The Randi Scorecard Up Till Now

Before going on with James Randi, the hero and demi-god of "Skepticism"/atheism, I'll point out that we've got a building record of lies and deceptions

- In the 1970s and early 80s, there is his two-faced, double dealing and proven incompetence in sTARBABY

- In the 1980s we have his involvement with a criminal identity theft and, as I'll point out, misrepresenting what happened in his "Carlos Hoax" and the continuing identity theft up to 2011.

- This year we have him lying about what he said about Social Darwinism, accusing Will Storr of dishonesty and walking it back when he found out Storr had the interview recorded.  I will point out that what Randi said was more of an example of extreme eugenics, the great enemy of things he represents as pseudo-science, obviously promoting what is clearly a pseudo-science.

-  During that entire time there is his biggest lie and hoax of all, his "Challenge".

I will come out and say right now that I will not go into the infamous phone sex tapes, even though Randi has now admitted those are real.   I have no way to access the records of the law suit into which those were introduced as evidence against Randi or his reaction to them at the time.

Note: I will not listen to recordings of Randi having phone sex, some things are too much to ask of a blogger.

Randi reportedly claimed they were forgeries but, as is frequently the case with Randi, the waters have been too muddied to see through them to his real record.  Randi frequently being the one throwing the mud in the water.   If, as he is claiming,  those were made at the instruction of the police in order to catch some nasty boys who were making dirty calls, there should be documentary evidence of that.

That is assuming that the records weren't lost in a remarkably convenient flood as Randi claimed his "experimental data" were when Rupert Sheldrake  asked to see it.  His lies about having reproduced Sheldrake's published experiments and seeing his full filmed evidence are published.


The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests. 

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too. 

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so." 

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

You can compare Ruper Sheldrake's scientific experiments which are published in peer-reviewed journals and which he has made available, online.

Note:  If Will Storr values his reputation, he should release the entire recorded record of his interview with James Randi and make it readily available because, in looking around at the places where Randi's fan club troll, blogs , YouTube comment boards, etc.  within the past hour they are pushing the line that Storr lied about what Randi said.   I'm very familiar with how that works and they can create a simulation of evidence by that tactic.  Online campaigns of that kind can overtake and swamp the truth, no matter what that is and how well it is supported.