The Homeopathy-James Randi "challenge"  dispute

  By Bruce Kettler

Page 2

This is a summary of the discussion between Syd Baumel, James Randi and others, both from USENET and private e-mail communication.  I participated in both.

The USENET portion of this discussion began with my posting of John Benneth's statement from his web page.

The remarks are edited for brevity without notation for missing or changed words, either in John's ("JB") statement, or in the discussion.

I did not comment during the November 2000 exchange.  I will note my presnet comments, here on this page, in RED.

 From: "Syd Baumel" <>


Subject: Re: Randi and the $1 Mill challenge--is it real?

Date: 18 Apr 99 23:12:29 -0600

Syd writes:

"JB" mailed a notarized application form to Randi in late January.  A few weeks ago, after
endless jousting between JB and Randi plus Happy Dog, a protocol was finally put forward that both parties agreed to.  JB was asked to write it up in more detail and submit it.  He did last Wednesday, posting it on his website and (the next day) copying it to Randi and the rest of the private list, inviting
comments and suggestions.

 Skeptic writes:

There is nothing more common than the paranormal quack who DEMANDS that his
best friend be the judge of the results since his paranormal powers only
work THEN, or otherwise wants to make up a new challange with his rules and
Randi's money, and finally whines that "Randi is afraid to test him"
becasue he won't allow him to cheat in this way.
Syd replies:

I suggest you read JB's protocol to see how closely it fits this stereotype:

Syd wrote:

Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:00:13 CDT

...that he had written:

>However, for now, I -- and I'm sure many of the people on the
>homeopathy list and on, where homeopathy is
>frequently debated and your undefeated challenge has been defiantly offered
>as de facto proof that it must be quackery, would be highly grateful if
>you would merely provide the documentation for the test of the homeopath to
>whom you referred...

and that...

Randi did eventually (in another thread) come
through with an adequate description of the
homeopathy challenge I mentioned, and the
phone number of the homeopath's secretary,
whom I may eventually call.
Syd wrote:
 Had you mentioned that such a test had been
 done when I first asked you, it's probably all I would have asked
 you for.  I'm sure that John Benneth, the homeopathy-list subscriber who
recently emailed you to enquire about your challenge, would be very eager
to peruse this documentation or, at the very least, to be given the name of
the homeopath in question so he could query him for "his side of the

                                               The question had been brought up, repeatedly, as to who's fault it was that Benneth was not tested.
                                               Here, Syd Baumel discusses the matter with John Benneth in an e-mail communication amongst a group.
                                            .  Later, I posted the facts about this discussion to USENET, and I including a reference to the debate copy
                                               below.  A discussion came from that, and a shortened version of it is here.



Received: from computer27 ( [])
          by (8.10.1/8.8.8) with SMTP id eAL6D5k00799;
          Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:13:06 -0600 (CST)

Message-ID: <01d901c05382$103904c0$330651d8@computer27>

From: "Syd Baumel" <>

To: "Happy Dog" <>, <>,
        "John R. Benneth" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,

References: <>


JB: However, my application was first dismissed, after
      much rancor, on the basis that I was a nobody, and
      that Mr. Randi had well known potential applicants
      to test first, namely the 1973 Nobel prize winner
      for physics, a man by the name of Brian Josephson,
      and the famous investigator of subtle energy phenomena,
      a French researcher by the name of Jacques Benveniste...

    < snip >

HD: Benneth, you're lying or crazy.  This is not what happened.
       Your erstwhile supporters, Syd and Alain, can confirm this.
       As usual you're just blowing smoke.  I hope that nobody
       unfamiliar with you buys your BS.  Again, when
       will you properly apply for the challenge?

SB: I can't confirm that, because John is right. Don't you
      remember how, around April 0f 1999, Randi suddenly announced
      he was putting our negotiations (which began late in January)
      on hold while he waited to see if Brian J. and Jacques B.
      would make good on their supposed offer to take the Challenge?
      Don't you remember that I reported back within a day or two that
      Brian had denied having any interest in the JREF challenge and
      that he was working on an independent initiative to have
      the APS sponsor a fair trial of Jacques' claims? Randi - who
      it turned out had only offered to let a successful APS trial
      constitute a successful preliminary trial for his challenge
      (an offer rejected by Brian)  - still insisted on putting
      Benneth on hold for a few months.

