• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Psychic Samurai applies for MDC...apparently...

Status
Not open for further replies.
chillzero said:
which is why I have prompted a few times for people to discuss the protocol.
Click to expand...

I am more than willing to discuss the Protocol. I have been promised that the bashing by unfriendly skeptics will stop. If this is the case I am willing to proceed. I see the challenges before me and I would appreciate any honest ideas from contributing members in a positive way to insure a "Fair" Test.
I would like to thank the JREF for accepting the media and academic materials, and I am thrilled to continue with the Protocol.
Thanks
Dave
 
Do you understand that if voices are heard, what they say should be self-evident and not subject to interpretation by experts, partial or impartial?
 
The Professor said:
I am more than willing to discuss the Protocol. I have been promised that the bashing by unfriendly skeptics will stop. If this is the case I am willing to proceed. I see the challenges before me and I would appreciate any honest ideas from contributing members in a positive way to insure a "Fair" Test.
I would like to thank the JREF for accepting the media and academic materials, and I am thrilled to continue with the Protocol.
Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

Hi Dave:

I am glad that you applied, and look forward to you taking the challenge. Do you have any thoughts regarding my previous post (#160)? I don't think the protocol necessarily has to get too complicated, but you do understand that tricks/effects/illusions etc must be ruled out, right?

To get things moving along, I think it would help a great deal if you would be as specific as possible about what you plan to do. Then we can respond with ideas. And as always, most of us here on the forum don't officially represent the JREF. But many of us are familiar with many past applicants and might have ideas about how to avoid potential problems.
 
Czarcasm said:
But the reason for the MDC is to test the actual claims of the testee, not to reinterpret the claim to suit our needs. Unless the claimant himself says that what is being tested is the production of "voices from nothing", and not "voices from the afterlife", then the claimant will have to show that the voices do indeed come from the afterlife.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory, but that idea has some excellent problems from an operational standpoint. We have no machine to tell us whether or not a voice is indeed from the afterlife or not, so if Mr. Koenig's claim is really that he can summon a voice from the afterlife it will be deemed untestable because it, well, is.

Restricting ourselves to what we do have the knowledge to test seems to lead to a "voice from nothing" affair, or at least something close to it. Mr. Koenig's rather specific date and time at which he can be tested creates many problems, but I am confident himself and RemieV can come up with a workable protocol, though I would remind Mr. Koenig that the protocol must be mutually agreeable before any testing can take place.

~ Matt
 
The Professor said:
I am more than willing to discuss the Protocol. I have been promised that the bashing by unfriendly skeptics will stop. If this is the case I am willing to proceed.
Click to expand...

Hm. Who has promised this?

Another rhetorical question: Would you be willing to forfeit a chance to make a million dollars because of "bashing by unfriendly skeptics"? Seriously?

I recommend - again - that you simply ignore non-constructive posts.

The Professor said:
I see the challenges before me and I would appreciate any honest ideas from contributing members in a positive way to insure a "Fair" Test.
I would like to thank the JREF for accepting the media and academic materials, and I am thrilled to continue with the Protocol.
Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

An honest idea: As per the rules you make the claim, you propose a protocol. And you propose a falsifiable test.

How would you do that?
 
I think somebody in this thread already mentioned it, but depending on exactly what the claim is, hypersonic sound (HSS) would be one thing to rule out. No idea how recording devices react to it, but it would be one way to produce the illusion of a disembodied voice in a particular outdoor location.
 
In answer to your question GK, I have been told this was a Friendly forum and not just the opposite. In fact, if you will take a look at the top of the page it says
James Randi Educational Foundation
A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a "Friendly" way
As to your "Honest idea", I hope that ALL of your ideas are honest, aren't they? :)

I am looking forward to working with RemieV on an acceptable protocol as MattC and I are both convinced of this. Thanks Matt!

I also do not see where I've limited myself to "Voices from the dead" although that is the general assumption as to who someone might hear from on 10/31. Would you like to hear exactly as I'd like the process to unfold (Might be lengthy) or should we take it one section at a time?
Thanks
Dave
 
The Professor said:
In answer to your question GK, I have been told this was a Friendly forum and not just the opposite. In fact, if you will take a look at the top of the page it says
James Randi Educational Foundation
A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a "Friendly" way
As to your "Honest idea", I hope that ALL of your ideas are honest, aren't they? :)

I am looking forward to working with RemieV on an acceptable protocol as MattC and I are both convinced of this. Thanks Matt!

I also do not see where I've limited myself to "Voices from the dead" although that is the general assumption as to who someone might hear from on 10/31. Would you like to hear exactly as I'd like the process to unfold (Might be lengthy) or should we take it one section at a time?
Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

You introduced the "honest idea", remember? Please refrain from peytonstrawmanning me.

Now for the inquiry you ignored: How do you propose to allow for falsifiability in your protocol proposal, The Professor?
 
Dave: Please do tell us the entire process, and please be as specific as possible.

