Telekinesis

thelight said:
OK I'm sensing lots of doubt and misunderstanding. Here's what I meant:

I stand still. Someone comes attacking using a "flying kick" technique. Before the person even touches me, he suddenly got repelled back in the direction he originally came from. And I never even touch the person.

The tricky part: The attacker must be intensely and genuinely be angry for this demonstration to work. Since this is difficult, we could substitute the man with a dobermann. Dobermanns have very intense anger. The trick to make this safe is to put a "cage" over the dog's mouth (dunno what's it called).

What can my friend do that I can't? My friend can actually repel the person backwards. I can only slightly alter the attacker's trajectory, just enough for him not to touch me. It doesn't look too convincing, and is subject to debate that it is trickery on the part of the attacker.

But my friend's ability is pretty convincing because it clearly defies Newton's law of motion.

The problem is, my friend can only speak Indonesian. He lives in Indonesia and can't read or write very well.

So, what do you guys reckon? Is this "paranormal"?
Click to expand...

Well, you've read the challenge rules (and the FAQs as well I hope). The next step would be see if you can design a self-test protocol to examine how easy it will be to demonstrate this ability to others.

There is a difficulty here, that others have abundantly pointed out (even you yourself indicate it is a "tricky part"). A protocol must be able to reliably reproduce the conditions required to test the ability. If it is an absolute requirement that the attacker be "intensely and genuinely be angry" for it to work, then you must find a way to provide an attacker that is demonstrably so.

It appears to be your belief that dobermanns are naturally this way towards strangers. If true, this would be a great help in designing a protocol.

Do you know anyone that owns a dobermann? Preferably someone that would be willing to participate in a test protocol. You mention putting a "cage" over the dog's mouth (muzzle is the term generally used for any wrapping put on a dog's mouth to prevent biting/barking). Even this is probably unnecessary, the dog could be seperated from you by some barrier (e.g. a fence) or teathered (e.g. tied to a dog house).

It is likely that even if you are unable to find someone you know with a dobermann, a walk of your neighborhood may reveal such a dog that is behind a fence or teathered. For a simple self test, you could attempt your ability when walking by. If that succeeds, you have the basis for a testable protocol. If it fails, then you may need to question why it failed.

If you believe the self-test I've advised won't work, please submit what you feel would cause it to fail and we may be able to assist further.
 
thelight said:
...
The tricky part: The attacker must be intensely and genuinely be angry for this demonstration to work.
...
Click to expand...

I don't buy your claimed "ability" for one second. It sounds a lot like you having to lay off the chemical stimuli, put down your game pad and get out of your room.

However, I can't help but wonder about: Why "the attacker must be intensely and genuinely be angry for this demonstration to work"?
Because arrows have no "feelings"?
Throwing stars don't get "aggravated"?
Bullets spit out of a mini gun "are to goodie-goodie for you"?

Please explain in your own words. Don't go Kilik on us. And please forgive my doubt in your "ability".

thelight said:
...
So, what do you guys reckon? Is this "paranormal"?
Click to expand...

No.



Sonic Boom. Uaaaaargh. I win. Perfect!
 
GzuzKryzt said:
I don't buy your claimed "ability" for one second. It sounds a lot like you having to lay off the chemical stimuli, put down your game pad and get out of your room.

However, I can't help but wonder about: Why "the attacker must be intensely and genuinely be angry for this demonstration to work"?
Because arrows have no "feelings"?
Throwing stars don't get "aggravated"?
Bullets spit out of a mini gun "are to goodie-goodie for you"?

Please explain in your own words. Don't go Kilik on us. And please forgive my doubt in your "ability".



No.



Sonic Boom. Uaaaaargh. I win. Perfect!
Click to expand...

While a good many folks here may be interested in exactly how thelight believes the powers work (myself included), such information is unimportant to JREF itself as far as the application is concerned. Many applicants fall into trying to describe how their powers work, begin to debate that endlessly, and in the end lose focus and fail to apply.

By all means, thelight, feel free to expound on your ability, (it could even assist in designing a simpler protocol) but it is equally ok if you have no idea how it works. What matters most is reproducability, and I encourage you to keep that as your focus.
 
GzuzKryzt, let me reiterate, the ability can only work on living things, because emotions (anger) is involved. That is why I never claim that I can stop bullets, arrows or any dead objects.

I don't know what or who "Yellow Bamboo" is, and I don't intent to find out more. I know what I could do and I'll prove it. That's it.

I have never designed a test protocol, but the following is probably close to what I intend to do:

Objective: To repel an attacking dog without touching.
Success criteria: During the attack, the dog is hurled backwards even though it is not its intention to do so. "Hurled backwards" is defined that the dog's motion is contrary to the dog's trajectory of attack. The angle against the original trajectory is 180 degrees, plus minus 25 degrees.
Failure criteria: The dog is never once hurled backwards after ten repeated attempts.

Protocol:

1. A dobermann is used in the demonstrations. There is NO NEED to stimulate a dobermann, it would just attack any stranger entering its "territory".
2. The dobermann is chained. The length of the chain is shorter than the distance between the dog and the applicant, ensuring safety to the applicant. As an added safety measure, a muzzle is used over the dog's mouth. Using this, it could bark, but cannot bite.
3. The lenght of the chain is set to 20 metres. Distance between the dog's starting point to the applicant's starting point is 30 meters.
4. The test start with the dog sitting at the dog's starting point (farthest point from the applicant), being held back by its owner / master.
5. Upon a signal, the master let go the dog. If it is a trained, dog, the master could also give the attack command to the dog.
6. On the other side, the applicant would start approaching the dog upon the signal.
7. As both sides start their approaches, the applicant prepares to repel the dog without touching it. The maximum travel distance of the applicant is less than 10 meters to ensure safety.
8. If successful, the dog is flown backwards without the applicant even touching it (see Success Criteria above).


Would this suffice to serve as a Test Protocol?
 
thelight said:
1. A dobermann is used in the demonstrations. There is NO NEED to stimulate a dobermann, it would just attack any stranger entering its "territory".
Click to expand...

I used to board my horse at a stable where the owner had a couple of dobermans. Needless to say, there were a lot of strangers or semi-strangers coming and going, since there were a variety of boarders and riding students round.

The dobermans ran loose on the place, and came up to me and everyone, wagging what little tails they had and doing a happy dance. I doubt that's unusual. There are lots of friendly dobermans.

5. Upon a signal, the master let go the dog. If it is a trained, dog, the master could also give the attack command to the dog.
Click to expand...

What if only trained attack dogs are used? That seems the only practical way to insure consistent behavior by the dog.

I can see a couple other problems. If the same dog is used 10 times, and the applicant only fails if the dog is never "hurled back," there's a good chance the dog is going to be increasingly bored or frustrated or injured from hitting the end of the chain, and behave in an odd way by the tenth time. I'd suggest a protocol that requires the applicant succeeding much more than once out of ten tries and/or fewer tries per dog.

Also, at the very least we need a better objection definition of "hurled backward." When excited, some dogs (like mine) naturally bounce forward to bark and bounce back. That could be argued as hurled backward on a video.

I'd still like to see a loose dog with a simple bite/no-bite succeed/fail. The kind of protective gear in this photo is standard for training and competition, and allows an actual attack without injury. http://destinydobes.virtualave.net/images/bite2.jpg
 
A point or two here.
1. A trained attack dog is not necessarily angry when it attacks, it is doing as it is trained and commanded to do
2 In order to assure that the dog is actually angry it will be necessary to abuse the dog, this is illeagal most places
3. Finally, the dog has been commanded to attack nine times, each time it runs forward, reaches the end of it's chain, jerks to a stop and nearly strangles. The tenth time this is done to the poor dog it stops before it reaches the end of the chain, turns, and gives it's handler a dirty look. "thelight" wins the challange, because the dogs behaviour has changed without his touching it.

Robert
 
How bout a simple preliminary test just to be sure it works before going to all that trouble of applications and protocols and trained dogs?

Take your friend to a junkyard, auto-impound lot, or similar fenced facility that has a pit bull or Doberman. After hours, stand or crouch near the fence of said junkyard and form a “step” with your hands, allowing your friend to hop over the fence into the junkyard.

Have your friend test his telekinetic ability on the dog. A successful test result would be not getting horribly mauled.
 
Oh, I'd accept the protocol with just one change...no chain on the dog! ;)
 
Oh, and I note this is the FOURTH change in claim by thelight.

I think the only chain involved is the one of ours he is jerking...
 
I think we should lock thelight, jmercer and fowlsound in a room together, then have thelight speak in favor of alt-med. If his TK powers are fowlproof, he wins. If not, jmercer is there to restrain fowlsound before things get out of hand :)

Or you could take thelight (or his friend) to an attack dog training school, dress him up as the Michelin man, and let the dogs loose.
 
I did think you were serious...but surely you cant actually think this is real?
I think you went fishing and I initially took the bait...

man you sound like your dreaming...I mean repelling people backwards? breaking the laws of motion???? hahahahaha

good stuff.
 
thelight said:
OK I'm sensing lots of doubt and misunderstanding. Here's what I meant:

I stand still. Someone comes attacking using a "flying kick" technique. Before the person even touches me, he suddenly got repelled back in the direction he originally came from. And I never even touch the person.

The tricky part: The attacker must be intensely and genuinely be angry for this demonstration to work. Since this is difficult, we could substitute the man with a dobermann. Dobermanns have very intense anger. The trick to make this safe is to put a "cage" over the dog's mouth (dunno what's it called).

What can my friend do that I can't? My friend can actually repel the person backwards. I can only slightly alter the attacker's trajectory, just enough for him not to touch me. It doesn't look too convincing, and is subject to debate that it is trickery on the part of the attacker.

But my friend's ability is pretty convincing because it clearly defies Newton's law of motion.

The problem is, my friend can only speak Indonesian. He lives in Indonesia and can't read or write very well.

So, what do you guys reckon? Is this "paranormal"?
Click to expand...

No, it's "delusional".

Thank you for playing, please drive through.
 
2. The dobermann is chained. The length of the chain is shorter than the distance between the dog and the applicant, ensuring safety to the applicant.
Click to expand...
My guess is that, with this setup, the dog will be repelled before it reaches the attacker 10 out of 10 times. Am I reading this correctly? Nevermind, I'm leaving.
 
Donks said:
I think we should lock thelight, jmercer and fowlsound in a room together, then have thelight speak in favor of alt-med. If his TK powers are fowlproof, he wins. If not, jmercer is there to restrain fowlsound before things get out of hand :)
Click to expand...

Sure, but who's going to restrain me? ;)

Trooooolllin, trollin, trollin...
Keep them doggies trollin!
Rawhide! Yeehaa!
 
thelight said:
GzuzKryzt, let me reiterate, the ability can only work on living things, because emotions (anger) is involved. That is why I never claim that I can stop bullets, arrows or any dead objects.

I don't know what or who "Yellow Bamboo" is, and I don't intent to find out more. I know what I could do and I'll prove it. That's it.

I have never designed a test protocol, but the following is probably close to what I intend to do:

Objective: To repel an attacking dog without touching.
Success criteria: During the attack, the dog is hurled backwards even though it is not its intention to do so. "Hurled backwards" is defined that the dog's motion is contrary to the dog's trajectory of attack. The angle against the original trajectory is 180 degrees, plus minus 25 degrees.
Failure criteria: The dog is never once hurled backwards after ten repeated attempts.

Protocol:

1. A dobermann is used in the demonstrations. There is NO NEED to stimulate a dobermann, it would just attack any stranger entering its "territory".
2. The dobermann is chained. The length of the chain is shorter than the distance between the dog and the applicant, ensuring safety to the applicant. As an added safety measure, a muzzle is used over the dog's mouth. Using this, it could bark, but cannot bite.
3. The lenght of the chain is set to 20 metres. Distance between the dog's starting point to the applicant's starting point is 30 meters.
4. The test start with the dog sitting at the dog's starting point (farthest point from the applicant), being held back by its owner / master.
5. Upon a signal, the master let go the dog. If it is a trained, dog, the master could also give the attack command to the dog.
6. On the other side, the applicant would start approaching the dog upon the signal.
7. As both sides start their approaches, the applicant prepares to repel the dog without touching it. The maximum travel distance of the applicant is less than 10 meters to ensure safety.
8. If successful, the dog is flown backwards without the applicant even touching it (see Success Criteria above).


Would this suffice to serve as a Test Protocol?
Click to expand...

I have only two suggested changes to this self-test protocol:
1. A JREF protocol is going to add the (fairly obvious, but needs-to-be-stated) requirement that the dog's reversed trajectory must occur before it reaches the end of the chain.
2. In a similar previous preliminary test protocol, only ONE trial was run. Failure in that single run was to constitute failure of the test. They may be open to increasing the number of trials to about 3, but 10 may be a bit much. It could be problematic getting consistent behavior from an animal that many times.

It looks like you've got a pretty good start on a self-test to determine if you'd be able to reproduce this result. Have you ever succeeded in this activity with a dog? I wonder if that dog is available for you to test the protocol on?

Good luck in trying it out, and let us know how it goes!
 
When you perform your self-test, make sure that you have three officials present who will be willing to sign a notarized affidavit each that they could not explain what they saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom