I thought this whole thing sounded familiar. Anyone interested can google Earl Gordon Curley. There's an unofficial holiday named for him: Google 'Kook Day'
 
kookbreaker said:
Without a neutral witness I suppose we will never know what happened, but honestly the lies told by the woo crowd that center around this 'tape' have dropped their credibility to nil.
Click to expand...

Well supposedly there were a room full of neutral witnesses. That's why I find it hard to believe this hater of Randi did not press charges and that I can't find any other other accounts other than the one I linked and Randi's version. Surely Randi could clear this all up by providing the names of some other attendees, I would assume he knew at least one person there.

Randi has made a career calling out other people's dishonesty; if he is making up stories himself I would find that significant. If you publicly judge others behavior then your behavior in the same regard should be above reproach.

Just ask Jimmy Swaggart.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Your doubt is well placed, as Byrd's claim is incorrect. The judge most certainly understood the law, and Byrd does not. A judge or jury can indeed make a finding of liability and then go on to order $0 payable in damages because the assessment of liability and the assessment of damages are two distinct and separate things.
Click to expand...

That does not surprise me. Byrd's modus operandi was to cover his screwups and lies with even bigger lies - even to the point of claiming he knew better than experts in their field. He whined that it was his lawyer's fault and that they should have appealed the award based on Byrd's misunderstanding. Sounds like the lawyer did the sensible thing and ignored Byrd.
 
To me this is like someone saying " you made a porno" and me replying that indeed i was in a film that contained a sex scene but that it was not a porno.

This is no admission of being in a porno, this is a rebuttal of the porno existing. One cannot say " they have me on this one." unless the people claiming the porno exists actually show the porno.
 
No animals were harmed during the making of this tape. The gerbil was a bit sad afterwards tho.
 
jimtron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that the people that dislike Randi have a lot of money. And Randi has cost many a psychic and "flim flam" scam artist a lot of money over the years. If there was something to it, they have the money and means to get this out there. They can't do it as it is indeed nothing.

It's interesting that a "fundie" would use this arguement. Because besides Randi there are so many other skeptic inspirations for us all. Heck, just look at a roll call of TAM speakers over the years. Also quite a few fundies have turned out to have feet of clay. Certainly just a peek at the recent "rent boy" episode (see recent Swift article by Brandon of the JREF). Now would any good Xian say "ohhh all Christianity is bad and evil because this guy took a rent boy on a vacation and lied about who he is?" Ummm, nope. If ones faith is based on a human being being perfect (and in this case I can certainly say Randi is about as perfect as any human I'm friends with! And I'm very picky in my friends) then one doesn't have faith at all. In this case I think the faith is in science and skepticism and critical thinking.
 
Lucian said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was imagining him looking like Buzz Aldrin when he twatted Bart. He had to actually reach up to thump the moron. Funny as heck because Buzz is so short
 
(Pokes his head out of his foxhole.)
Wow. That went surprisingly well.
 
So am I the only one who thinks that the Amazing Randi Sex Tape will never be as awsome as I imagine it. In my version Randi doesn't turn up until twenty minutes in, when the two Soirety Pledges have gone back to their dorm to experiment and one says "Before we go one I have a secret." The music of that very game show plays, and everything goes black and white while the second Soriety girl guesses the secret. I wont give it away, because this room is moderated, and you will worry for my sanity...

But if the real tapes don't at least feature the great man himself producing flowers, escaping a safe and shouting "Tah dah!" then what is the point of watching them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom