[rerevisionist]

NEW on 26 Nov 2014. Inserted into several places in this site.
The link below holds a copy of just one page, including photos, from a website explaining current Jewish methods of Internet deception. These methods are applied in the 'JREF'. It cannot be expected that it will be entirely truthful, obviously; in particular, the sources of the myths and lies and policies cannot be expected to be revealed, even if known; nor can the true intentions, as opposed to the overt claims. But it's a useful shock antidote to the sleeping-draught which many people still suffer under.

Link to How 'Sayanim' 'Jews' Operate

JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (JREF)
"an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and the supernatural"
http://forums.randi.org/

Mission statement:
Our [i.e. JREF's] mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

Just a brief note. There's an enormous amount of puffery on Randi's site:---

* Expose paranormal and pseudoscientific frauds in the media, and hold media organizations accountable for promoting dangerous nonsense
* Provide grants and free teaching modules to educators, to help them inspire an investigative spirit in the next generation of critical thinkers
* Award scholarships that encourage scientific skepticism among students
* Support grassroots skeptics groups with tools to help them organize and promote skepticism and critical thinking
* Digitally publish the important works of skepticism for distribution on the iPad, Kindle and other e-readers

It claims to have a staff of four, and a clutch of volunteer moderators. As far as unimportant stuff goes - dowsing, ESP, second sight, creationism, homoeopathy, spoonbending, cold reading, whatever, Randi is stern and unbending. [Amusing pun intended]. The title and promotional stuff puts emphasis on various fakeries and frauds. The $1 million challenge is purely to do with the paranormal - it doesn't appear to apply to, for example, debunking the 'Holocaust'.

BUT the actual site is filled with material unconnected with conjuring tricks; it has thousands of junk emails saying nothing, and thousands more on unbacked assertions. I couldn't find a single case of any serious issue - NASA, 9/11, Hillman-style crits of cell biology, crits of aspects of physics, Jew-related revisionism, US genocides and mass killings - where the collective team of moderators allow any serious comments whatever. Every single official view is assumed to be true. The word 'Skeptic' seems to be assumed by them to mean somebody with just their standard list of mostly unimportant topics. They have videos - "I am a Skeptic!" It's a truly sad and pathetic site. It's also deceptive - Randi's specialism gives him not the slightest claim to expertise in science and history. 'The next generation of skeptics' - in Randi's own words - if they are his words! It's pure flim-flam.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

He has a different expression on one half of his face compared to the other half. A sign that he was abused as a child. Or under mind control; usually the two are related.

[rerevisionist]

I think he's just trying to look quizzical. I selected that photo from the JREF site because I assume it's what he looks like now - time's wingèd chariot etc.

Note added 15 Oct 2013: A bit of searching reveals, or states, that Zwinge obtained a passport, apparently illegally, for someone called Alvarez, described as 'an artist', and Zwinge's "companion" for years. Possibly the pained expression in the photo related to painful rectal sex; who knows. Also impressive amounts of money have been channeled to and through this 'foundation'. It would be interesting to know how much of this was paid by (for example) medical and drug companies shoring up bogus research, for example in vaccination. It seems likely he's out-frauded the frauds.

He has quite a bit in common with Martin Gardner, notably the professional-level magic and dislike of things like spiritualism. Gardner's 1957 book Fads and Fallacies has a chapter on Joseph Rhine and ESP and 'parapsychology'. Gardner's math material is hard to judge - Gardner (who had a degree in philosophy) contributed a lot of fascinating-looking math articles to Scientific American, which of course was a heavily-censored publication - try to find anything on US weapons and war crimes, for example. However Gardner was a reporter, and no doubt the various people wanted publicity—it's hard to know how much original work Gardner put in.

However Gardner certainly prefigured the US 'Skeptic' movement very faithfully. Fads and Fallacies was a repackaged version of a badly-titled 1952 book. In it, 'Apologists for Hate' (on 'crackpot theories of race') was one chapter title—it doesn't really fit in with his other chapters; Gardner is adamant, without evidence, that modern science has proved there are no racial differences—obviously not true. Gardner writes nothing whatever rationalistic about Judaism. On the other hand there isn't much critical of Christianity - presumably as Jews got more control of the USA they cranked that up later. And there's nothing on weapons and the 'Cold War', except a hope that scientifically skilled Americans will outweapon the horrible 'Soviets'. And of course nothing on science frauds, apart from Lysenko, safely behind the Iron Curtain of course; to be fair, the expansion of these was largely to be in the future. And nothing on monetary critics, either! Like Dawkins, Gardner simply assumes that views attributed to Einstein must be correct, despite their internal incoherencies and inconsistencies. This must be related to belief in nuclear weapons. It's not credible to me that Gardner (or Dawkins, or Randi, etc) can have detailed views on the speed of light, or whether curved space-time is meaningful, or the derivation of e=mc squared.

What Gardner does have is a large collection of crank material - one of the striking things about US affluence is the vast expansion of new 'religions', money-making cults, publications, small businesses, snake oil types and so on, aimed at a dumbed-down populace. (Quite a few of these people seem to have been engineers, for some reason). His chapter on UFOs, which were new then - mass flight itself was newish - does not much more than say Air Force officials say they don't exist. Gardner's medical views are entirely mainstream; his relatively long chapters go for homeopathy [Note added Oct 2016 - it occurs to me that Samuel Hahnemann may have been yet another Jewish or Jew-funded fraud -rerev], and osteopathy and chiropractors, and things like naturopathy and iridiagnosis, but, again, to be fair, the great days of fake biology were ahead of him. Gardner was quite skilled in writing deadpan dismissive journalistic descriptions of people he wasn't keen on, picking out some irrelevant unflattering detail, though he also has some relatively detailed accounts of e.g. Wilhelm Reich and L Ron Hubbard and others still alive in about 1950. Gardner never updated his book past his 2nd, 1957, edition, which added Bridey Murphy, a newspaper-promoted fake past-life scam.

Virtually all Gardner's material is still part of the self-limited stock-in-trade of the professional 'Skeptics' of the USA.

In 1981 Prometheus Books (a 'Skeptic' imprint) published Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus. In Britain it was reprinted by Oxford University Press. It's a collection of essays and book reviews. However, the title is misleading - the collection deals with such people as Uri Geller and Conan Doyle and Arthur Koestler, none of whom claimed much in the way of scientific status, and with things like 'psychic surgeons' and ESP. He reviewed e.g. include "Bourgeois Idealism" in Soviet Nuclear Physics, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', and 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'. There's very little science in this book. But the general attitude is exactly similar to Randi's.

The big weakness and missing element in the 'Skeptics' is the absence of serious treatment of money and power. This must be a deliberate evasion. One of the irritating things about Gardner is that he is very conscious of the need for professional magicians to keep their methods secret, so he often explicitly states that he's not giving away the full secret when he e.g. describes a small magnet attached to a shirt collar or tip of a shoe - he's perfectly aware of the conversion of mystery into money. And most of the people the Skeptics attack are making money from their more or less bogus claims. For example, 'psychic surgeons' in the Philippines make what appears to them a fortune from simple trickery. The people who pay them do it voluntarily. The audiences in spiritualist performances, or mind-reading acts, and the consumers of absurd 'flower' remedies or tablets with no active ingredients, are all more or less adults. Why shouldn't they pay their money? Most of the crits by Skeptics are of failed cults, or failing - psychoanalysis has come under withering fire. But 'Skeptics' don't criticise serious abuses of power. There's nothing much on Freemasons or Jews or Mormons or Catholics, except when some lack of power is detected - for example, psychoanalysis is increasingly under fire. What about mass killings and chemical warfare in Vietnam? The 'Skeptics' said nothing. What about Coca Cola in the third world, where what they need is clean water? What about tobacco companies? What about NASA? What about the detail of science - the endoplasmic reticulum as a fraud, criticisms of immunology, the nonsense about 'AIDS'? What about 9/11? And what about nuclear issues, which this site is addressing? The 'Skeptics' attack in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the issue.

[rerevisionist]

I just found there are whole websites on 'pseudo-skeptics'! I thought I'd made it up myself. 'Scepcop' is one. Most of their material is about the 'paranormal'. However, they don't just dismiss e.g. the truth about 9/11 as Randi's bunch do. On the other hand they have no idea about the really big science-based frauds, and the really big race-religion-based frauds, notably the 'holocaust'.

Added Nov 5th 2013: I found another fake skeptics site, skepchick.org nominally run by an Indian woman in the USA; it gets hits from the USA and India, unusually, and seems to be funded by the nuclear power industry to propagandise people in India. It's about as skeptical as a Sunday School teacher. I was amused to see a bit added about how 'I' (the nominal authoress) will be avoiding the winter Olympics, because Putin doesn't like rectal sex between men! Of course this is another Jewish pet subject of the moment.

[rerevisionist]

Note on Richard Dawkins.

