Looking for Skeptics - Continuation (Cassidy's EVP/diamond damage claim)

[Cassidy]

This is the wrong approach. Pick the one thing that you think you will be most able to demonstrate, reliably and quickly (you are very unlikely to get the JREF to agree to a test which involves you wearing a ring for 3 days), and without having to break protocol (ASKE were quite right to consider the test a failure if you broke the agreed-upon protocol - the protocol is agreed upon beforehand and must be stuck to. Any changes to the protocol, even minor ones that you think would be unimportant, must be mutually agreed before the test starts) and look to demonstrate that.

Pick just one claim, and attempt to demonstrate that. But remember - there must be no interpretation required in the results. Having people agree that they think they can hear "full sentences" will never be part of a protocol that the JREF will accept. Never.

I think your best bet is in being able to alter a recording of "A Lovely Day" by Bill Withers. You'd need a PC that can be determined to be clean - perhaps an impartial party could do a fresh install of Windows with all witnesses present - and then you could download a copy of the song and everybody could listen to it. Then you do whatever it is you do - ensuring that you don't connect the PC to one you believe to be affected by any physical means or via WiFi or the like, and perhaps even without physically touching the PC yourself, if that's something you can do (you are still unclear about exactly how this whole thing works) - and then play back the recording with everybody present. If the voice fades out on the long note after 4 seconds, then you've won yourself a million.

This seems very testable. The voice fading out while the rest of the music remains would be very noticeable (particularly as the backing vocals singing "lovely day, lovely day..." would continue, I presume, as they are short) and, while it would be possible to create a faked-up recording in preparation (I'm not saying that you would or could do that, but it is possible to achieve with the right know-how and equipment, which means the protocol must exclude that possibility), it should be relatively easy for a protocol to be devised which would ensure that this has not happened.

Forget everything else, and concentrate on making the voice fade out on that one song. That is very testable, would be clear and unambiguous, and is all you'd need to demonstrate in order to win the million.

I do believe protocol was broken from the off by ASKE. I asked M not to use the PC he had brought to my home. When I did receive the recording, I forwarded it to scrappy to inspect. He suggested it was "muted" So I asked if M could begin a recording with his voice present (Again protocol was broken)
He replaced the recording and the description. It was in a format that my PC wasn't recognising, and I could not open it (I sent him a recording of my attempts to open up his file) He then sent me another recording in a file-type that my PC recognised (Again, protocol was broken) Upon opening and playing it through, his description did not match up. I noticed more blips that I was familiar with, and asked him if he had used the PC that he had brought to my home, and he had (it was obvious) He confessed to not being able to produce me a silent recording due to blips. (interference I'm familiar with) He also explained that's how his PC is. I asked him had he ever checked to see if he could create a silent recording. I don't think he's ever had reason to check for that sort of thing, and he didn't acknowledge the question.

Being new to challenges, I think the ASKE challenge was pitiful. There was no application form to fill in. I was fobbed off for 3 months with excuses regarding "broken showers" Protocol was a verbal discussion, followed by to & fro emails. I wasn't allowed to claim what I wanted to initially claim, or do the experiment live (rather than through emails)

No MD hash was used. When I'd done this test before, I was informed that the recording altered but the MD hash didn't alter. I explained that to ASKE, hence the importance to note every interference throughout the short recording.


I can't actually download the song "A Lovely Day" play it and have the held note fade out. I can record it playing, and then it fades out. It would be good to compare recordings. A recording created using a non-affected PC, the note should hold out for 9 seconds (I haven't tested that yet)

 

[Cassidy]

Cassidy, I really think your protocol for testing the diamond will not be accepted. The reason is very simple: If anyone wears any rings for longer than a day, they get dirty due to sweat and dirt accumulation that everyone has. This dirt will also accumulate in scratches, making them look more prominent than normal. If you are a sweaty person or work with naturally dusty material like cloth or paper, the dirt accumulation happens faster. People who regularly work around photocopiers and laser printers will know how much toner dust makes grime on everything.

So if you think you have such powers, you really need to test it again yourself using much tighter controls: For a start, you should expect to not move or use your hands for anything while testing is happening. You might also try your testing using glass or paste jewels - much cheaper for a start, and should be much easier to break.

As for the PC stuff, there are so many variables like microphone sensitivity and directionality, plus software processing, that could affect recordings that your protocol is frankly completely disorganised and is not going to go anywhere.

You really need to be far better organised with this testing. For a start, try to work out EXACTLY what the effect is you are testing for, and stick with that. This is what JREF will be looking for in your protocol. Just picking something, ANYTHING that happened that is different every time you try is not proper testing at all. In fact it's a perfect example of how NOT to design tests - so many things wrong with that, I'm afraid.

As others have said, you need to focus. You are all over the place currently.

I'll only be wearing the ring for the duration that the JREF will allow.
Using PC's is mainly so I have contact throughout the test.

Transferring spirit-activity into a pre-examined PC, is a back-up move if the diamond doesn't alter within the allowed time frame.

I've tested other materials. I placed my hand in a bucket of gem stones and was informed that the bloodstones had altered (cracked) I checked my own bloodstone and it was cracked (Could have been cracked accidentally) I would have continued testing this out because it's much cheaper, but a gent challenged me regarding the diamonds. I was to match the cost of the diamond ring he was to purchase, and if the diamonds didn't alter, he won £200.

We did the test on the 23rd Oct. The diamonds altered (2 fractured) and he accepted his loss. I documented it with the GP, as the diamond fractures continued to surface. I also played him a recording where a voice states "Hhh.. did I miss a diamond?"

I think a diamond was missed out on purpose. I found that particular message a week later on some random youtube clip created in Albania, dated 31st Oct.
It's the same voice that was considered a "Grimsby accent" on a random youtube clip created in Grimsby. I'm not sure if you are aware that I believe that this signal is emitting PC's globally?

 

[Susheel]

Cassidy...I have to ask. Were you ever identified in your childhood as an Indigo Child?

 

[Cassidy]

Cassidy...I have to ask. Were you ever identified in your childhood as an Indigo Child?

No, I've never experienced nothing supernatural til I hit 31.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I do believe protocol was broken from the off by ASKE. I asked M not to use the PC he had brought to my home. When I did receive the recording, I forwarded it to scrappy to inspect. He suggested it was "muted" So I asked if M could begin a recording with his voice present (Again protocol was broken)
He replaced the recording and the description. It was in a format that my PC wasn't recognising, and I could not open it (I sent him a recording of my attempts to open up his file) He then sent me another recording in a file-type that my PC recognised (Again, protocol was broken) Upon opening and playing it through, his description did not match up. I noticed more blips that I was familiar with, and asked him if he had used the PC that he had brought to my home, and he had (it was obvious) He confessed to not being able to produce me a silent recording due to blips. (interference I'm familiar with) He also explained that's how his PC is. I asked him had he ever checked to see if he could create a silent recording. I don't think he's ever had reason to check for that sort of thing, and he didn't acknowledge the question.

Being new to challenges, I think the ASKE challenge was pitiful. There was no application form to fill in. I was fobbed off for 3 months with excuses regarding "broken showers" Protocol was a verbal discussion, followed by to & fro emails. I wasn't allowed to claim what I wanted to initially claim, or do the experiment live (rather than through emails)

I don't really understand the story you've told here.

I can't actually download the song "A Lovely Day" play it and have the held note fade out. I can record it playing, and then it fades out. It would be good to compare recordings. A recording created using a non-affected PC, the note should hold out for 9 seconds (I haven't tested that yet)

I doubt, then, that you can use that as a basis of your claim.

Whatever, my advice remains the same - pick just one effect that can be judged by non-subjective means, and that you are sure you can replicate 100% of the time, and focus on designing a protocol to test that.

Post which one of your claims you think best fits that description and as clear a suggestion for a test as you can come up with, and we will help you turn that into a working protocol that the JREF will accept.

 

[Cassidy]

I don't really understand the story you've told here.



I doubt, then, that you can use that as a basis of your claim.

