Assistance required for telepathy proof

[Pup]

All ten words will be gone through in sequence and there should be one word which gives a large deflection on the polygraph over the others. This would then be the word that I was thinking of and the receiver on the polygraph has detected as I can telepathically transmit my thoughts. The JREF would then confirm the word that I was given and it would match the word that produced the deflection on the polygraph.

Here's about the only way I could see this being tested. The procedure would be done however many times are needed, with a different target word each time. Each trial would therefore have its own polygraph print-out with a series of ten words written on it, and a different word on each trial would supposedly have a large deflection, which wuold be the sending/receiving word for that trial.

At the end, you'd be shown all the polygraph results in random order, so you wouldn't know which word you were sending that time. You would have to mark down which word was the sending/receiving word on each print-out, based on your judgment of which had the large deflection.

Once you marked the words, your success or failure would be decided only based on whether or not you marked the correct words, and not the appearance of the polygraph results.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't believe a word of it.

 

[GimmePepsi]

At the end, you'd be shown all the polygraph results in random order, so you wouldn't know which word you were sending that time. You would have to mark down which word was the sending/receiving word on each print-out, based on your judgment of which had the large deflection.

Right, test him based on what he says he can do, not on what we think he should be able to do.

He's not really saying he can send the words so that the recipient can consciously identify them. That's just what we wish he could do, because it would make for an easier test. He's saying he can send the words so it causes a polygraph effect (that he can identify) at the recipient's end. So we must test for that. The human who happens to be attached to the polygraph becomes unimportant. Pup's proposal (or something like it) is what is needed.

 

[Loss Leader]

He's saying he can send the words so it causes a polygraph effect (that he can identify) at the recipient's end. So we must test for that. The human who happens to be attached to the polygraph becomes unimportant. Pup's proposal (or something like it) is what is needed.

I would hope that if the JREF actually does use a polygraph as part of a test, they would also do one or two controls. The receiver should be hooked up to the machine and told that the test is going on when it actually is not. Those results should be compared to the real test results. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what the heck a polygraph would normally show under such ... unique ... circumstances.

 

[Pup]

I would hope that if the JREF actually does use a polygraph as part of a test, they would also do one or two controls. The receiver should be hooked up to the machine and told that the test is going on when it actually is not. Those results should be compared to the real test results. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what the heck a polygraph would normally show under such ... unique ... circumstances.

But it wouldn't matter, would it? The point is not what the polygraph shows, normally or abnormally. The point is whether golfy can use it to correctly identify what word he sent.

There would be the usual open test, where golfy knows what word he's sending and then identifies it by the polygraph printout, but other than that, why would you need these kind of "fake test" controls?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
In reality I am the exact opposite of most claimants like magnet men, spoon benders, psychics etc in that I would welcome the to be the most rigorous, deceit proof test available which would totally eradicates all forms of human manipulation on both the receivers and transmitters side, all forms of mistakes being made etc and yet you seem to be trying to talk me out of it and into something that can be manipulated, tricks can be played and lies can be told. I am simply trying to steer the testing into the most scientific, manipulation proof manner humanly possible and people seem very uninterested in doing that. Why?

golfy

Great. What are your thoughts on the Achau Nguyen protocol?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Here's about the only way I could see this being tested. The procedure would be done however many times are needed, with a different target word each time. Each trial would therefore have its own polygraph print-out with a series of ten words written on it, and a different word on each trial would supposedly have a large deflection, which wuold be the sending/receiving word for that trial.

At the end, you'd be shown all the polygraph results in random order, so you wouldn't know which word you were sending that time. You would have to mark down which word was the sending/receiving word on each print-out, based on your judgment of which had the large deflection.

Once you marked the words, your success or failure would be decided only based on whether or not you marked the correct words, and not the appearance of the polygraph results.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: The JREF will most likely not entertain the use of a polygraph in a test.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Hello golfy,

All tests aside, when you "send" a word to a human receiver, does the human receiver then know what the word is? Is the receiver able to verbally say the word and write it down? Or does the receiver only sense that you are sending information without being able to accurately repeat the actual word?

Thanks,
DAO

 

[Rasmus]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: The JREF will most likely not entertain the use of a polygraph in a test.

As described, I see no problem with it.

The polygraph would not be used to actually determine the result.

The result would be if the individual polygraph recordings can be assigned to the words that were "sent", and as long as there is no connection between any of the stages of the process, that alone would be pranormal enough - i think.

 

[Loss Leader]

that alone would be pranormal enough - i think.

