James Randi gets clarified on audio biz

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com...
> http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>
> As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
> claims, Randi goes this time for the :
>
> Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier
>
> http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>
> If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
> can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>
> http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>
> In a follow up we find him saying:
>
> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
> They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
> and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
> retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
> move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.


The only surprise in all of this is that it has taken so long for someone to
expose this sort of snake oil by someone with a fairly high profile.

When will people get the reality of if you expect to hear it you will, even
if it's not there.

The notion that somebody would even TRY to sell a device that demagnetizes a
non-magnetic medium is only slightly less astounding than the idea that
someone would actually buy one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com...
> http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>

snip...snip

> If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
> can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>
> http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>
> In a follow up we find him saying:
>
> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
> They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
> and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
> retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
> move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do
is to crank up the volume.

But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some
experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
over the other over a long period of time.

Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
(total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
tell from the screen.

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events
are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an
evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no
interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work;
if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.

4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way
that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
test...... (and read the next line)

6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed
the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in
those cases.

7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but
re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the
preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally
involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this
may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or
any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or
professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way
affects the awarding of the prize.

9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in
pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither
the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

Rgds.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: outsor@city-net.com
>Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>
>As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
>claims, Randi goes this time for the :
>
>Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier
>
>http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>
>If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
>can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>
>http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>
>In a follow up we find him saying:
>
> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
> They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
> and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
> retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
> move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http/www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars?
Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
news:cht2qh0edr@news1.newsguy.com...
> <outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message
> news:chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com...
>> http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>>
>
> snip...snip
>
>> If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
>> can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>>
>> http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>>
>> In a follow up we find him saying:
>>
>> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
>> They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
>> and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
>> retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
>> move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
>
> Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
> it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
> analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
> frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to
> do
> is to crank up the volume.
>
> But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
> would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with
> some
> experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
> difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
> over the other over a long period of time.
>
> Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
> (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
> to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
> tell from the screen.
>
> Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-
>
> 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
> helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
> test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)
>
> 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
> agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)
>
> 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
> agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous
> events
> are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an
> evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no
> interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work;
> if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.
>
> 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
> gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way
> that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)
>
> 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
> test...... (and read the next line)
>
> 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
> perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed
> the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing
> in
> those cases.
>
> 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but
> re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the
> preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)
>
> 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
> When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
> rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally
> involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as
> this
> may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or
> any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or
> professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way
> affects the awarding of the prize.
>
> 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
> assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred
> in
> pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant.
> Neither
> the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.
>
> Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?
>
> Rgds.
>
If I had a legitimate product, yes. If I were Bedini, or Shakti, no.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cht2uh0emq@news1.newsguy.com...
> >From: outsor@city-net.com
>>Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com>
>>
>>http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>>
>>As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
>>claims, Randi goes this time for the :
>>
>>Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier
>>
>>http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>>
>>If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
>>can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>>
>>http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>>
>>In a follow up we find him saying:
>>
>> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
>> They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
>> and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
>> retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
>> move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can
> provide
> proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
> http/www.randi.org/research/index.html
> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
> he
> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
> dollars?

Please supply some documentation on this.

> Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that
> I
> know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of
> course
> Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this
> challenge.

Nothing in the challenge regarding Shakti stones or the Bedini clarifier
requires proof of paranormal activity, only that in an ABX DBT their effect
can be reliably detected.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
> <outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com...
> > http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
> >

> snip...snip

> > If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
> > can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
> >
> > http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
> >
> > In a follow up we find him saying:
> >
> > No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
> > They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
> > and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
> > retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
> > move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

> Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
> it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
> analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
> frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do
> is to crank up the volume.

> But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
> would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some
> experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
> difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
> over the other over a long period of time.

> Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
> (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
> to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
> tell from the screen.

> Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

> 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
> helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
> test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

> 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
> agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)


Why on earth would you expect anything else, with JREF's money at stake?
Are you suggesting that they *shouldn't* have approval of the
testing conditions etc?


> Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

For $1 million, if I was sure that my claim was true, certainly.

Btw, people *have* taken up the challenge, in other areas of quackery.
So far, no one ahs claimed the prize.



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> >From: outsor@city-net.com
> >Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com>
> >
> >http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
> >
> >As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
> >claims, Randi goes this time for the :
> >
> >Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier
> >
> >http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
> >
> >If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
> >can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
> >
> >http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
> >
> >In a follow up we find him saying:
> >
> > No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
> > They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
> > and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
> > retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
> > move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide
> proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
> http/www.randi.org/research/index.html
> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars?

Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm?

> Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
> know of.

The line between 'pseudoscientific' and 'paranormal' is
apparently thin enough not to bother Randi. Why should it?
His website banner proclaims the site as 'an educational
resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural.