The whole American atheist/ rationalist scene is corrupted by the ever-present Jewish influence there. I've just found, via the CODOH site, that Richard Dawkins has compared what he calls 'Holocaust Deniers' with Creationists - in I think 2005 or so. It's disappointing to find Dawkins is so desperate to gain allies. Thus Dawkins supports Einstein and the various relativity theories without any sign of caution, despite the fact it's not credible he understands their claims. What's in a way more serious is that he doesn't distinguish religions from race- or tribal-based belief systems, where a change of mind or different opinion is something more serious than just a change of creed. It's a bit odd because evolution is a different issue from these other things; he'd be on safer ground adhering to biology, or, if he must venture into 'God' territory, distinguishing the parts of belief systems which aren't connected much with 'God', or 'gods', or other proper names.

Just a point I thought I'd make. American rationalists such as Randi and the British versions are hopeless cowards.

Addendum - there's a brand-new link on richarddawkins.net linked to a Guardian piece of 11 Sept 2011, entitled 'Why 9/11 was good for religion.' Dawkins is a hopeless coward.

________________________
Carl Sagan is the same type.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Whose the guy in the wheelchair? Hawkins? He gives speeches all around. He wrote some book expounding that at the moment of the Big Bang, there was no time. The book was heralded as groundbreaking, provocative, insightful. Perhaps, everything but scientific. The thing of it is, the idea of no time at the moment of creation is a Talmudic thought. I pretty sure I read it someplace. At the moment of the 'Shattering of the Vessels of God' there was no time. I wish I could remember where I read these things when they come to mind.

Anyway, I just thought of that when you mentioned how much scientific thought of Dawkins is jewish influenced. They wouldn't be given a platform to speed to the public from if they didn't toe the jewish line.

[rerevisionist]

I think Stephen Hawking or Hawkings (I can't be bothered to look it up) is another fake. In fact a lot of physicists think so, I'm told, but they're too cowardly to say so.

The BBC loves 'scientists' who are naive, preferably with a rather silly image. I can recall Magnus Pyke, Dr Bronowski, James Burke, Patrick Moore, David Bellamy, Heinz Woolf from years ago. More recently, Paul Nurse featured in an unimpressive programme. Now they have someone called Cox who was a pop 'star' in an extremely minor pop group. Hawking fits that BBC mould - how could anyone be so disagreeable as to ask probing questions of him?

I didn't say, and don't believe, Dawkins is Jewish influenced as regards biology and evolution. Well - he doesn't know about frauds in biology, which helps explain why he will never debate with creationists, who sometimes get things right over supposed structures which could not have evolved. All I meant was that, when he steps out of his field, into physics, religion etc, his critical faculties evaporate. It's very sad.

BTW a similar comment appllies re Christianity; the Old Testament creation story includes 'Let there be light' and I've seen that attributed as an unconscious support for the 'Big Bang'.

[rerevisionist]

I found about 20 views of this site originated from the Randi forum, and went back to find a thread there - entertainingly stupid stuff misrepresenting this site, and also the source of a couple of the trolls who turned up here. I decided not to log in there as the number of resulting views seems likely to be negligible.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I found about 20 views of this site originated from the Randi forum, and went back to find a thread there - entertainingly stupid stuff misrepresenting this site, and also the source of a couple of the trolls who turned up here. I decided not to log in there as the number of resulting views seems likely to be negligible.

I started to register there, but they want to know my real name. I think their critical thinking only extends to the scientific non-orthodoxy.

I read the thread there about Nukelies. It's the usual, 'they must be idiots' stuff.

[rerevisionist]

I've started a new thread. I'm hoping some people will read it who aren't clowns/trolls, who might then direct themselves here. I hope I'm not being too nasty - a lot of these people live in their lightweight bubble; perhaps I should be more polite. On the other hand, maybe a kick is better...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=4883d417f0b7929acc95e6d69bae1074&p=7774469#post7774469

It's amazing their software is identical to this; the whole feel is different, including their tolerance of ridiculous time-wasting posts. In principle their entire site could be downloaded, though I'd guesstimate a couple of weeks with a normal broadband connection.

I see what you mean about them - maybe it's some sort of harvesting operation; though they may have had worrying encounters with e.g. scientologists.

[rerevisionist]

It's extraordinary how many of their 'skeptics' posters don't understand that radioactive decay is not the same thing as a hypothetical chain reaction, triggered in some way, with vast amounts of heat, and an explosion, in sequence.

I wonder if it's part of the bullshit process of smothering thought? Some of them genuinely seem to believe it's the same thing. For example, one of their posters says he uses radionucleides in medicine, therefore atomic explosions exist. Truly amazing.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Wow, it looks like you have provoked them.

I think you're dealing with a lot of vain people there; they see themselves as so smart that they can't be wrong, or be fooled.

There's a guy on shortwave with a station advertising airtime at thirty dollars a half hour. I was thinking about just buying an half hour, and telling the nuke fraud story. I might have thirty bucks around here someplace. I don't have anything to record on, however. I think all my cassettes quit working.