JB:  But there were no questions being asked in any kind
       of a resonable way. The offer was being presented in
       a most hostile way.

HD:  "Presented"?  Gimme a break.  It's a one page agreement!
         As for "hostility", the record speaks for itself.  I
         won't disturb people reading this with quotes of your
         lurid sexual allegations against Randi and myself,
         for a start.  Just apply for the challenge Benneth.
         Spare us the theory and rhetoric.  We don't care.

SB:  I don't think it's possible anymore for John to apply
       for the Challenge, because Randi cut him off over a
       year ago. But I can't necessarilly blame Randi.


DK:   If a person is engaged to be married, and because of statements
         the wedding is called off, then you can, perhaps, blame one potential

DK   This is not about a proposed wedding.  This is about certain
         proposals at the JREF web site regarding an alleged
        "challenge."  If Randi has problems with Benneth's statements,
       he can sue him, but such a suit is entirely separate from the
        "challenge" activity which, because of public proclimation,
        Randi is obliged to carry through.

Received: (from
by (queuemail) id
FPH4V3Y4; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:15:28 EST

JB:   Then get him off of me. I am relieved of the
        responsibility for presenting a method for
        testing... The final resolution is to keep
        Randi on the method and off the man. If he
        has no one to attack, eventually he has to
        square with the method. Write to him and see.
        Ask him, "what about the dielectric indices for
        serially agitated dilutes that we now have six
        reports on?  Will you stage a dielectric stress
        test?" <snip>


Received: 21 Nov 2000 19:16:21 -0000
Received: from (
Received: (from
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:15:40 -0800
Message-ID: <>


Most people I've discussed it with see it as a waste of time. Randi's
now engaged in his fourth or fifth libel suit.

Others have tried, have opened discussions with him about designing a
protocol. Gary Schwartz is one of them. David John Oates (Reverse Speech)
is another. David Talbott and Michael Goodspeed are others. And these are
just people I know of who've I spoken with about it, and they all tell
the same story. As soon as Randi begins to confront serious data, he
backs off.

You yourself have noted this, Syd. Why didn't Randi simply process my
application, and establish a preliminary date? I offered to do a
preliminary test with Jerry Andrus, who  is a colleague of Randi's and a
consultant on the National Committee Against Health Fraud. Randi refused.
I asked Jerry why he thought Randi wasn't offering a date and he was just
as perplexed as I was frustrated.

Syd, you can lead a horse to water . . . and now we know what a wet
horse smells like.

And  why did he hide behind the lie that BJ and JB had applied?
The reason should be obvious. You can see from the literature that not
only is a double blind doable, IT'S BEEN DONE! Randi stages a test, he

For cryin' out loud, he's already lost, so he resorts to ad hominem
attacks, gets the applicant to respond in kind and uses that as an excuse
not to conduct the test. He's got the basketball and whenever someone
taller than him (which is just about everyone)  comes on to the court, he
grabs the ball and goes home.

Have you stopped to consider what this has meant for me? Here's a man
who is published in the Encyclopedia Britannica as an authority on
frauds. First he tells me he's going to relish seeing me go down in
flames, then he claims he won't test me because I'm a nobody, then he
accuses me of doing things I haven't done.  On top of that the man is
ridiculing my suggestions for condcucting the double blind and ends up
calling me insane.

And meanwhile everyone is highly doubtful as to whether it can be
done.  I get doubt and dissatisfaction from all sides. But I don't read
anyone, except Gary, saying "come on, let's do the test."  And I've still
yet to see results from Gary.

Randi's called me stupid, crazy, a liar, he refuses to talk except to
curse at me on the phone. Why? Because I stooped to his level? I think a
better reason is he doesn't want to lose face.

...Whenever I made the mistake of stooping to his level, that's
taken as evidence that I am incapable of working with anyone? But you're
not giving me the benefit of having been sorely provoked by open and
constant defamation, ridicule, and dismissals.  Everyone is suspicious of
me. Not because of me, but because they haven't read the literature! Read
the literature, and the mystery goes away. You can see for yourself, its
not big deal!

But without the literature behind me, I was starting to get a little
upset. I was beginning to wonder.  But when I read tht other men had done
what I had done, my confidence came back and I went on vacation for a
month to find myself. Now I feel a lot better.

So then it has to get hung up on "protocol." Protocol, another word
for argument. If there wasn't an argument they'd just start testing and
see what happens. But no, we first have to tell everyone what's wrong
with Benneth.

You know darn well this is exactly the kind exchange he wants to draw
Brian and Jacques into.

After all this time, Syd, surely you don't believe that Randi will
make a good faith offer to anyone.

If you don't belive this, try it yourself. Ask him directly, if
Benneth doesn't have anything to do with it, will he conduct a trial of
the dielectric? Will he attempt a replication of Gay and Boiron's double
blind? Or Brucato and Stephenson? Or Jussal et al?

I guarantee, the first thing he'll have to know, to be Randi, is WHO
is it that's applying?  He'll want to know, "who's leg can I sink my
fangs into?"

To be Randi, he has to know WHO he's going to bite. If he conducts
the test himself, he'll have to bite himself, fail the test and not award
himself the money. What's his other choice? Give himself the money and
admit to everyone how stupid he's been to have made all these comments
about homeopathy without first reading the literature?  So really, what
he is investigating has  NOTHING to do with science. This isn't about
science. It's about Randi's lack of self-esteem.

He's got all dancing around his crime, thanks to Goldman Sachs and
his silent benefactor, Richard Adams.

This has all been a canard. He's trying to lead everyone away from
the literature and focus on personal faults of the man, whoever he may
be.  But in this case the literature is the heavy armor, the Panzers.
He's overwhelmed in the face of dozens of reports by scientists with
advanced degrees doing decades of work that conclusively states that he
is wrong, has been wrong,  and probably always will be wrong.

<snip> seems we're all having a problem with is grasping the fact that
what we're attempting to do has already been done, ELEGANTLY,
EXHAUSTIVELY. These are not my words, but those of the critical
reviewers of the literature.

The mystery to me is, why is there so much silence about the

Why is there all this silence from the known performers? Some of
them are on this list, and have never spoken.

Take Jonas for instance. Wayne Jonas, M.D. last year reported on
what appears to be a first rate investigation into the ability of
homeopathy to immunize. This is amazing, incredible work, but
where is there any interest in it?

His work suggests that SADs can be used to combat bio-terrorism and
sudden and mysterious outbreaks of disease for which there are no
known vaccines, inoculations or antidotes.

This could save lives

Who is Jonas? He's the first director of the Office of Alternative
Medicine, now in practice at Bethesda.  He conducted the tularemia
immunization research at a disease research center.  He drives Robert
Park of the APS nuts, because without saying a word he makes Park
look like the village idiot imitating a common scold.

What's more incredible, is that Jonas' work has precedence, again
with Boyd, back in the thirties when he was immunizing against
diptheria using nosodes or isopathic SADs.

Apparently no one, except Boyd, wants to be known as a replicater
of somebody elses work. Everyone wants to be a hero. So they'll
draw from the literature but they won't cite it. That way it
looks like they've invented something new.

So where's Jonas in this discussion? I bet he's just as perplexed
as the rest of us as to why his work hasn't received more notice.
But maybe if these heros would put it in context of the preceding
literature, it would.

Or how about David Reilly? If you've studied the work, you know that
Reilly has conducted double blinds. Didn't  Reilly work with Jonas
on the meta analysis for the Lancet?

What about Elia and Nicolli? Their thermographic test could pass a
double blind. Why isn't Randi offering his award to them?

Because the award is offered only to those who Randi knows will fail.
Increasingly there are more people that he has to run from. Look at
some of the names on the CC list and you'll find Randi's worst
nightmare.  These are people who have done what he says can't be
done. Let's see him offer them the award.

How about Boiron? How about Boericke Tafel? These are not just the
names of companies who produce hoemoatphjic medicines in a billion
dollar a year industry, they are the names of people who have
conducted physical measures of SADs. Jean Boiron not only conducted
the dielectric, he conducted a spectroscopic test for SADs. Boericke
and Tafel did it in 1904 by photographing the emanations of a high
dilute of radium bromide, Boericke did the first NMR of SADs.

The problem in finding a test is not their scarcity, it's in
deciding which one to do first!

DK:  See the search engine for data at the MARIUS DOT NET site.

And this is why Randi's now running from me. Because  I've done my
homework. He knows if he stages the test with me, I'll win. And
I think everyone else here is beginnning to see that too, that
the literature backs me up.  You don't need an advanced degree
to perform one of these tests.

You know, this has been like a man who challenges another man
to a duel then refuses to set a time or place for it. If this
isn't so then when and where has Randi ever conducted a trial
to prove his NULL hypothesis of anything? Why hasn't he tested
Ingo Swann, or Uri Geller, or John Edward, and any other number
of known, genuine psychics. Because he's too busy screaming in
holy terror at them. He thinks the Challenge award protects his
little secret, his crime. The only time I ever heard of him
talking to Geller was when Uri extended an open hand to him
and Randi responded that he hated Uri's guts.

Now what has Uri ever done to provoke that kind of response?
You won't find the provocation. Uri's too nice of a guy. It
ain't just me, Syd, and you know it. I know I've been no
angel, but that guy's psychotic!

What this really needs is a coalition that includes Gary,
Brian and Jac to present the dielectric test to Randi on
a NOVA special and shut him up once and for all. At this
point if I could get a quarter of the award I'd be real


> Do you have complete, exact, step-by-step directions for the
> experiments for those of us who might actually attempt to
> replicate them?
> Syd

Yes, of course I can describe the test in greater detail, but
what other detail is really needed? What part of it do you not
understand? I offered you the yeast over a year ago! I sent
out the Jones and Jenkins report, I've been writing about
beer bottles and balloons for months now. I posted all of
this long ago.  But there is an emotional block to doing
these tests. I can almost guarantee that no matter how
simple it is it won't be done by anyone. And should I
be wrong about that, the results will not be offered,
and if I'm wrong about that, the report will be ignored.

Why should my beer bottle test receive any greater notice
than Boyd's work?

How about homeopathic glonine? It produces an instant headache.

There is a mass emotional block to homeopathy research.
Like Benveniste said, there is no such thing. It is not
to be found in the schools. And as crazy as it sounds
I think the block is genetic. I think it is an inborn
fear of subtle energy phenomenon that springs from a
misuse of it during an earlier time, as we have ancients
histories that say exactly that.

And where do you think Hahnemann learned about succussion
and dilution? He didn't make it up, he got the idea FROM
THE LITERATURE!  He was a medical text translator at one
of the world's oldest libraries.  He got the idea for
homeopathy from alchemical texts he was translating at
Brukenwald in Transylvania. (Check it out, they have
a website.) But like everyone else here, he keeps the
literature a secret. Maybe its an ego trip by divine
revelator wannabes.




Received: from computer27 ( [])
          by (8.10.1/8.8.8) with SMTP id eAM73Zj06663;

Message-ID: <009201c05452$510c83c0$4d1551d8@computer27>

From: "Syd Baumel" <>

To: "Happy Dog" <>, <>,
     "John R. Benneth" <>

Cc: <>, <>, <>,
    <>, <>, <>,
    <>, <>, <>,
    <>, <>,
    <>, <>,
    <>, <>,
    <>, <>, <>,
    <>, <>, <>,

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:03:15 -0600

SB: John is right... around April 0f 1999, Randi suddenly announced
    he was putting our negotiations (which began late in January)
    on hold while he waited to see if Brian J. and Jacques B. would
    make good on their supposed offer to take the Challenge? ...I
    reported back within a day or two that Brian had denied having
    any interest in the JREF challenge and that he was working on
    an independent initiative to have the APS sponsor a fair trial
    of Jacques' claims? Randi - who it turned out had only offered
    to let a successful APS trial constitute a successful preliminary
    trial for his challenge (an offer rejected by Brian)  - still
    insisted on putting Benneth on hold for a few months...


    ...difficult as Randi was - in the end (around August and September
    of 1999) he was more and more nose-to-the-grindstone constructive.
    We - notably Alain - were making real headway. But for reasons known
    only to himself, it was then that John became progressively more
    "Hamletlike," mocking the whole procedure and mounting more and more
    rhetorical attacks on its and Randi's credibility. As Randi became
    cooperative, John became enigmatically detached and counterproductively
    "hostile to the proceedings." Randi even agreed (finally) to return a
    signed application to John when and if a mutually agreeable protocol
    could be attached to it.

Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:15:28 EST

JB: I asked for a schedule of the test: When and where?
    But Randi demanded that the method be identified, and
    when I finally presented the yeast method, for whatever
    reasons, communications ceased.

HD:  Benneth, take this up with  your erstwhile supporters

    Here at last was a report that showed a way to make
    the determination. The opponents of homeoapthy then
    insisted that presentation of the method was incumbent
    on the applicant. But this had been denied.  If I'm wrong
    about this, then tell me when and where the test was
    supposed to be, and show me the notice to me of it.

HD:  Fill out an application.  Apply.  Win the prize.  Stop talking

DK:  The application was filled out.  He applied, discussion
         continued about a protocol, and Benneth was denied
         the opportunity to present a preliminary test.

DK:  This answer from "HD" is typical of the fanatics.
         It's completely irrelevant.  What sense does "fill
         out an application" make, when he had done so, and
         discussion continued after that with Randi regarding
         a preliminary test and protocol?  "HD" was part of
         the discussions from the beginning.

JB:    I had already asked repeatedly for a time and place
        at which to demonstrate it and had been refused.

HD:  I think that this is a lie.  Syd, can you comment?

JB:   Of course he can comment, but he hasn't. Never has
        Randi scheduled an open, preliminary  examination
        of a serious claim, for anything, to my knowledge.

When I asked him [Randi] repeatedly, over and
over again for a test date, if he responded , it would
be with something else, often an observatin, but never
a test date.

The closest he came was suggest a weekend in November
at Mt. St. Mary's College. However, I found five schools
by that name.  I asked him to be more specific and he refused.

If there was an offer of a specific time and date, please,
indeed, show it to me. Better yet, produce the certified
receipt of it.

What I have here is that he explicitly refused to examine
my claim based on what he perceived to be  . . . how shall
we put it? My Personal limitations?  The first time he said
he had better fish to fry, namely BJ and JB. That turned
out to be a ruse, and he went into hibernation until Syd
and Alain flushed him out.

Then he dismissed it on the grounds that I was too crazy
to deal with. Whether this is true or not does not alter the
fact that never during almost a year of attempted negotiations
was there ever a time and place named for a test, and I have
copies of repeated pleas to him to name a time and place.

Yet I am continually accused by you and others of running
away from a test. So please, indeed, tell us when and where
this examination of my claim took place that I failed to
appear to at.

    If Randi's still so sure of his null hypothesis, let see
    him put the award in the hands of independent, fair and
    qualified disposition, Let's see him commission some
    preliminary tests by qualified technicians. He doesn't
    need to hear anything more from me.

    He's got a method, now let's see him show us that its false...

    I had already asked repeatedly for a time and place at which
    to demonstrate it, and had been refused.

SB: But by then John had stopped playing. Alain couldn't get him to
    draft a protocol based on the reasonable (so it seemed to Alain
    and me) requirements we had painstakingly hammered out with Randi
    (with Alain consulting John throughout). Worse, when Randi acceded
    to John's counter-request to let him do his simple yeast
    test instead (but double-blind and with the sinister NIST biochemist
    <g> to be Randi's surrogate), John backed away from this opportunity
    too and lurched feversihly forward into an even hotter campaign of
    rhetoric. This was when John really began aggressively trying to play
    the "the literature says it's so, therefore I win!" card.

JB [repeat of above] I had already asked repeatedly for a time and
   place at which to demonstrate it, and had been refused.

SB: John, I'm sorry, but even if you're right in believing Randi didn't
    know the homeopathic literature until after he got in the ring with
    you, many other very conservative skeptics are at least superficially
    aware of its nature and extent, yet they choose not to "believe," because
    "extraordinary claims require - " we all know the rest. It's hard
    to argue with these people when they say "Why hasn't homeopathy
    come up with a single experiment that even its own believers
    have independently replicated many times?"

Received: (from
by (queuemail) id
FPH4V3Y4; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:15:28 EST

JB: My research has identified examples of exhaustive. extensive
    testing and replications. But what I'm finding that no matter
    what is done, it is not enough...

SB: You claim it has.  But I don't think you've named one experiment
    that's been independently replicated by more than two or three
    homeopathic research groups, double-blind.

JB: Two or three? You're raising the bar. What was originally
    questioned here was the null hypothesis for the efficacy
    of SADs. That's all. It was stated by the opponents of
    homeopathy that SADs could not be identified from their
    vehicles, and that the award would be paid out for the
    production of a method that could do that. At that time,
    nothing else was demanded, and it was assumed that
    identifying the method was of no importance, only
    the results counted.


    The first successful, objective test of homeopathy that
    I have found was a type of yeast test done almost a
    hundred years ago, when in 1902 P. Jousset investigated
    the effect of homeopathic silver nitrate in varying
    dilutions up to 10 to the 50th power on the production
    of of Aspergillus niger mycellium.

    How many of these tests does the skeptic have to see
    before Randi's "ideomotor" hypothesis is laid aside?

    Every report of SADs producing an observable, repeatable
    effect is a replication of the triumph of the worker
    disproving the null hypothesis.

    But the cynic has refuted the virtue of others, because
    he has refuted it in himself. He believes himself to be
    untrustworthy so he believes everyone else to be untrustworthy.
    Therefore he says he must see the evidence for himself before
    he believes it, yet he will always fail to produce or even
    witness a reasonable investigation or demonstration
    of the method.

    We have dozens of people who have produced independent results
    confirming the efficacy of SADs using a variety of means and
    we've seen replications of that.

    ...the basic breakdown of the opposition's argument is that
    it begins with attempts to raise the bar and eventually

    ...the only evidence the cynics will accept is [what] ...they say
    they must see or produce for themselves, yet when given the
    opportunity to see it for themselves, they refuse it on the
    grounds that it isn't their reponsibility?

HD:   Correct. You make the claims, you supply the proof.

DK:   You can see how "HD" a pseudo-skeptic-fanatic (PSF), writes
          in the PSF typically nonsensical manner.  The opportunity to
          supply the proof had been denied to Benneth, and still is.
          That is the issue, and also now that it has been denied,
          the issue is also whether Randi/JREF will test for

JB:    I've supplied what proof I can. I could do the dielectric
          test thousands of times for the next ten years but it won't
         do any good until Randi sees it. Right? Alphonse Gay
         performed exhaustively. So what makes me anymore
         credible in performing than him and his replicators?

If the man refuses to see it, if he refuses to negotiate with
me over a "protocol", if he is unwilling to witness a demonstration
of the claim, what other avenue do I have?

I think it's become abundantly clear, Wes, (HD) and in all due respect
to you, that the offer you've been touting is not really an offer, it's
more of a statement of disbelief.


    ...Randi, in his quarreling and dismissal of my submitted
    protocol refused to accept products produced by a homeopathic
    pharmacy, and never clearly stated to me what the replacement
    should be.

    What it comes down to is that they don't want a test, even
    if it means making fools of themselves to avoid it.

    ...First they say that these OTC products are mere placebos,
    that they can't pass a double blind test for identifying them.
    Then when presented with the method for analysis, both Randi
    and Carlson refused to test the items in question... and instead
    argued endlessly over other other points in a "protocol" and
    engaged in more personal attacks.

    ...The [alleged] Psychic Challenge is not a scientific inquiry,
    it is a statement decrying our [alleged] lack of virtue.

    It is the Diogenic hypothesis of Cynicism that because virtue
    does not exist in the heart of the lantern holder, it exists
    in no one's heart at all. And the million dollars is held out
    as bait to draw us in to the trap, that merely applying for
    it shows we lack virtue. This is understood by many of the
    people Randi challenges, who have responded to say they don't
    want or need the money, to which Randi will reply, "then give
    it to charity" as if there was a better purpose for it.

    Syd, if these guys were so sure the test couldn't be completed,
    they would have set it up long ago under the conditions of a
    true double blind. But Randi's never ran a true double blind,
    neither has Carlson.

    They'll run off any credible applicant with ad hominem abuse,
    and if he responds, that then becomes the provocation to shut
    down the protocol development long before anyone can question
    their method of judgement.

    With the real performers, like Ingo Swann, Joe McMonneagle,
    John Edward, Uri Geller, these guys will always be held at
    bay with pre-emptive attacks on their credibility.

    It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that if Randi
    [wanted to investigate], he... wouldn't come blustering onto
    the stage to drive them away with attacks on their character,
    offering his test with promises of the contestant's demise.

    Yet that's exactly how he treated me, first taunting me to
    apply, then when I did, writing to me to tell me how he was
    going to relish seeing me go up in flames. Do you think I
    could trust him after reading that? Do you think I could
    trust him after reading other accounts? this day, I have
    not seen one report of a fair test conducted by the man.

    Will this bring me a greater udnerstanding of science?
    No, probably what it will get me is another vicious
    attack on my character, and another claim that I failed
    to do something, or that I'm running from the test...

SB: I don't find it unreasonable that others of a more
      conservative disposition say "that's not enough."
      About a year ago, you were arguing that the yeast
      test could make the reality of homeopathy a simple, everyday,
      self-evident phenomenon, something any school kid could
      (and should) do. Have you tried to take that experiment to
      the schools, the streets, the beer parlours? Don't expect
      the rest of us to do it for you. You're the man of action with
      the conviction, the certainty, and the messianic fervour.
      If the yeast test (or the oat test) is that cut-and-dried
      a demonstration of the truth of homeopathy, surely it
      should speak for itself if you show it to enough people.

     Or have you done so and experienced a different reaction?

DK:  Above, a valid point from Benneth: "Why should my beer
         bottle test receive any greater notice than Boyd's work?"

DK:  "Don't expect the rest of us to do it for you," says Baumel.

DK:  It's already been done.  As shown in Benneth's writing
         above, with reports of extensive research, so why
         doesn't Baumel, or "Happy Dog" try it out?

DK:   Benneth wrote, as quoted above: "I offered you the yeast over
         a year ago! I sent out the Jones and Jenkins report, I've been
         writing about beer bottles and balloons for months now. I
         posted all of this long ago."

DK:  Why is showing this in "schools, the streets, [and] beer
         parlours" more important to Baumel, then for Baumel
         to try it himself?


HD: I'll bet if he could just apply properly and keep his mouth
HD: shut about theory, insults and rhetoric, the application
HD: would be accepted.  But doubt he can do it.

DK:  According to this pseudo-skeptic, who calls himself "Happy Dog,"
        Benneth must discontinue "rhetoric."  The fanatics are censors,
        as evidence shows from extensive research of their activities
        on USENET.  See this page.

DK:  As for insults, it's quite clear that Randi started them long before
         Benneth began writing of Randi.

DK:  Why did HD think that Randi should go on with public
        propaganda about Benneth, while Benneth should remain
        silent about his account of events?

SB: It would be interesting to see if you could get a statement
SB: to that effect from Randi.

DK:  I doubt, at this point, if such an agreement would be relevant.

Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:15:28 EST
JB:  You don't need Benneth anymore to show that SADs have
       dielectric indices.  You don't need an applicant to do
       the test.  If the applicant is giving you grief over the
       test, do the test the way you think it should be done.
       Perhaps you can set up "Happy Dog" [HD] as the applicant.
       Try to give him the Million Dollars and see what happens.
       The dielectric comes complete...

HD:  No Benneth.  You made the claim.  You apply. Very simple.

John R. Benneth writes:

Critics such as Randi are rigorous in their assault on the paranormal to the point of viciousness. Why do you destroy your credibilty, integrity  and reputation, unless you fear the exposure of something greater?

Do you really believe that your opinion, based on nothing more than an a priori belief, backed by nothing more than a dubious award, is enough to convince anyone now of your position, when it's contradicted by numerous, published scientific studies?

We can know a person by the accusations they make of others. Why has your condemnation preceded your investigation, unless you have a tremendous fear of the phenomena in question?

I suspect a skeleton in the closet.

John Edward is notorious for his skill in communciating with the dead by dint of a regular TV show.

DK:  He is also noted as having been tested by Professor Schwartz.  The research results will appear in the Jan. 2001 issue of The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research.

JREF has conducted secret investigations of faith helaers in the past by infiltrating audiences. The reported debunking of the Rev. Peter Popoff is an example.

Schwartz has investigated [John Edward] applying for the Psychic Challenge, but was stonewalled by Randi [JREF].

I'd like to suggest a new protocol for the Psychic Challenge.  I suggest that we put John Edward to the test...

home page

Click to page 3