See, that's the crux of the problem. We're only guessing about what a polygraph might or might not show. That's because we really have no experience with what a polygraph actually would do in such a situation. It's like a magic trick where they show you some large box and then invite you to infer that there's no way to escape from it or that swords piercing it leave no room for the assistant to survive. We're filling in experience with expectation. That's why I suggest running a couple controls - just to see what the heck happens.

 

[Rasmus]

See, that's the crux of the problem. We're only guessing about what a polygraph might or might not show.

But that doesn't matter.

There's a sender and a recipient - even in a normal setup for testing.

As far as I understand this - and I might well be wrong - the recipient is now hooked up to a polygraph.

There is no connection from the sender to the recipient or from the sender to the polygraph.

So, if the sender can determine from the polygraph charts if the recipient was talking about a word that has been used in the experiment that, too, would be paranormal.

(The words would, after all, be random.)

That's because we really have no experience with what a polygraph actually would do in such a situation. It's like a magic trick where they show you some large box and then invite you to infer that there's no way to escape from it or that swords piercing it leave no room for the assistant to survive. We're filling in experience with expectation. That's why I suggest running a couple controls - just to see what the heck happens.

I don't think it matters, as long as the polygraph cannot measure an actual effect.

So *unless* there is a way to tell by looking at a polygraph-chart if it was recoded for "Did you just now receive the word rubber-duck?" or "Did you just now receive the word breakfast?" I see no problem.

 

[Pup]

See, that's the crux of the problem. We're only guessing about what a polygraph might or might not show. That's because we really have no experience with what a polygraph actually would do in such a situation. It's like a magic trick where they show you some large box and then invite you to infer that there's no way to escape from it or that swords piercing it leave no room for the assistant to survive. We're filling in experience with expectation. That's why I suggest running a couple controls - just to see what the heck happens.

What am I missing? With the protocol I proposed, the polygraph is unimportant. It could be a magic wand, a can of Red Bull, a pendulum, a special crystal... anything.

There's no point in investigating it, other than to check it for hidden transmitters/receivers, unless golfy's test proves something paranormal is going on. The JREF has always been firm about not caring what the person uses or how they're doing the trick, except to eliminate cheating.

As long as the test is properly blinded and the room is swept for the usual hidden transmitters and such, it doesn't matter to the JREF side what the polygraph does. All the JREF would care about is if golfy, in the end, using his magic crystal or his polygraph or whatever, could name the right words. No judging, no importance placed on the polygraph print-out at all.

(Just noticed Rasmus posted, saying about the same thing.)

 

[golfy]

Hi All,

Can anyone show me how to upload the test results, text and pictures of the GSR as I don't have enough posts yet to do so. It may give you a better understanding of what I am trying to achieve. I can email it to anyone who can post them - I have done that to Czarcasm but he has thrown his rattle out of the pram already and is not logging on anymore. Will anyone else like to help to get the University results up on the forum for others to see.

Thanks for the intelligent comments Timothy, Pup, GimmePepsi, Loss Leader, Rasmus and others. Keep it up, it is helping.

Regards

golfy@qmcr.fsnet.co.uk

golfy

 

[alfaniner]

golfy, have you read the entire terms of the Challenge, and the associated FAQ?

I highly recommend it before you proceed.

 

[Rasmus]

Golfy, give people some time; some of us (an insignificant minority, but there you are) have lifes outside the forum and do not spend all their time online here.

Can you give a quick explanation as to what it is your are doing? I am not sure, e.g. if you need the polygraph to make your thing work or if you think it is necessary to ensure that the subject cannot misrepresent what they are experiencing. (Does it work with everybody? Trust me, for the 10% cut you mentioned I would try very hard to get it right ...)

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Golfy--

If you manage to arrange an acceptable testing condition with Randi, and can also financially arrange for my transport to and from the testing site, I would be more than happy to volunteer to be your recipient. And there is no need for a polygraph. Here's my reasoning:

You are offering 10% ($100,000) to the recipient, should you win the prize. That amount of money would change my life immeasurably. Therefore, were I to receive your thoughts, it is my own best interests to tell the truth. Not to mention what I might receive from magazine interviews, appearances on Oprah, and a possible book deal.

So yes, I'll volunteer, no polygraph necessary (although I don't object to being hooked up to one, Randi might). Let me know when and where, and where to pick up the plane tickets.

 

[Mojo]

Can you give a quick explanation as to what it is your are doing? I am not sure, e.g. if you need the polygraph to make your thing work or if you think it is necessary to ensure that the subject cannot misrepresent what they are experiencing. (Does it work with everybody? Trust me, for the 10% cut you mentioned I would try very hard to get it right ...)

The trouble is that it appears that golfy might be suggesting that if the polygraph can be interpreted as showing that the receiver is lying about or whether they'd received anything, that could somehow be counted as a hit:

The polygraph prevents the receiver from trying to hide the fact that he/she has heard the answer or number but is then denying it or perhaps it is subconscious as has been suggested but I doubt it.

During the test I have done before I have been given very strong indications in and out of the lab that others can hear my thoughts quite clearly but they always deny it. I can’t see how the other person (receiver) has then responded to me when I was reading the notes that I was given which then caused a deflection of the GSR if they didn’t hear my thoughts. But that said they heard nothing – the graphs shows different.

If it was a simple case of the person writing down what they heard when I think then I would have the challenge in the bag already. As it seems that people do not want to admit that they can actually hear my thoughts then a polygraph would get around the deception problem if it exists. I can certainly produce correlating GSR plots when thinking to people things that would raise their GSR as has been shown, a polygraph is just a fancy GSR which is more accurate and would provide more exact results than the GSR which then requires less interpretation.

Anything requiring this sort of interpretation would definitely not be an acceptable challenge protocol. The polygraph evidence wouldn't be relevant to the challenge and its presence would merely complicate the protocol, increase expenses, and give golfy an excuse to dispute the results of an unsuccessful challenge.

Golfy: for a successful challenge your receiver would have to correctly identify an agreed number of target words (or pictures, or whatever) that you had 'sent' them. If they claimed to have received nothing, or 'receive' the wrong words, it would still be a miss, whatever the polygraph appeared to say. The polygraph, because it requires interpretation, would not be an acceptable part of a challenge protocol.

 

[Rasmus]

The trouble is that it appears that golfy might be suggesting that if the polygraph can be interpreted as showing that the receiver is lying about or whether they'd received anything, that could somehow be counted as a hit:

Ah, I see what you mean.

Well, I thought that the claim would include the applicant's (i.e. golfy's) ability to read the charts and thus tell which chart corresponds to the word the sender was receiving.

That is: Golfy, here are the charts labeled 1 to 10, the correspond - in random order - to the words "car", "rubber duck", "corn dog", "swimming pool", ... and "swimming pool".

You transmitted the word "rubber duck"; please identify which chart the recipient produced when he was questioned about the word "rubber duck".

Of course, I might be wrong. If it's only about making sure that the recipient is honest we're out of luck. I don't think there is a way to ensure that the recipient doesn't cheat in favour of the JREF. (Hence, it would be best if the applicant could simply bring a trusted party that has passed private trials to begin with.)

 

[golfy]

Hi Rasmus,

In the time you took to write that you could have emailed me and asked me for the University results and posted them on the forum as you have over 1800 posts.

The university results show what I am trying to achieve or replicate.

Basis test – receiver on a GSR – at a set time I think of something that would stress him – his GSR goes up – wait a set time and repeat – if there is a correlation between when I am trying to cause stress in the receiver and his GSR has increased in those periods and not in the “rest” periods then paranormal (telepathy) forces exist.

A polygraph is just more accurate and can be used in different ways – the stress is mainly caused by the persons denial of hearing a word he did hear – this should only happen on the one word out of ten that he/she is asked about – i.e. the word I was thinking. A polygraph also has countermeasures on to prevent false readings being created by squeezing the buttocks etc which causes similar readings to a lie which could be used to ruin the test.

I do have a friend in Germany who has in the past repeated words to me that I am thinking. I asked him to say the number I was thinking which was between 1 and 20 and was a plural word like twenty fives, twenty sixes etc. He immediately said I was thinking of twelves or thirteens (does thirteens sound like twelves?) and I said I was thinking of twelves as my Dr is Dr Twelves.

He has shown in other tests that he can hear me directly (I know he can hear me fully but he likes to stall for some reason) by flinching on words that I am thinking of and repeating what I am thinking back to me but then denying it when I ask him about it.

Hi NobbyNobbs,

I know that I am telepathic, I know how far it goes and I know that people can hear me word for word when I think – if that receiver was totally honest then there would be no need for a polygraph. At the University the receiver has many times shown me he can hear my thoughts but has always denied it. On the GSR tests he reacted as I expected and produced the results I would expect to get if he could hear me mentally but yet still denies that he can hear a thing.

If you are as straight as you sound on the forum then winning the $100,000 simply comes down to being honest – like you say it is in your interest to do so. I would gladly have you as the recipient and would be very happy to give you the $100,000 for what is basically a few hour work. Any other deals you can get to boost your income would be a bonus to you and I hope you get as much out of it as you expect to.

As a preliminary test NobbyNobbs can you tell me my surname?

I know how far I can “think” so no excuses.

golfy

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Czarcasm asked me to post the information he received from golfy. As soon as I have said data I will post it.