Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

Andy Noich is the perfect showcase of the phenomenon known as POES LAW.

I actually could not believe the delusional things he was saying and wondered several times if he was punking Indie Scientologists, trying to make them look even more ludicrous than they already are.

It is nearly impossible to think that the guy is that stupid! I mean, come on, who the hell makes a complete cringe ass out of themselves by creating a video where they seriously try to convince the viewers that their mind power is so advanced that they were able to turn an old worn toothbrush into one with brand new bristles (within 2 days). That is really crazy shit, even for a Scientologist. LOL.

Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? (Noich taught me how to add the word "right?" to the end of every utterance, as a way of soliciting "AGREEMENT" from others--thus altering reality. I guess that's how he performed alchemy on his toothbrush, by repeating the word "Right?" so many times the toothbrush just said: "ALRIGHT! I'LL TRANSFORM MY BRISTLES INTO BRAND NEW ONES IF YOU JUST STOP SAYING "RIGHT?" AND STUFU!" lol

I've met a zillion Scientologists and this guy is definitely on my TOP 10 STUPIDEST SCIENTOLOGISTS IN THE WORLD.

The only person in the world I can think of who thinks this guy is credible, is another major headcase/troll, Alanzo. So if you are a masochist, be sure to watch the video they did together. lol

 

[Jump]

I wonder if he had already devised the story in a delirium of pinks and greys washed down with rum and latter committed them to tape in a piece of performance art :confused2:


​

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

If you take the time to research James Randi on the net you find he is a debunked debunker. I read one article where he reneged on his $1 million challenge, where the person was able to prove some damn thing or other.

How do I put this politely and respectfully?

Okay, I got it. Your research sucks. LOL

Nobody ever succeeded in demonstrating the proof necessary to win the $1M prize.

You read some bullshit and assumed it must be true. That's not research, it's being duped.

Sorry, but what you are claiming never happened. If you are going to trash someone, at least have a half-way decent reason.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Why is Lerma a kook ?

Somebody who publicly posts a serious claim on Facebook that a couple of anti-cult movement founders were murdered by secretly putting "some tasteless and odorless white asbestos powder" in their food without the slightest documentation to back it up is a *kook*. Screen shot attached.

View attachment 13526

You're misrepresenting what was written in that screenshot.

Lerma doesn't make the claim that you claim he is making.

He does suspect that they were murdered.

And he does bring up some points to support that suspicion.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

He solved it!

The XENU mystery, right?

No, not Ron, right?

Andy Noich solved it, right?

See, Andy figured out that Ron properly researched OT III, right?

And Andy figured out that Ron was auditing so many people and they were all running "being blown up) 75 million years ago, right?

Then Andy cognited that Ron properly deduced from all those PCs running the same OT III incident (and verified by the e-Meter!!!) scientifically proved that OT III is real, right?

Therefore, Andy finally proved to the world that the Xenu story wasn't just some made up sci-fi bullshit, right?

Right! Right?

Right!!!


[video=youtube;3pQDV0BQlpI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pQDV0BQlpI&ab_channel=AndyNolch[/video]

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I wonder if he had already devised the story in a delirium of pinks and greys washed down with rum and latter committed them to tape in a piece of performance art :confused2:


​

LOL LOL LOL

Honestly, each time I see Noich talking on one of his videos, I think: "NO WAY! THIS HAS GOT TO BE A PERFORMANCE ART PRANK!!!"

Unless he's incredibly stupid.

Or incredibly drunk.

Or incredibly Scientological.

 

[F.Bullbait]

.

... I mean, come on, who the hell makes a complete cringe ass out of themselves by creating a video where they seriously try to convince the viewers that their mind power is so advanced that they were able to turn an old worn toothbrush into one with brand new bristles (within 2 days). That is really crazy shit, even for a Scientologist. LOL.

... lol

Not too impressed. In 10 minutes I can go to Big Lots and buy 6 toothbrushes for $1.


Now turning your shit into gold...

 

[Axiom142]

LOL LOL LOL

Honestly, each time I see Noich talking on one of his videos, I think: "NO WAY! THIS HAS GOT TO BE A PERFORMANCE ART PRANK!!!"

Unless he's incredibly stupid.

Or incredibly drunk.

Or incredibly Scientological.

He's incredibly stupid = incredibly drunk (on the Flavor Aid*) = incredibly Scientological.

No need for any 'or'.


[* See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid ]

Axiom142

 

[Veda]

Why is Lerma a kook ?

Somebody who publicly posts a serious claim on Facebook that a couple of anti-cult movement founders were murdered by secretly putting "some tasteless and odorless white asbestos powder" in their food without the slightest documentation to back it up is a *kook*. Screen shot attached.

View attachment 13526

​

As you well know, Sneakster, I was referring to Andy Nolch.

Sneakster, when confronted by a fellow Scientologist, who, apparently, needs some help, perhaps has misunderstood words, might be PTS, isn't Clear and so still has a reactive bank, etc., offers no help.

Hungry rats have a greater sense of fraternity and compassion than Scientologists.

Kiss Ron on the mouth and become an Operating Thetan instantly.
Who wants to go first?
How about you, Sneakster?​

 

[arcxcauseblows]

Andy is the Kanye West of independent Scientology he should be the leader of milestone one

Andy if you're reading this, that wasn't meant as a compliment

Continue making a brainwashed fool of yourself kid your videos will serve to humble you as you hopefully grow older and wiser and then you can make us redemption videos with your foot stuffed in your mouth

 

[John McGhee]

Andy is the Kanye West of independent Scientology he should be the leader of milestone one

Andy if you're reading this, that wasn't meant as a compliment

Continue making a brainwashed fool of yourself kid your videos will serve to humble you as you hopefully grow older and wiser and then you can make us redemption videos with your foot stuffed in your mouth

we can hope, but Andy has dug for himself a grave. I always thought that Marty would make some redemption videos or possibly write three redemption books to counteract the lrh-loving publications he first released, but alas; look what happened.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

.
How do I put this politely and respectfully?

Okay, I got it. Your research sucks. LOL

Nobody ever succeeded in demonstrating the proof necessary to win the $1M prize.

You read some bullshit and assumed it must be true. That's not research, it's being duped.

Sorry, but what you are claiming never happened. If you are going to trash someone, at least have a half-way decent reason.

Oh, HH are you defending Randi? Did you know the challenge was rigged so it couldn't be won? Please read this for instance:

The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge
Posted by Greg at 05:24, 22 Feb 2008

For ten years, the modern skeptical movement has wielded a cudgel against claims of the paranormal: the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. In many debates over the possibility of psi abilities, the Challenge provides a final word for one side..."has so-and-so applied for the Challenge?" The financial reward offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation is seen by many skeptics as providing an irresistible motivation for anybody with paranormal ability - after all, if someone could genuinely exhibit such powers, surely they would step forward to take the million?

However, after ten years, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) says nobody has even got past their preliminary testing. Furthermore, none of the 'big fish' - medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne - have applied (although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further). And now, perhaps as a result of that fact, James Randi has announced that the Challenge will come to an end in two years, on March 6th, 2010.

But does the challenge really make a statement about the existence of the paranormal and/or psi abilities? According to paranormal investigator Loyd Auerbach (who, like Randi, is a member of the magic fraternity):


The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd on many levels.

The procedures for the Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple "outs" for Randi and the JREF that any discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary human performance would think twice about (and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like).

What are these hurdles that Auerbach refers to?

Chances, of Anything...

First, and perhaps the most important, is the effect size required to win the challenge. While the JREF says that "all tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant", this does not mean that the tests are fair scientific tests. The JREF need to protect a very large amount of money from possible "long-range shots", and as such they ask for extremely significant results before paying out - much higher than are generally accepted in scientific research (and if you don’t agree to terms, your application is rejected). In the case of parapsychological research, however, where effect size is often small (though apparently robust), this means most researchers would have to go to extraordinary lengths to win the million dollars. As one psi researcher pointed out to me:

In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%. If that 32% hit rate is the "real" telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials. One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours, or about 1,483 total hours. Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day. So we have to potentially recruit 989 x 2 people to participate, an experimenter who will spend 4+ years running these people day in and day out, and at the end we'll end up with p < 0.005. Randi will say those results aren't good enough, because you could get such a result by chance 5 in 1,000 times. Thus, he will require odds against chance of at least a million to 1 to pay out $1 million, and then the amount of time and money it would take to get a significant result would be far in excess of $1 million.

Furthermore, applicants must first pass a 'preliminary test', before they are allowed to progress to the actual 'formal' test which pays the million dollars. So an applicant must first show positive results in a preliminary test (yielding results against chance of at least 1000 to 1, apparently), then once through to the next stage they would then have to show positive results against much higher odds to claim the prize (by all reports, at odds of around 1 million to 1). Failure in either test means no cash prize, and a fail beside their name. It many respects it would be like telling a professional golfer to shoot 63 around Augusta National, then come back and shoot 59, to prove that he can play golf. In the words of Chris Carter, author of Parapsychology and the Skeptics:

If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.”

Dr Michael Sudduth of San Francisco State University also pointed out to me a wonderful irony in one of the rules. Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

There is more at the article and that is but one of many on the subject. In a few words - he is a fraud.

Now, as to the quality of my research.

You should be proud - because I did what you did when I posted about Rupert Sheldrake. I did a brief scan of some stuff debunking him, and cherry picked one and posted it above. However, the reneging was something I recalled from many months ago, and frankly, I didn't want to spend hours tracking it down.

But hey, if Jame Randi is your hero and someone who you presume to be a Debunker Meritorious, fine by me.

Mimsey

 

[Veda]

[video=youtube;g8ywW0nf6Ro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ywW0nf6Ro[/video]



Goodness knows I don't agree with everything Nolch says. Almost nothing.

But I don't know his background: his experiences growing up, his family life, or any personal problems he may have had.

He's about 25 and has been out a short time.

To place some of this in perspective, see the old thread: "You now taking to you then."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26341-YOU-NOW-TALKING-TO-YOU-THEN​

 

[George Layton]

Oh, HH are you defending Randi? Did you know the challenge was rigged so it couldn't be won? Please read this for instance:

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

There is more at the article and that is but one of many on the subject. In a few words - he is a fraud.

Now, as to the quality of my research.

You should be proud - because I did what you did when I posted about Rupert Sheldrake. I did a brief scan of some stuff debunking him, and cherry picked one and posted it above. However, the reneging was something I recalled from many months ago, and frankly, I didn't want to spend hours tracking it down.

But hey, if Jame Randi is your hero and someone who you presume to be a Debunker Meritorious, fine by me.

Mimsey

The only thing you lack is missing from your act. Back stage you left your trick top hat. (Robert Anton Wilson)
Did you remember to make sure and check to see if the de-bunkers had been de-bunked?

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

The only thing you lack is missing from your act. Back stage you left your trick top hat. (Robert Anton Wilson)
Did you remember to make sure and check to see if the de-bunkers had been de-bunked?

I extended HH the same courtesy he extended me. I suppose it was childish on my part to respond to his dig, but too late for that - the cyber ink is dry.

Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Oh, HH are you defending Randi? Did you know the challenge was rigged so it couldn't be won? Please read this for instance:

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

There is more at the article and that is but one of many on the subject. In a few words - he is a fraud.

Now, as to the quality of my research.

You should be proud - because I did what you did when I posted about Rupert Sheldrake. I did a brief scan of some stuff debunking him, and cherry picked one and posted it above. However, the reneging was something I recalled from many months ago, and frankly, I didn't want to spend hours tracking it down.

But hey, if Jame Randi is your hero and someone who you presume to be a Debunker Meritorious, fine by me.

Mimsey

That's your proof that Randi set up protocols that force real paranormal results to be filtered out?

LOL

I have spent decades researching a wide range of projects for a wide range of applications. I have even used Randi as a consultant to quickly help find the answer to how certain "paranormal" effects were produced by new age con men.

I don't have anything good or bad to say about him personally because I don't know him as a personal associate. But, I do know his books and published works--as well as countless books and research projects on the paranormal from an extensive list of authors, researchers and scientists. I have also extensively studied claims of the paranormal.

If you did actual research (instead of finding some internet post or article that confirmed your bias) you would find that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that anyone on Earth can produce or manifest paranormal powers. This does not negate the possibility that it happens or could happen. It's just that after all the smoke and fog is blown away and you get down to ACTUAL DETAILS OF SPECIFIC INCIDENTS, you will find that they rather easily and rapidly fall apart.

I didn't want that to be the result of my own years of research. I am agnostic about such things. I also didn't not want that to the be result of my research. I was happy to allow the results to speak for themselves.

Start another thread and post even ONE (1) VERIFIED PARANORMAL POWER that has been validated with suitable protocols/controls. Not anecdotes. Not one person's version. Be willing to research BOTH sides of the equation.

You and I have been friendly on this message board, even though we occasionally go through this identical dance on different "miracle" workers. You continuously have a wrong idea about me. Of course you don't know me, but you constantly judge me to be a cynical truth denier about the paranormal. Far from it.

Don't be so swift to judge or decide on these alluring claims of psi powers. If you really want to find the truth, you have to be willing to ACTIVELY LOOK FOR THE DEBUNKING of whatever you find. You will be very surprised at how clever some of the illusions of paranormal powers are produced. It's sometimes very brilliant, like a magic trick that seems quite impossible without "magic"

I think, as I would guess you do, that the pursuit and study of real "magical" or "miraculous" powers is endlessly fascinating.

I just don't find it amusing to allow myself to get easily suckered.

Good luck on finding a GENUINE paranormal event. I'd be happy to read it. Do start another thread if it interests you. I would, of course, love to witness or study about any real such event.

Best!
hh

 

[AngeloV]

I listened to a portion of the video.

Andy Nolch is a young man who knows nothing of the scientific method and simply regurgitates the Old Quack's untested, pseudo-scientific claims.

He makes claims that if you are not PTS, you really don't need insurance because you would never get into an accident. LOL. You would never 'pull it in'. Standard scientology quackery.

His attack on Randi is right out of the Old Quack's handbook of handling critics - make up lurid lies about them. Andy's mind is had been significantly warped by scientology BS. He's been duped, as I once was, and I don't need to listen to any more of his nonsense.

-----------

Randi's procedures for proving psychic powers are rigorous as all scientific procedures are. They have to be to insure that cause and effect are tightly correlated and that nothing outside the bounds of the experiment influence the result.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

That's your proof that Randi set up protocols that force real paranormal results to be filtered out?

LOL

I have spent decades researching a wide range of projects for a wide range of applications. I have even used Randi as a consultant to quickly help find the answer to how certain "paranormal" effects were produced by new age con men.

I don't have anything good or bad to say about him personally because I don't know him as a personal associate. But, I do know his books and published works--as well as countless books and research projects on the paranormal from an extensive list of authors, researchers and scientists. I have also extensively studied claims of the paranormal.

If you did actual research (instead of finding some internet post or article that confirmed your bias) you would find that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that anyone on Earth can produce or manifest paranormal powers. This does not negate the possibility that it happens or could happen. It's just that after all the smoke and fog is blown away and you get down to ACTUAL DETAILS OF SPECIFIC INCIDENTS, you will find that they rather easily and rapidly fall apart.

I didn't want that to be the result of my own years of research. I am agnostic about such things. I also didn't not want that to the be result of my research. I was happy to allow the results to speak for themselves.

Start another thread and post even ONE (1) VERIFIED PARANORMAL POWER that has been validated with suitable protocols/controls. Not anecdotes. Not one person's version. Be willing to research BOTH sides of the equation.

You and I have been friendly on this message board, even though we occasionally go through this identical dance on different "miracle" workers. You continuously have a wrong idea about me. Of course you don't know me, but you constantly judge me to be a cynical truth denier about the paranormal. Far from it.

Don't be so swift to judge or decide on these alluring claims of psi powers. If you really want to find the truth, you have to be willing to ACTIVELY LOOK FOR THE DEBUNKING of whatever you find. You will be very surprised at how clever some of the illusions of paranormal powers are produced. It's sometimes very brilliant, like a magic trick that seems quite impossible without "magic"

I think, as I would guess you do, that the pursuit and study of real "magical" or "miraculous" powers is endlessly fascinating.

I just don't find it amusing to allow myself to get easily suckered.

Good luck on finding a GENUINE paranormal event. I'd be happy to read it. Do start another thread if it interests you. I would, of course, love to witness or study about any real such event.

Best!
hh

You have expressed no interest in taking the time to read any of Sheldrake's work, a man who is both respected for his work and attacked mercilessly, who has performed rigorous tests that meet any scrutiny, so why should I believe your closing line? Lets just move on.

Mimsey

 

[JustSheila]

Mimsey,

I read the article you referenced, "The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge." I don't have a bone in this disagreement.

Either the author does not understand how scientific research and statistics work or he is intentionally misleading readers. His biggest argument is as follows: "In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%."

The author devotes half the article trying to explain how unfair it is not to count that 7% difference in a small sample as valid. He jumps to a conclusion that Randi is demanding a 99% accuracy rate. Percent, as you know, means "of a hundred." The author seems to think it means "of a thousand" and has no idea why Randi didn't accept 32% over 25%. He assumes it is because Randi expects 99% accuracy.

"If that 32% hit rate is the "real" telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials."

Starting from the beginning, the author's assumption of Randi's reasons why he did not accept the 32% over the guess rate of 25% and his reasoning that it must mean he demands 99% psychic accuracy is wrong.

I've explained this to you before, Mimsey, on other threads, and you still keep coming back to this same misleading article by someone who does not understand scientific research and statistics.

There is a standard error rate of 5% that MUST be taken into account in all research statistics. That's 5% in either direction, positive or negative. So the difference here was actually only 2%. That 2% is not big enough to stand on its own with such a small sample, it could be due to an outlier. In layman's terms, an outlier is an error or an anomaly or even a cheat of some sort, that is so far outside the norm that it is discarded. An example of an outlier is if someone voted a write-in for their son for US President. The test needed a bigger sample, at which point the applicant gave up. But that's science.

Whenever you read any statistics with a difference of 5-6% or so, you should disregard it as invalid, no matter what, because that is the unavoidable error rate, whether it's statistized surveys or anything else. The general population doesn't know this, so we're often presented with invalid data as if it is valid.

The fact is, it's really hard to prove any cause-effect relationship scientifically, whether psychic or anything else.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

You have expressed no interest in taking the time to read any of Sheldrake's work, a man who is both respected for his work and attacked mercilessly, who has performed rigorous tests that meet any scrutiny, so why should I believe your closing line? Lets just move on.

Mimsey

You, again, missed what I posted on that thread about Sheldrake. I cited professionals that debunked his claims. I looked over some of those debunking materials--quite enough to know I didn't want to waste any more time chasing charlatans.

That's exactly why I left Scientology. Not because I "expressed no interest in taking the time to read any of Hubbard's work". But, because there comes a point sooner or later that one can read enough to know it's not credible. In the case of Sheldrake, I didn't have to read much to determine that---which displeased you very greatly.

Just think of me as "Raw Meat" that came into the org for the first time. After 5 minutes they explain the Grade Chart to me and I ask them two simple questions:

1) HOW MUCH DOES THIS WHOLE "BRIDGE" COST?

2) CAN YOU BRING AN OT INTO THIS REGISTRAR'S OFFICE RIGHT NOW AND SHOW ME HOW HE/SHE CAN LEVITATE AN OBJECT OR GO EXTERIOR?


It would take about 1 minute to determine that they were both UNWILLING to tell me that Scientology costs at least $500,000 and UNABLE to show me an OT that had even one OT superpower. So, in less than ten minutes the WOG would just stand up and walk out of the org.

That would be very upsetting to the staff members inside the org because they "didn't do their research". However, they DID do their research quite beautifully---they just happened to do it in 10 minutes instead of 30 years.

Don't get all bent out of shape just because another can research at speeds you think are impossible. (Hey! Maybe that is one of my OT super-powers??? LOL )