Whatever, my advice remains the same - pick just one effect that can be judged by non-subjective means, and that you are sure you can replicate 100% of the time, and focus on designing a protocol to test that.

Post which one of your claims you think best fits that description and as clear a suggestion for a test as you can come up with, and we will help you turn that into a working protocol that the JREF will accept.

I claimed "Special Fingers" I do know it sounds cheesy, and I did argue the fact but it does cover a multitude of smaller claims. If I concentrate on just the one claim, and it fails that day, I don't fancy waiting a year to go through it again. I think I have a reasonably good demonstration, that should result in altered diamonds.

I can't really take the test without communicating with the actual spirit who's breaking the diamond.

 

[Cassidy]

What I'll never understand is why someone would jump from "something I didn't understand happened when I was using my computer" to "my computer is infested with spirits". My computer behaves in ways I don't understand all the time, I just put it down to crap software. Likewise if I had a diamond ring which got damaged I'd curse my own carelessness and/or the crap manufacturer. I understood why the brain sometimes perceives patterns that aren't really there long before I found out the word for it was pareidolia, it would never have occurred to me to put that down to spirits or the paranormal either.

ETA: Incidentally Cassidy, Randi has retired. Whoever you deal with at JREF, it won't be him.

Sorry Pixel, could you show me where I said the above? If I recall correctly, when I realised my PC was emitting noise that sounded like voices, my initial thought's were "hackers" When I braved up to listen in again, I heard a voice I was familiar with. That's about it. I don't think I've ever said the above statement. If I did say it at the start, then it's a true statement. Though, at the start I assumed hackers, not paranormal or pareidolia.

ETA: Why did Mr Randi take his name from the site? because of retirement?
Was everybody's older threads dissected and over-written (compounding speculation) or just a few?

 

[Tolls]

when I realised my PC was emitting noise that sounded like voices, my initial thought's were "hackers"

That's not how hackers work...which implies it was clearly something you didn't understand about your PC.

And it doesn't rule out pareidolia, which is still the most likely answer.

 

[Cassidy]

That's not how hackers work...which implies it was clearly something you didn't understand about your PC.

And it doesn't rule out pareidolia, which is still the most likely answer.

I did say if I said it at the beginning, it was probably the truth, I just don't recall ever saying it.

I don't think you've heard how these recordings can sound? Not only that, but where is the "noise" coming from in the first place? If I record silence, I do expect silence, and if I record a noise, I don't expect it to disappear.

I put a sample up on youtube not so long ago. The first half of the clip is leaving the spirits to use their own vibration, it's loud and scary.
If I control the vibration myself (second half of the clip) it doesn't sound so scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkJ9WlUESI

 

[Foolmewunz]

ETA: Why did Mr Randi take his name from the site? because of retirement?
Was everybody's older threads dissected and over-written (compounding speculation) or just a few?

Second part first: What do you mean? Your thread is in tact. Members were allowed to comment even if you took a sabbatical. This is your thread. Do you find something wrong with it? Posts missing? Too many nay-sayers? Of course it could be that what you're reading isn't what we're reading. If your spirits can alter sound files, I'm sure changing around typed words on a message board would be a walk in the park.

As to Randi.... The JREF divested itself of the forum. The ISF is a new organization whose sole purpose, at present, is to provide space for the old JREF Forums, which were migrated to this site. You should have had to sign a new membership agreement, just like the rest of us. For all intents and purposes, these forums have no association with the JREF, other than the past association of the JREF Forums. No one here actually speaks for the JREF or is a representative of the MDC. It should be excepted that there are Foundation (JREF) staff who have membership here and they are free to post and identify themselves if they have any interest in a topic.

BUT, we are many of the same people from those JREF Forums and many posters here have gone through helping applicants establish a viable protocol for a "challenge". I know you think everyone's out to get you, but do not let our biases fool you. We're 100% in favor of a completely fair test; meaning that both sides are assured that there are no factors weighing unfairly in favor of the affirmative or the negative. You could do much worse than to take the advice being offered here.

State what your claim is in clear/precise and bulleted statements. You're on the right track, but the fact that you keep calling it a "demonstration" clues us to the fact that you are working from a pre-set condition (the existence of spirits) the proof of which many of us feel should be part of the protocol. Saying: I do X, Y happens therefore Spirits doesn't quite work.

 

[Donn]

After all that, I can see why no one replied to you. This would not be a test, it would be an abuse — of yourself, of those doing the testing. I think it's downright unethical to put anyone through that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If I concentrate on just the one claim, and it fails that day, I don't fancy waiting a year to go through it again.

This is why you need to pick a claim that you know for certain will produce results under the conditions of the protocol.

If you don't restrict yourself to one claim but instead have "back-up claims", then your application will not get through and you won't be tested. Pick one.

 

[Cassidy]

Second part first: What do you mean? Your thread is in tact. Members were allowed to comment even if you took a sabbatical. This is your thread. Do you find something wrong with it? Posts missing? Too many nay-sayers? Of course it could be that what you're reading isn't what we're reading. If your spirits can alter sound files, I'm sure changing around typed words on a message board would be a walk in the park.

As to Randi.... The JREF divested itself of the forum. The ISF is a new organization whose sole purpose, at present, is to provide space for the old JREF Forums, which were migrated to this site. You should have had to sign a new membership agreement, just like the rest of us. For all intents and purposes, these forums have no association with the JREF, other than the past association of the JREF Forums. No one here actually speaks for the JREF or is a representative of the MDC. It should be excepted that there are Foundation (JREF) staff who have membership here and they are free to post and identify themselves if they have any interest in a topic.

BUT, we are many of the same people from those JREF Forums and many posters here have gone through helping applicants establish a viable protocol for a "challenge". I know you think everyone's out to get you, but do not let our biases fool you. We're 100% in favor of a completely fair test; meaning that both sides are assured that there are no factors weighing unfairly in favor of the affirmative or the negative. You could do much worse than to take the advice being offered here.

State what your claim is in clear/precise and bulleted statements. You're on the right track, but the fact that you keep calling it a "demonstration" clues us to the fact that you are working from a pre-set condition (the existence of spirits) the proof of which many of us feel should be part of the protocol. Saying: I do X, Y happens therefore Spirits doesn't quite work.

I was referring to the unnecessary sarcasm, I can't work with sarcasm. I don't think everyone is out to get me either. I do understand that for all you know I could be deluded, or setting it up. I certainly don't have paranoia when it comes to people, just spirits.

 

[trustbutverify]

I hear you and I've outlined my ability. I haven't found much help at all from here. I only have to say hello and I'm met with ridicule, amateur medical diagnosis's and blind speculation. After that it's difficult to hold much conversation. I really only wish to know how long it takes for the JREF to reply to emails. I've waited over 3 months for a reply and I'm becoming slightly suspicious by it.

Lost half the reply there sorry: The voice that emits and transfers, is considered pareidolia. So if he breaks a diamond, it can't be considered anything but paranormal.

The drum is used for vibration, and so is the elastic band.

You weren't met with ridicule when you first began this thread. But it became inevitable as time went on, based on the nonsense being presented.

Once again...a test of this type must be objective, controlled and falsifiable in regards to the claim. How does the test you are proposing address these basic requirements? What, exactly, qualifies as a "pass", and what, exactly, qualifies as a "fail"?

Finally, if the test returns a fail, will you concede you paranormal claims are unsupported? And if not, why not? These are reasonable and appropriate questions, but you never answer them.

 

[trustbutverify]

Interesting, but just to rectify, these forces don't use the PC or the drum and band to smash diamonds. I'd be using the drum to generate vibration, so I can communicate during the experiment. If pareidolia is the answer for the sentences that emit during the experiment, I'd be highly surprised, but the breaking diamonds has no other explanation other than paranormal, surely?

How is it objectively determined that a diamond has broken? How is the test controlled as to eliminate the possibility of a normal effect? How many diamonds will be in the control group, not exposed to paranormal influence?

 

[trustbutverify]

For sale or free it ought be optional. I don't think it's the best answer, I think it's the best "theory" or rather, the only theory (according to science)

I honestly don't expect to be believed, I expect to take a challenge and finally have it investigated. I am certain that Mr Randi will go over it with a fine tooth comb before handing the money over to charity.

Charity can be happy, I can be happy, a lot of psychic charlatans will cease work and be unhappy. Science will need to re-adjust to the truth, instead of creating yet another theory. It could be a happy ending all round (almost)

And if the test results in a fail? Will you need to re-adjust to the truth?

 

[Alderbank]

State what your claim is in clear/precise and bulleted statements. You're on the right track, but the fact that you keep calling it a "demonstration" clues us to the fact that you are working from a pre-set condition (the existence of spirits) the proof of which many of us feel should be part of the protocol. Saying: I do X, Y happens therefore Spirits doesn't quite work.

To be fair, Foolmewunz, Cassidy is using the exact word used by the JREF Conditions of the Million Dollar Challenge "The goal of this Challenge is a successful demonstration according to the agreed protocol."

 

[Cassidy]

You weren't met with ridicule when you first began this thread. But it became inevitable as time went on, based on the nonsense being presented.

Once again...a test of this type must be objective, controlled and falsifiable in regards to the claim. How does the test you are proposing address these basic requirements? What, exactly, qualifies as a "pass", and what, exactly, qualifies as a "fail"?

Finally, if the test returns a fail, will you concede you paranormal claims are unsupported? And if not, why not? These are reasonable and appropriate questions, but you never answer them.

It went pear shaped because the spirits refused to play the card tricks being suggested, and I was being considered deluded. I never said I had any control over this at the time. But that's by the by.

If I fail, it needs to be thoroughly explained why.
Why does noise appear from nowhere?
Why does it sound like voices in full sentence?
Why does recorded noise fade out?

If I get a scientific answer to any of the above, after investigation, I'd be surprised. If it's "speculated" away on the day, that wouldn't actually be a fair result.

I consider it a pass if:
The diamonds alter.
If I manage to transfer spirit activity into the pre-examined PC's.
If I manage to cause noise to fade out whilst another noise remains during playback.

I consider it a fail, if I cannot achieve any of the above on the day.

 

[Giordano]

Cassidy,

Over the years this forum has seen a lot of people making paranormal claims who seem unable to specify a simple test. I know that other posters have tried to explain to you the best way to create a simple, easy to validate test: once again, emphasize the following points in your protocol:

1. What is it that you will do in the test that is paranormal? Keep it simple, not requiring a value judgement (obvious to anyone), and just focus on one thing for the test even if you can do multiple paranormal things.

2. It should be easily and consistently performed in a relatively short period of time in such a way that would not permit deception. So turning an untouched diamond measurably black in a few minutes or hours probably would be okay, if the judgement of black could be measured by an instrument or other non-subjective method (double blind based on before and after pictures, perhaps). Wearing a diamond for a few days and looking for cracks would probably not be okay. Having someone look at a diamond before and after a session and making a visual judgement of if it looked a bit darker would probably not be okay (too subjective and relying on memory).

3. At this point, no one cares how the paranormal event is achieved. If you believe it is due to spirits, that is fine, but placing this explanation in the protocol just clutters up the test. Just explain what you will do, not why it happens.

4. Be very specific in your protocol as to what would be a positive test result ("The transparency of the diamond after the protocol will be less than 50% of the transparency before."). Pick something you have practiced and know will work consistency. Be careful to not move the goal posts after the test ("The diamond looks a bit darker to me and my mother, if not 50%, so it is a partial positive and the Challenge is cheating me" "The diamond is a bit redder now, so that should count as a positive." Etc.).

5. Come up with a protocol that will not allow for excuses ("The computer had the wrong sound card." "Too many unbelievers were in the room.") Eliminate what will prevent a positive in the test when writing the protocol. Don't change the protocol during the test.

 

[Foolmewunz]

To be fair, Foolmewunz, Cassidy is using the exact word used by the JREF Conditions of the Million Dollar Challenge "The goal of this Challenge is a successful demonstration according to the agreed protocol."

Cool. I withdraw that poor observation, then. Thanks.