James Randi ‘$1million Challenge' EXPOSED!

A Lawyer Explains - Victor Zammit

I had complaints by psychics and mediums stating that the 'closed-minded' skeptic James R – is using his so-called challenge of million dollars to maliciously attacking these mediums on video youtube and elsewhere – IMPLYING they’re dishonest, they are cheats – because he says and imputes that if they were psychic they take up his challenge.

But these mediums and psychics tell me that his CHALLENGE is set up in such a way that NOBODY can beat it - claiming the evidence shows that Randi’s got the greatest hoax challenge in paranormal history.

I will present you some of the evidence of this challenge and YOU decide for yourself but only after you consider the evidence if Randi’s challenge is the greatest hoax in paranormal history.

1. The evidence shows that in some twenty years no one has been able to beat the initial challenge – even though when we have some of the most gifted mediums and psychics producing brilliant psychic evidence when they were scientifically tested at the Windbridge Institute. This is because the primary reason why nobody passed the test is because – as already stated, the challenge is set up in such a way that no one would be able to beat it. It is used for propaganda purposes only. Further, Randi is acting as a judge and jury in his own cause – and that would be illegal under a normal contract.

2. The evidence shows if a psychic or a medium was able to beat the challenge, Randi, quite legally, does not have to pay one cent to the winner – and could tell the successful applicant to go and get lost. This is because Randi makes the applicant psychic sign a statement that the applicant will not SUE Randi for whatever reason in relation to the challenge.

In any event, RANDI never claimed to have the prize money in cash: he always said it was available "in bonds" which may well be worhless. (Read this account of what happened when an enquirer tried to ascertain whether the bonds had any value).

3. The evidence shows that the challenge is NOT on OATH … NOT subject to PERJURY LAWS. I told him to put the challenge pursuant to perjury laws – to give his challenge credibility and also if he then reneges on his challenge, the court could send him to some five years jail.

4. The EVIDENCE SHOWS that the challenge is not subject to the EXPERIMENTER EFFECT. This is a scientific concept which says that a closed minded skeptic experimenter will always obtain negative results.

5. The challenge says that the results be SELF-EVIDENT - SELF EVIDENT TO WHOM? What would be SELF-EVIDENT to the public, to the applicant to and adjudicator would not be SELF-EVIDENT TO RANDI. Why? Because he does not have the skills, ability and the competence to perceive the paranormal with true empirical equanimity.

When I told Randi about my objective and repeatable evidence I have on the internet in my book a Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife - his reply was WHAT EVIDENCE? The onus shifted on to him to tell us WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the paranormal evidence could not be accepted. But he didn’t.

b) Neurolinguistic Programming- NLP explains that very clearly: NLP says that when a closed minded skeptic, such Randi, receives information which is fundamentally inconsistent with his cherished negative beliefs, Randi’s MIND will DELETE the paranormal evidence. Further,

c) Psychology also explains that by way of ‘rationalization through cognitive dissonance’ – briefly, it means that the paranormal evidence would give Randi huge anxiety and to offset the anxiety he starts to rationalize in a circular way that the paranormal evidence does not exist - he even continues to justify his own cherished negative beliefs.

6. The evidence shows that the challenge says that ONLY CLAIMS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED BY EVIDENCE would be accepted. But closed minded skeptics are refusing to accept ANY evidence. This is another reason why we need to have a lawyer to confirm what technically constitutes admissible evidence. When the agreement prevents a party from knowing what constitutes a ‘win’ – that would be illegal.

7. The psychic test to be videoed. The evidence shows that the challenge gives ownership of the evidence ONLY to Randi. That would be illegal in a normal contract because that would be inequitable. The performance has to be videoed and ownership to be jointly and used in good faith. Further, the tests have to be witnessed by at least two non-aligned professional specialists in Scientific Method and the Paranormal.

8 There has to be an agreement IN ADVANCE of the levels of statistical significance required for the results – so that the applicant would be able to show the results did and could NOT come by CHANCE. The refusal to agree what constitutes a win, as already stated, that would be rendered illegal under normal contractual conditions.

9. Randi is on record for telling Prof Dennis Rawlings that he will always have a way out of paying … that is very serious …Of course, when it has been expressly stated that Randi will breach a fundamental condition of the agreement that would be illegal.

10. We are aware of a number of high profile psychics who applied for the challenge; they never had a reply.

11. ILLUSION: Here's the punchline: taking into consideration the nine areas of evidence I just mentioned, do you trust a magicians - specially trainined in presenting 'ILLUSIONS' when we know it is their job to make you believe 'there is something' when in fact ‘there is nothing’, to MAKE YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT EXIST?

IT’S AN ILLUSION. There is NO MONEY. There is NO CHALLENGE ...