Perhaps the most erroneous statement in this programme was the amazingly badly informed opinion that most or the better research is done by the skeptics.
The example of James Randi is given as 'plentiful and bountiful' Let us look closer ....
Randi often gives the impression he has tested hundreds of people e.g. in this video, Randi makes a claim again around the 40:30 minute mark in video
'....'We have filing cabinets just full .....[reference to picture of Kramer with cabinets] .... all with little red stickers on them. That means they have been tested - no good.....' YouTube - Authors@Google: James Randi This statement is false Randi is presenting applications (that never reached the stage of a test) as failed tests. The forum has always shown an impressive long list of applicants – but how many were tested?
Back in 2005, I tried to find out exactly how many Randi had actually tested. The topic is still there ....
Exactly how many ‘Preliminary Tests’ have actually been conducted? - JREF Forum
You will see in Post 4 that someone directly quotes Kramer (Randi's challenge assistant at the time) as saying in another topic ....
'There have been two tests since my arrival here one year ago. My understanding is that there has never been more than a couple of tests per year.' Unfortunately the original topic linked to has gone missing and before the link to it was lost, Kramer words seem to have gone. However there is no reason to presume Kramer did not did not make that statement because he is clearly reading and taking part in the topic.
Therefore, according to Kramer (Randi's challenge assistant) 2 per year over the 10 years (since it was increased to 1 million) = only 20 people tested? But the 'research' is even worse, it is merely the setting of high bar for someone to beat odds of 1000 to 1 in preliminary followed by 1,000,000 to one in trial. This is not scientific research it is a political exercise to prevent anyone coming close to passing. The political exercise increased when in 2007, challenge rules were tightened to allow only those with a
'media presence' . That will reduce the number of actual tests further, also required is a
'signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person' . Considering Randi's past record of exaggeration, error and taking pot-shots at any scientist who even considers Psi could be real. Now if the entrant fails (i.e. fails Randi's terms not scientific terms) the academic now has to be ridiculed too?
What about Randi's past research? Kramer says in topic
'.....based upon my preliminary investigation, is that Challenge records were VERY incomplete prior to my arrival here. There wasn't even a real application file before I got here. We have a few VHS tapes of some tests, but it's unclear how many of those were official JREF Challenge tests, as many of these tapes are VERY old and without any paperwork or accompanying data.....'
Dr Steve Novella also claims to have conducted preliminary trials for the JREF challenge. Where are these details (person under test, protocol, researchers involved) published for inspection? The public presentation seems to be Randi passes out these preliminary trials to open minded researchers. After listening to Novella's internet radio program, one could perhaps doubt that too.