Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

"Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"

By the way, if Pavel does get 29 out of 40 envelopes right, do you think he should be re-tested?

If he applies again, why not?

I don't want to derail this thread further, however, there seem quite a few a challenges out there for Pavel to pursue if the MDC ends in March 2010.

Rodney, what do you think of the protocol? Any comments, propositions?
 
So far, so interesting. I am sure that JREF will stipulate that no one who will be in the room during the testing will be present when the envelopes are prepared; also, what provision will there be to check the unopened envelopes to verify that all pairs were the specified pair? (That is to be sure no form of reading one-ahead or bringing in an extra envelope will be used. After the trial, if the opened photo was A, then the unopened envelope should have B, etc.)
I think there's a "write-o" in the protocol, as it provides for the cross to be used in 3 of the 4 sets of pictures...and I believe one of the goals was to not re-use a picture for the series immediately following?

I think I can see how JackalGirl gets totally into this! This is very interesting and fun.
 
Good points, Miss Kitt -- I'm so glad that JREF handles this, because after everything I've read, I still don't understand the one-ahead trick. : )

I think perhaps it might be a good idea to open the first envelope, record the results, then open the second envelope. Then set both aside. The second envelope from each pair can't and won't get mixed in or confused or anything because the envelopes will be open and thus easily identifiable.
 
I don't speak for JREF, but I am 99% certain that they will only consider success to be what's agreed to as a standard for success.
I agree with that.

If they agree that 30 out of 40 constitutes success, then 29 out of 40 will be a failure, period.
Here is where I think there needs to be a more sensible approach. The odds of getting 29 out of 40 correct by random chance are well under 1%. So, it seems to me that if the JREF is really open-minded about the paranormal, it would want Pavel re-tested in the near future to see if he could duplicate those results.

At that point, Pavel would be welcome to reapply a year later (if the MDC is still going on).
That's another problem isn't it? Suppose Pavel (or anyone else, for that matter) is close to passing the preliminary test when the clock runs out. Is the March 2010 expiration date for the JREF MDC Challenge set in stone?
 
Well, remember that the Challenge requires two tests: the preliminary and the formal tests. So if they agree that 29 out of 40 constitutes a success, then they'll run the test again to see if he can do it again. And since the Challenge consists of both tests, it doesn't matter if he only finishes the preliminary before the clock runs out -- the fact that there's a contract that requires a formal test upon success at the preliminary means that it (the second, formal test) will happen. Assuming, of course, I'm not misunderstanding how the MDC works. : )
 
So far, so interesting. I am sure that JREF will stipulate that no one who will be in the room during the testing will be present when the envelopes are prepared; also, what provision will there be to check the unopened envelopes to verify that all pairs were the specified pair? (That is to be sure no form of reading one-ahead or bringing in an extra envelope will be used. After the trial, if the opened photo was A, then the unopened envelope should have B, etc.)
I think there's a "write-o" in the protocol, as it provides for the cross to be used in 3 of the 4 sets of pictures...and I believe one of the goals was to not re-use a picture for the series immediately following?

I think I can see how JackalGirl gets totally into this! This is very interesting and fun.

I'm sure you're right about no one being in the room who was involved in preparing the envelopes.

Pavel has explained that an important part of the way his power works is that he should not see the contents of the second envelope. I believe he would be okay with opening them after the test.

What is "reading one ahead?" I'm ignorant about these things.
 
I'm sure you're right about no one being in the room who was involved in preparing the envelopes.

Pavel has explained that an important part of the way his power works is that he should not see the contents of the second envelope. I believe he would be okay with opening them after the test.

I think it will be important to make sure that the envelopes are properly labeled so that when, after the test, they are opened, it's clear which attempt each envelope belonged to.

What is "reading one ahead?" I'm ignorant about these things.

From Wikipedia, that ultimate source of accurate information:

The effect is generally worked as follows. Members of the audience write messages on small slips of paper, or billets. The messages can be questions for the deceased, or simply statements that the performer could not know. The billets are then put into individual sealed envelopes, which are collected and given to the performer. The performer then takes one envelope at a time and accurately describes the message inside. After announcing the contents of each envelope, the performer opens it, as if to confirm his reading.

The trick used in billet reading is the one-ahead method. It relies on the performer knowing what is inside one of the envelopes beforehand, and using that knowledge to stay one step ahead of the audience. He may do this by having a plant in the audience submit a pre-arranged message as one of the billets, or by secretly opening one envelope. When the performer pretends to read the contents of the first sealed envelope, he actually recites the plant's message or the message from the secretly opened envelope. When he opens the first envelope to "check" his answer, he actually reads the first billet, which he then pretends to "read" inside the second envelope. This process is repeated down to the final envelope, which is either an empty decoy, or the plant's envelope, or the secretly opened envelope. It is necessary, of course, that no one but the performer see the billets until the trick is completed and all the billets are out. If the secret-opening variant is used, the performer must use sleight of hand to conceal that the last envelope is already open, or to "extract" the last billet from an empty decoy envelope.

Okay, so I get it now. ; )
 
Here is where I think there needs to be a more sensible approach. The odds of getting 29 out of 40 correct by random chance are well under 1%. So, it seems to me that if the JREF is really open-minded about the paranormal, it would want Pavel re-tested in the near future to see if he could duplicate those results.

Despite many explanations, you still refuse to understand what the challenge is. It is a challenge. Either you pass or you fail. End of story. Whether the JREF, Pavel or anyone else thinks a failure is interesting enough to warrant further investigation is irrelevant, since that further investigation would simply be research and nothing to do with the challenge. Now stop trying to derail this thread.
 
If he applies again, why not?

I don't want to derail this thread further, however, there seem quite a few a challenges out there for Pavel to pursue if the MDC ends in March 2010.

Rodney, what do you think of the protocol? Any comments, propositions?
The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.
 
So let's suppose Pavel gets 29 out of 40 envelopes correct. Will the JREF want to see him re-tested before the MDC ends, or will they say that his failure constitutes more proof that there is no such thing as the paranormal?
I believe the JREF will claim that yet another applicant could not perform as he claimed.

If it can be managed before the challenge closes, Pavel can ask for a retest after one year.
 
The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.

Pavel named his propositions for "success" - actually he named a lot of them. As far as I can tell the protocol reflects Pavel's proposition.
 
The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.
Is it not completely up to Pavel to state what he can do and what he cannot do? The task for the JREF is to ensure that he will get the prize if he can do what he claims, and that he will not get the prize if he cannot do it. I see nothing arbitrary here, except what claim Pavel may have.
 
I think it should also be made part of the protocol that Pavel should get a non-blinded test where he can ascertain that his powers work under those conditions. In this way, he cannot later claim that the atmospheric pressure was too low, or that there was an odour in the room that ruined his concentration.
 
"Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"
I guess we speak a different language, because that does not sound at all like "The MDC Challenge is proof that the paranormal does not exist," to me.
By the way, if Pavel does get 29 out of 40 envelopes right, do you think he should be re-tested?
Yes, I think he should be re-tested 1,000,000 times until he wins by chance, because I like the guy!

IXP
 
As typical of such claims, the current applicant is already preparing "outs" should the stars be inauspicious on the day. Why am I completely underwhelmed?


M.
 
As typical of such claims, the current applicant is already preparing "outs" should the stars be inauspicious on the day. Why am I completely underwhelmed?


M.

I think low pressure should be defined properly in the protocol. Pavel, can you give the exact minimum pressure (in mb, kPa, Torr or psi) which has to be present for you to perform?

Concerning the odor: Which odors do you refer to specifically and what is the maximum (in ppm) allowed present for you to perform?

What minimum distance (in m or ft) must pictures have from you in order for you to be able to perform?
 
I think low pressure should be defined properly in the protocol. Pavel, can you give the exact minimum pressure (in mb, kPa, Torr or psi) which has to be present for you to perform?

Concerning the odor: Which odors do you refer to specifically and what is the maximum (in ppm) allowed present for you to perform?

What minimum distance (in m or ft) must pictures have from you in order for you to be able to perform?


here we go again.. any ways..

I don’t know mb, kPa, Torr or psi... and all of you perfectly understand what I mean by low pressure.. I am sure I am not the only one like that.. It is when Sky is covered with clouds and u feel like it is an evening so tired and low.. what ever that will be another reason to make fun of me.. We remove it from the conditions as already More than half the things that would make me more comfortable and helped me to perform better results.. that not much people interested in..

Re to odors I HATE when people not smell but stink with strong odors cause them over use it or mix it. Strong odors (perfumes) give me headache often.. what ever we remove it as well..
Every one happy??
Great lets move on!
Re to the pictures.. NO PICTURES ON THE WALLS OR ANY WHERE NEAR ME IN VISIBLE DISTANCE.. seeing them a specially if they have allot of colors and very bright, it can affect me.. by imprints in my brain and then it will appear in my vision when I will cover my ease.. Like when u look as the light and then still see it for some time when ur eyes closed.. ( stupid example but I think understandable)
Any think elts people don’t like here?? and for them it would be no problem to perform same test??

Have a nice weekend everyone.
 
Last edited:
I think low pressure should be defined properly in the protocol. Pavel, can you give the exact minimum pressure (in mb, kPa, Torr or psi) which has to be present for you to perform?

Concerning the odor: Which odors do you refer to specifically and what is the maximum (in ppm) allowed present for you to perform?

What minimum distance (in m or ft) must pictures have from you in order for you to be able to perform?

Pavel:

As a practical matter, some of your environmental conditions will be very difficult to measure objectively. Perhaps the best way around this will be if you are given a few minutes before the test to say whether the conditions are satisfactory. You would probably have to agree that once you have said the conditions are satisfactory, you will not be allowed to change your mind later.

Would this work for you?
 
Pavel:

As a practical matter, some of your environmental conditions will be very difficult to measure objectively. Perhaps the best way around this will be if you are given a few minutes before the test to say whether the conditions are satisfactory. You would probably have to agree that once you have said the conditions are satisfactory, you will not be allowed to change your mind later.

Would this work for you?

we just remove both "Preferences" as weather and Odor. Just hopefully there will be no cloudy and rainy day.. same as no one would come to the room where the test wil be hold.. smelling like the Perfume factory.. ( some people poring in on them self instead of having just a bit..)
 
we just remove both "Preferences" as weather and Odor. Just hopefully there will be no cloudy and rainy day.. same as no one would come to the room where the test wil be hold.. smelling like the Perfume factory.. ( some people poring in on them self instead of having just a bit..)

I suspect JREF is going to want you to agree at the beginning of the test that conditions are satisfactory. But then, I don't speak for JREF :)
 

Back
Top Bottom