> If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
> Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge.

But of course, not all differences from measurement ot measurement
are audible...or even due to the device under test.
"I assured Mike that such a device certainly comes under the JREF Challenge,"
says Mr. Randi regarding the Bedini Clarifier. So it appears the field
is open for you or anyone to prove that you can hear a difference that's
due to application of the Bedini Clarifier. In other wordd, to prove the
tweak *works*. (Mr. Bedini, after all, doesn't claim that the Clarifier
changes a CD in a way that is inaudible -- very much to the contrary).




--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <chtbip013af@news1.newsguy.com>,
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:

> > I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
> > could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
> > understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
> > dollars?
>
> Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm?

http/skepdic.com/comments/psydet.html

According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl
reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability."

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in
news:cht2qh0edr@news1.newsguy.com:

> <outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message
> news:chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com...
>> http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>>
>
> snip...snip
>
>> If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky
>> crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their
>> claims:
>>
>> http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>>
>> In a follow up we find him saying:
>>
>> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge
>> weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible
>> quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes
>> have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys!
>> And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
>
> Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same
> time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using
> spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder
> in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you
> need to do is to crank up the volume.
>
> But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
> would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with
> some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see
> how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer
> one over the other over a long period of time.
>
> Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
> (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos
> in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I
> can tell from the screen.
>
> Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-
>
> 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
> helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which
> a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

Keyword: helping. Would you permit someone to hand out $1mil of your cash
and you had no say in the matter what-so-ever? I certainly would want to
have some say in the matter.


>
> 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
> agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

Keywords: applicant *and* JREF

>
> 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
> agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous
> events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent
> statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design,
> is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the
> claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will
> be ignored and discarded.
>
> 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
> gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any
> way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

Why would it matter. Randi wants to makes sure that failures are
published.


>
> 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
> test...... (and read the next line)
>
> 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
> perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has
> passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal
> testing in those cases.
>
> 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply,
> but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed
> since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

Why would Randi allow someone to repeatedly waste his time and the time of
his staff? I certainly would not want my time wasted.

>
> 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
> When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
> rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons
> peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational
> Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This
> applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or
> emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of
> any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the
> prize.
>
> 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
> assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures
> incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the
> applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.
>
> Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?
>
> Rgds.
>

Sure. Why not? It is a fair test and if the effect is real, there should
be no problem in duplicating it over and over again.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11 Sep 2004 00:41:17 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:

>In article <chtbip013af@news1.newsguy.com>,
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>> > I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
>> > could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
>> > understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
>> > dollars?

>According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl
>reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability."

Indeed - I was around at the time of the claims and reading the
magazines, and I saw this in a couple of them including, if my memory
serves me, Stereo Review. So far as I could see Mr. Lintgen never at
any time claimed anything like a paranormal ability. He merely
claimed that the easily visible variations in the grooves of an LP
record gave him enough information to reliably identify the recordings
based on his previous knowlege. His passing the test was not
therefore a demonstration of any "paranormal" ability nor did he ever
make any claim that it was.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> In article <chtbip013af@news1.newsguy.com>,
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> > S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:

> > > I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
> > > could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
> > > understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
> > > dollars?
> >
> > Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm?

> http/skepdic.com/comments/psydet.html

> According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl
> reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability."

The prize was never sought by Dr. Lintgen, nor offered by Randi to him if
he could demonstrate his talent.

According to newpaper accounts, it was Time magazine that asked Randi to
investigate Lintgen's claim...essentially to make sure that a controlled
test was used, and as a guard against fraud or 'magic'.

for Randi's own response, see

http/www.randi.org/jr/110102.html


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
news:cht2qh0edr@news1.newsguy.com...

> Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-
>
> 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other
than
> helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under
which a
> test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)
>
> 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF
will
> agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)
>
> 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within
the
> agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous
events
> are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians
when an
> evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We
have no
> interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might
work;
> if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and
discarded.
>
> 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written,
etc.)
> gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in
any way
> that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)
>
> 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the
preliminary
> test...... (and read the next line)
>
> 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely
to
> perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has
passed
> the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal
testing in
> those cases.
>
> 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may
re-apply, but
> re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed
since the
> preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)
>
> 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
> When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and
all
> rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons
peripherally
> involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far
as this
> may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury,
accident, or
> any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or
financial, or
> professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no
way
> affects the awarding of the prize.
>
> 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
> assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures
incurred in
> pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant.
Neither
> the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.
>
> Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

You bet! If I was confident of my ability to detect improvements from
my device, yes--I most certainly would apply for the prize. Indeed,
the only downside of the JREF agreement is that I would have to pay
the costs of running the test. Believe me, the publicity advantage of
passing even the preliminary test is easily worth the cost.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>Date: 9/10/2004 3:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <chtbip013af@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>> >From: outsor@city-net.com
>> >Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com>
>> >
>> >http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>> >
>> >As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
>> >claims, Randi goes this time for the :
>> >
>> >Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier
>> >
>> >http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>> >
>> >If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
>> >can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>> >
>> >http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>> >
>> >In a follow up we find him saying:
>> >
>> > No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
>> > They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
>> > and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
>> > retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
>> > move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>> Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can
>provide
>> proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
>> http/www.randi.org/research/index.html
>> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
>> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
>> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
>dollars?
>
>Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote.

Anecdote, yes. Hazily- recalled, no. My father, a hard core Randi fan told me
about it. I remember it because of who the guy was.

Care to confirm?

Not really.


>
>> Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
>> know of.
>
>The line between 'pseudoscientific' and 'paranormal' is
>apparently thin enough not to bother Randi.

Irrelevant. If a tweak works it affects the signal. If it affects the signal it
isn't a paranormal phenomenon. If it isn't a paranormal phenomenon it doesn't
meet the requirements of the challenge. Hence, any attempt to take this
challenge will ultimately be a waste of time regardless of the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of any given tweek.

Why should it?
>His website banner proclaims the site as 'an educational
>resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural.
>
>> If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
>> Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this
>challenge.
>
>But of course, not all differences from measurement ot measurement
>are audible...or even due to the device under test.

That does not matter. No audible differences are unmeasurable. Randi is not
taking up issues of audibility as much as he is taking up issues that must
appear to him as claims of paranormal.


>"I assured Mike that such a device certainly comes under the JREF Challenge,"
>says Mr. Randi regarding the Bedini Clarifier. So it appears the field
>is open for you or anyone to prove that you can hear a difference that's
>due to application of the Bedini Clarifier. In other wordd, to prove the
>tweak *works*. (Mr. Bedini, after all, doesn't claim that the Clarifier
>changes a CD in a way that is inaudible -- very much to the contrary).
>
>
>
>
>--
>-S
>Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath
>elsewhere.
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: "Michael McKelvy" deskst49@peoplepc.com
>Date: 9/10/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <chtbe4012qm@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>"S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:cht2uh0emq@news1.newsguy.com...
>> >From: outsor@city-net.com
>>>Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <chr7u00n7r@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>>>
>>>As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
>>>claims, Randi goes this time for the :
>>>
>>>Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier
>>>
>>>http/www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
>>>
>>>If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
>>>can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:
>>>
>>>http/www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
>>>
>>>In a follow up we find him saying:
>>>
>>> No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
>>> They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
>>> and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
>>> retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
>>> move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can
>> provide
>> proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
>> http/www.randi.org/research/index.html
>> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
>> he
>> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
>> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
>> dollars?
>
>Please supply some documentation on this.
>

I don't have any. My father told me about it years ago. He was a hard core fan
of Randi. I have no reason to doubt what he said.

>> Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that
>> I
>> know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of
>> course
>> Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this
>> challenge.
>
>Nothing in the challenge regarding Shakti stones or the Bedini clarifier
>requires proof of paranormal activity, only that in an ABX DBT their effect
>can be reliably detected.
>
>
Perhaps you missed this.http/www.randi.org/research/index.html It is a
general requirement that it be a test of paranormal activity. That is why the
money remains safe and any attempt to take this challenge is a waste of time,
unless you do believe in magic.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael McKelvy <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> "S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:cht2uh0emq@news1.newsguy.com...
>> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
>> he
>> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
>> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
>> dollars?
>
> Please supply some documentation on this.

You might look at:

<http/www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm>

The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure
post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns
is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim.

Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test
with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word
record which were used as controls.

Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9/11/04 9:51 PM, in article ci0a3u02of3@news1.newsguy.com, "Peter Irwin"
<pirwin@ktb.net> wrote:

> Michael McKelvy <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> "S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:cht2uh0emq@news1.newsguy.com...
>>> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
>>> he
>>> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
>>> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
>>> dollars?
>>
>> Please supply some documentation on this.
>
> You might look at:
>
> <http/www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm>
>
> The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure
> post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns
> is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim.

Given that there are both laser turntables and optical/camera based computer
programs that can "look" at a groove and then "play" the sound of the groove
this claim is improbable, but not completely outrageous, either.

The computer programs written were done so so that very delicate cylindrical
and earlier disk based records were able to be archived without the wear and
damage they would suffer (some were unplayable they were so delicate!)

> Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test
> with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word
> record which were used as controls.

If it is decipherable by a computer with a camera, I can see how a person
might be able to do it if properly trained...?

Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I
hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled
representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he
didn't pay off after accepting a challenge.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Peter Irwin pirwin@ktb.net wrote:



>Michael McKelvy <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> "S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:cht2uh0emq@news1.newsguy.com...
>>> I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
>>> he
>>> could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
>>> understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
>>> dollars?
>>
>> Please supply some documentation on this.
>
>You might look at:
>
><http/www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm>
>
>The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure
>post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns
>is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim.
>
>Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test
>with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word
>record which were used as controls.
>
>Peter.
>--
>pirwin@ktb.net

Cool; but this is/was not a "listening" test either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <ci1n8a0llo@news1.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I
> hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled
> representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he
> didn't pay off after accepting a challenge.

Randi did not pay, and is not obligated to. There are several reasons
why.

First, the test was conducted in 1982, at which time the $1M Challenge
did not exist. Its precursor, the $10,000 Challenge (*) probably did
exist at that time, but that brings us to:

Second, it wasn't a Challenge test. That requires an applicant to go
through a somewhat formal process. Randi was involved only because Time
Magazine asked him to test whether the man could do what he said he
could do.

Third, the man at no time claimed any paranormal powers. He explained
exactly how he did it, and it was quite mundane. The prize isn't
intended to be won by people with amazing but ordinary abilities. If
somebody had applied for the prize on the basis that they could do the
same thing, I expect that Randi's charity would reject the application
since there isn't even a claim of paranormal abilities, much less a
reason to think such would be involved.

(In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company
behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view
-- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects
to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and
therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being
available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.)



(*) Originally, Randi simply carried around a blank personal check for
$10,000 and advertised that he would sign it over to anybody who could
prove to his satisfaction the existence of paranormal powers, etc.
During the 1990s, this was superseded by a system of pledges;
individuals pledged to award $100, $1000, or more. In the late 1990s,
as the total pledge amount rose towards $1M, one or more unknown donors
gave $1M in real money to use for the challenge, after which the
pledgers were released from their obligations. Randi's personal $10K is
still at stake, however.

The $1M is not Randi's money to do with as he wishes. It is held in a
special trust account, and, if I recall correctly, cannot be paid out in
any circumstance other than a Challenge win, though Randi's nonprofit
(the James Randi Educational Foundation) does get to skim off the
interest on the account to help run itself. (This is quite appropriate
since part of the JREF's expenses include administering the Challenge.)

The Challenge mechanisms are set up such that passing the final formal
test will automatically result in payout no matter what Randi (or the
JREF) thinks. So far, however, no applicant has ever been able to pass
even the preliminary screening test in which no prize money is at stake.

--
Tim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9/13/04 7:23 PM, in article ci5a4l02ld0@news3.newsguy.com, "Timothy A.
Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com> wrote:

> In article <ci1n8a0llo@news1.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I
>> hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled
>> representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he
>> didn't pay off after accepting a challenge.
>
> Randi did not pay, and is not obligated to. There are several reasons
> why.
> [snip]

No problem - it was not the challenge - and so the rules in place still
apply!


>
> First, the test was conducted in 1982, at which time the $1M Challenge
> did not exist. Its precursor, the $10,000 Challenge (*) probably did
> exist at that time, but that brings us to:
>
> Second, it wasn't a Challenge test. That requires an applicant to go
> through a somewhat formal process. Randi was involved only because Time
> Magazine asked him to test whether the man could do what he said he
> could do.
>
> Third, the man at no time claimed any paranormal powers. He explained
> exactly how he did it, and it was quite mundane. The prize isn't
> intended to be won by people with amazing but ordinary abilities. If
> somebody had applied for the prize on the basis that they could do the
> same thing, I expect that Randi's charity would reject the application
> since there isn't even a claim of paranormal abilities, much less a
> reason to think such would be involved.
>
> (In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company
> behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view
> -- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects
> to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and
> therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being
> available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.)
>
>
>
> (*) Originally, Randi simply carried around a blank personal check for
> $10,000 and advertised that he would sign it over to anybody who could
> prove to his satisfaction the existence of paranormal powers, etc.
> During the 1990s, this was superseded by a system of pledges;
> individuals pledged to award $100, $1000, or more. In the late 1990s,
> as the total pledge amount rose towards $1M, one or more unknown donors
> gave $1M in real money to use for the challenge, after which the
> pledgers were released from their obligations. Randi's personal $10K is
> still at stake, however.
>
> The $1M is not Randi's money to do with as he wishes. It is held in a
> special trust account, and, if I recall correctly, cannot be paid out in
> any circumstance other than a Challenge win, though Randi's nonprofit
> (the James Randi Educational Foundation) does get to skim off the
> interest on the account to help run itself. (This is quite appropriate
> since part of the JREF's expenses include administering the Challenge.)
>
> The Challenge mechanisms are set up such that passing the final formal
> test will automatically result in payout no matter what Randi (or the
> JREF) thinks. So far, however, no applicant has ever been able to pass
> even the preliminary screening test in which no prize money is at stake.