This is a friendly forum for the most part, but sometimes people do get frustrated. If you look through this particular MCD forum, you'll see that many people have made claims which were vague and/or untestable. Many claimants never get around to being specific, or coming up with a claim that is actually testable, even after pages and pages of questions and answers.

So if you are sincere about the challenge, please tell us exactly what you plan to do, and understand that JREF isn't going to give away the million to someone performing a magic or mentalism effect. So you're demonstration must allow for a protocol where it's indisputably that whatever is happening (voice or whatever) is happening for paranormal reasons--not because of a trick or special effect.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.
 
The Professor said:
I also do not see where I've limited myself to "Voices from the dead" although that is the general assumption as to who someone might hear from on 10/31. Would you like to hear exactly as I'd like the process to unfold (Might be lengthy) or should we take it one section at a time?
Click to expand...
How about simply telling us how you suggest that something paranormal can be demonstrated that will not call for a vote by experts if they could hear a voice or not, or if that voice was disembodied or not.

I have no idea how much control you have over the voices, but it might help if the voices could say something that would clearly demonstrate the paranormal, such as revealing what is inside the famous locker of James Randi.

Have you made any testing yourself of the expected phenomena, or will it be a first for you? If you have, what controls did you use?
 
The Professor said:
I also do not see where I've limited myself to "Voices from the dead" although that is the general assumption as to who someone might hear from on 10/31.
Click to expand...

If you actually told us what you are going to do, and what the end result will be, and how this is a paranormal event, the speculation as to what you "might" be going to do would end immediately.


Would you like to hear exactly as I'd like the process to unfold (Might be lengthy) or should we take it one section at a time?
Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

That is what people have been asking for throughout this thread. Instead of semi-regularly telling us that you will (or might) tell people what you are going to do, why not just cut to the chase,and tell us exactly what is going to happen? Again, this will end speculation from the members of this Board

Norm
 
The Professor said:
I also do not see where I've limited myself to "Voices from the dead"
Click to expand...

Then if you don't mind my asking, what exactly are you claiming you will do?

Are you claiming you can perform a trick? Or that you are going to provide evidence of something paranormal?

This distinction is critical.

Unfortunately, when you say things like "I... do not see where I've limited myself", it sounds like you're intentionally dodging, and that you're out to perform a trick rather than to honestly demonstrate anything.

Now please understand, I don't mean that to be in any way "unfriendly". I'm just laying things out on the table.

The Professor said:
although that is the general assumption as to who someone might hear from on 10/31.
Click to expand...

Please understand that this is irrelevant.

Any "assumption" is entirely outside the scope of the challenge.

Those assumptions don't matter. They can be dispensed with.

The question is: Are you intending to show evidence of a paranormal event or activity? And if so, what is that event or activity, and how will you conclusively demonstrate it?

The Professor said:
Would you like to hear exactly as I'd like the process to unfold (Might be lengthy) or should we take it one section at a time?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter how lengthy it is, but yes, I'm sure all of us would be very interested in a precise description of what you intend to do.

Provided, that is, that what you intend to do actually will demonstrate some paranormal ability or event.

Thanks.
 
Thanks for all of your comments :)
And ....If you think I am going to sit on the Devils Chair in the Lake Helen Cemetery at Midnight and do a Sponge Bunny routine, don't you think Randi would catch on? PLEEZE!
I will post the entire procedure in detail. I will ignore those with Bad Attitudes from the Get Go. This needs to be Fair all the way around. This is supposed to be about the upcoming test, correct? Randi has stated numerous times that this process will not be difficult.
Firstly .. THE PLACE
The place is the Cemetery at Lake Helen Florida. It is actually closer to the city of Cassadaga and many people refer to it as theirs. It isn't, even though many of their former residents are buried there. The particular grave site is referred to as The Devil's Chair. It is a brick chair designed to be between two graves, placed there for meditation and other purposes. There are three similar chairs in total. This is the one on the uppermost part of the hill. The chair is at least 300 yards from the nearest residence just off hand. It is towards the center of the cemetery. There seem to be no other buildings in the immediate area. (I haven't searched the woods on the far side)
The Chair is not hidden in any way. It is in plain view from all angles.
 
Czarcasm said:
Concerning the upcoming test: Will the results of this test be self-evident, or will there need for interpretation by experts?
Click to expand...

You do not need to answer me, or the people posting in this thread.

I quote from the thread in the Challenge Application Forum:

"[...]Mr. Koenig has been informed that, as of yet, his claim does not meet the requirements for a Challenge test as it requires subjective interpretation and does not rely upon objective, quantifiable evidence. However, we are
not dismissing his claim outright, and are awaiting responses that will either show us how there will be quantifiable evidence and leave the file open and negotiable, or how there cannot be, in which case the file will be closed.[...]"

You will surely need to answer the JREF: How do you propose to allow for falsifiability in your protocol proposal, The Professor?
 
The Professor said:
Many experts will be used to assure the test is fair and accurate. The outcome will be self-evident.
Click to expand...
The self-evident outcome certainly sounds encouraging!

What will the purpose of the experts be? Assistance in hammering out the details, or will they have a practical purpose during the test?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom