Question regarding James Randi and Gary Schwartz

The mental gymnastics people are willing to put themselves through to hold on to their pet psychic hero is dizzying.
Atlantean Crystal Power = lasers, really?
And all of the tired, "Even though the evidence disagrees with him, the evidence could all be wrong! I'm the real skeptic!! The pyramids could be inexplicably 5,000+ years older, because Edgar said so! He could have been an ancient priest, and in Atlantis, and talked to Jesus, because... well because Edgar said so!"

Gotta love the predictions too, an imperialistic Germany and a financial crises, yeah because nobody saw those coming, eh? :rolleyes:
Any "predictor" who has ever "predicted" anything tells of catastrophic wars and economic collapses... because those things are absolutely going to happen.

For some people, Edgar saying something is weightier evidence than all other evidence combined. I hope they will pause a moment to really ask themselves, why?

I keep hoping that BobR and Rodney will reveal they were only having fun and trolling, but sadly I'm led to believe they honestly think the clingy child-like apologetics they've posted in this thread is anything more than wishful fantasy.
 
Rodney said:
According to the May 14, 2010 USA Today article titled "'Star Wars' meets reality? Military testing laser weapons" --

Are we finally witnessing the dawn of the "death ray"?

Five decades after the creation of the laser, the ubiquitous technology of the modern era may be ready to serve up that Star Wars science-fiction staple: the laser blaster.

Advances in the technology have made it possible for military testers to shoot down incoming mortar rounds with land-based lasers, and military commanders are on the verge of being able to fire laser blasts from the air that could be aimed at tanks or mines.

See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-05-14-1Adeathray14_CV_N.htm?csp=hf
Click to expand...

"U.S. Navy Successfully Uses Laser to Shoot Down Drones" -- see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20011041-501465.html
 
BobR said:
<you think that there are cases of true paranormal activity?

I suspect it is highly likely. On the other hand, I find that there is no irrefutable proof that such exists, any more than there is irrefutable proof that it doesn't.

<If that is the case then can you provide a list of studies which you think do so?

A list of studies that I think do what, please?
Click to expand...

Prove that there is the vaguest chance in whatever that anything remotely paranormal occured. Prove, by the way is in no way equivalent to or approaching: believe, want to be true, trust the guy at work/onthe bus/in my barbershop/who's my neighbor to accurately state....................
 
Keeping in mind that I started this thread a year and a half ago, and JuryJone provided a link that answered my original question perfectly...

Rodney, just out of curiosity, what was Cayce's exact quote about the death ray that you are connecting to lasers? If it's back in the thread somewhere, I didn't see it.
 
ExMinister said:
Rodney, just out of curiosity, what was Cayce's exact quote about the death ray that you are connecting to lasers? If it's back in the thread somewhere, I didn't see it.
Click to expand...
" . . . and this was administered much in the same way or manner as if there were sent out from various central plants that which is termed in the present the Death Ray, or super-cosmic ray, that will be found in the next 25 years." (2/21/33) See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5483430&postcount=46
 
ExMinister said:
Rodney, just out of curiosity, what was Cayce's exact quote about the death ray that you are connecting to lasers? If it's back in the thread somewhere, I didn't see it.
Click to expand...

Rodney said:
" . . . and this was administered much in the same way or manner as if there were sent out from various central plants that which is termed in the present the Death Ray, or super-cosmic ray, that will be found in the next 25 years." (2/21/33) See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5483430&postcount=46
Click to expand...

To the extent that a ship is "various centeral plants" and the act of shooting down a drone may be fairly described as "altering or changing the environs needed by enormous beasts," yes, the shipborne laser is perfect match to Cayce's super-cosmic ray. Except that there's nothing super-cosmic about the laser.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
" . . . and this was administered much in the same way or manner as if there were sent out from various central plants that which is termed in the present the Death Ray, or super-cosmic ray, that will be found in the next 25 years." (2/21/33) See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5483430&postcount=46
Click to expand...

Thanks!

dasmiller said:
To the extent that a ship is "various centeral plants" and the act of shooting down a drone may be fairly described as "altering or changing the environs needed by enormous beasts," yes, the shipborne laser is perfect match to Cayce's super-cosmic ray. Except that there's nothing super-cosmic about the laser.
Click to expand...

I didn't read Cayce's statement as saying that the "death ray" would necessarily be used that way in the future, just that it had been used that way in the past.
 
ExMinister said:
I didn't read Cayce's statement as saying that the "death ray" would necessarily be used that way in the future, just that it had been used that way in the past.
Click to expand...

True, but I think my point stands. Could the laser discussed in the article be reasonably used to do the things that Cayce discussed (alter the environs etc)? I suspect not, which leaves us in the position that:
a) our lasers don't do the things that Cayce attributed to his "death ray"
b) Cayce didn't describe his "death ray" as doing the things that we do with lasers.

So I'm not seeing any reason to think that our lasers are Cayce's "super cosmic ray"
 
Just a guess, but perhaps Randi told Schwarz that Krippner would be on the committee before he received Krippner's message declining the appointment. That would be, at worst a minor faux paus by Randi, rather than deliberate deception.
 
fuelair said:
Prove that there is the vaguest chance in whatever that anything remotely paranormal occured. Prove, by the way is in no way equivalent to or approaching: believe, want to be true, trust the guy at work/onthe bus/in my barbershop/who's my neighbor to accurately state....................
Click to expand...

Let me work backwards here. If you want to define what proof is, go ahead, but I would suggest that you refrain from doing so by giving examples of what it isn't. That fails to define what it is, after all, even with less sophomoric examples than the ones that you have provided.

So let me see if I understand what you are askign. You're asking me to "prove" that there's a "chance" that something paranormal occurred, somewhere, at some point in time? In other words, you're asking me to prove that a paranormal phenomenon MIGHT exist? Please either verify or clarify your request.
 
The pyramids could be inexplicably 5,000+ years older, because Edgar said so!
Click to expand...
I personally find the evidence of rain erosion on the sphinx to be compelling. As for my opinions on Cayce, I find that like any other human there are some things that resonate true and some that resonate false. I don't find that anyone can predict the future of mankind with any degree of certainty, as mankind is inherently unpredictable. I personally find Cayce very interesting, and find that some of his readings on health and sickness and the like have real practical application.

I further find in my experience that the tendency to denigrate points of view that differ from one's own arises from a fear of being wrong. Are you getting me here, Ferguson? I freely admit that I could be wrong in everything that I say. I'd certainly like to find out that I am wrong if I am. So, suppose you take my posts on this subject and prove out your assertion that I am a naive Cayce apologist. You know, teach this child the error of his ways, as any benevolent mentor would. Of course, maybe you're simply in the habit of making idle attempts to insult points of view that differ from your own, and have no interest in going to the trouble. That's fine too.
 
madurobob said:
Time magazine has said a lot of things over the years. Doesn't make them true; nor evidence. what would be evidence would be an actual working death ray. I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you read something on the internet, that's proof positive....
 
You are saying that Mr. Randi purposely left out material that may have shown Mr. Cayce to be psychic because of that prejudice.
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort. I said that he quoted only the most obvious failures, deliberately skirting the most compelling data. I never said, and do not imply, that these compelling data may have shown Cayce to be psychic. Just that they are harder to dismiss, and as far as I'm concerned, it didn't fit his agenda (proving that ALL phenomena are "flim flam") to address them.

On a side note, I challenge my beliefs every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom