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

[The Professor]

You only had to say it once.

What you have to do now is listen when we tell you:

1. Just saying it doesn't make it so without some serious specs, which so far you refuse to discuss.

2. It doesn't really matter because you haven't altered your claim, which has already been rejected as untestable.

3. It doesn't matter because even if you succeeded in producing voices on a tape, that is not self-evidently paranormal but would require some kind of human judgment.

My advice, if you're serious here (which many of us have our doubts about) is to talk less, and start listening and answering more.

Bottom line: Rewording a rejected application doesn't turn it into an acceptable application.

Seems like you are saying that no matter what I do or say my Application will ultimatly be rejected.
How do you know that for a fact?
It has been stated elswhere that I will NEVER be accepted.
What do you know that I don't?
I am answering questions and have NEVER REFUSED to discuss serious specs!
My claim has NEVER been rejected as untestable! (You're making stuff up!)
You'd better check your facts before misquoting the truth here!

You Piggy, are blowing smoke here to confuse my honest attempt to take this test!

Thanks everyone for your ideas. I d also like to thank those who are helping via PM as well!

 

[Loss Leader]

How hard is it to come up with a protocol for an EVP claim? Let me take a crack at it:

I, Loss Leader, claim to be able to influence a recording device to pick up sound that cannot be heard otherwise.

1. I will meet the JREF representatives at a Fort Lauderdale hotel of their choosing unknown to me until an hour before the test.

2. I will immediately proceed with the JREF representatives to a room of their choosing, unknown to me before meeting at the hotel.

3. The JREF will produce three brand new in package, identical Olympus VN-4100 digital voice recorders with brand new in package batteries. Each recorder will be set up in identical XHQ recording modes and each will be tested with the phrase "Mary had a little lamb." The JREF and I will agree that each recorder was able to record and play back the test message.

4. The three recorders will be set out on the table no more than 6" from each other. The recorders will be labeled A, B and C. I will not touch the recorders or the table. The recorders will begin recording.

5. The JREF will produce a 6-sided die and will roll it. A result of 1 or 2 will indicate recorder A, 3 or 4 will indicate recorder B, and 5 or 6 will indicate recorder C. The JREF and I will agree on which recorder has been indicated.

6. The representative from the JREF will say, in a loud, clear voice, "Begin test." 120 seconds later, the recorders will be switched to stop recording.

7. The JREF will unwrap a new in package SCOSCHE SPL1000 dB meter with new batteries. It will be set to "max hold." The recorders will each, in turn, be placed next to the dB meter and played.

8. The previously-indicated recorder will register a max dB during the 120 second time period of at least 3x the highest max dB of either of the other two recorders.

9. Loss Leader will jump up and down like an idiot, yelling, "I win! I win!"

10. Step 10 is added for completeness.

 

[The Professor]

That post also contained five questions that you have never answered. So you are Nit Picking about one statement is a long post? Is that it? That's all you got? One complaint with a single statement in the post?

There has been exactly one hoop to jump through from the JREF: state a claim that can be tested within the rules of the Challange. You have not jumped through that hoop. Just because you say there will be a Paranormal Event does not make it true. If you are to be tested you will have to state how exactly there will be a self evident paranormal event. If you can't see that then I question your motives.

Your motives seem suspect when you refuse to state how your claim is paranormal and how to properly test it.

Your post does NOT contain five questions. (I quoted it and everyone can see it!)
EXACTLY MY POINT ...... YOU ARE WRONG AND MISLEADING.
YOUR RESPONSE PROVES IT!

 

[Pantaz]

So you are Nit Picking about the TENSE of a statement that could be taken either way? Is that it? That's all you got? One problem with the tense of a word?
Transparent!

I am jumping through every hoop provided!
I have stated my claim and I am working on getting to the point that no one has any complaints with it. What I claim is a Paranormal Event with me at the center of it. If you can't see that then I question your motives.

Your motives seem suspect when you complain about the 'tense' of a single word.

... And your motives seem suspect when you ignore every pertinent question to focus on one, inconsequential item.

As for "jumping through hoops" -- there are only two questions of any importance (which have been asked multiple times):

1. What is your testable claim?
2. What is the test protocol?​

 

[Personal Grudge]

TP,

Just to try and start cutting this down to the bare basics... do you agree that a voice on recorded media does not constitute objective evidence of the paranormal? That even if the voice is perfectly clear, and even if the observers do not immediately know how the voice was recorded on the media... this is not objective evidence?

Do you agree with this statement? I think the general confusion is occurring because of a disagreement about what is "testable".

 

[0m3g4]

Your post does NOT contain five questions. (I quoted it and everyone can see it!)
EXACTLY MY POINT ...... YOU ARE WRONG AND MISLEADING.
YOUR RESPONSE PROVES IT!

"In My Spare Time" clearly meant post #356, made by yairhol, who in fact posed 5 questions (indicated by the use of question marks), none of which you answered. No yelling will help you there. Please stop accusing others, when in fact, we are just trying to help you.

 

[The Professor]

I have stated and restated the claim MANY TIMES ... Is this how you prolong this situation? Or don't you read what has already been written? Writing fake protocols?
How does that assist in these protocols? Just more Smoke!
Some here are actually trying to help while the rest seem to be on some mission to confuse all of the issues.
Then I have people telling me that Randi himself has been say I didn't apply at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMrgr1yR3k0
At 2:50. I don't want to believe that people are purposely refusing to tell the truth about my application and my claim, but several here have also denied that I would apply and they have predicted that no matter what I do the JREF will NEVER allow me to take the Challenge.

I have stated my claim and my protocol.
I am willing to rephrase my claim if it doesn't seem Paranormal enough.
I've already said I will remove all trickery!

 

[e-sabbath]

Seems like you are saying that no matter what I do or say my Application will ultimatly be rejected.
How do you know that for a fact?
It has been stated elswhere that I will NEVER be accepted.
What do you know that I don't?
I am answering questions and have NEVER REFUSED to discuss serious specs!

What are these entities that you will ask questions of?
How are you assured they will reply?
What are the ways they may reply to you?
Why is Oct 31 so critical?
Why is the Devil's Chair so important?

And most importantly, what is paranormal about hearing voices?

If we knew more about your claim, perhaps we could help further.

I will tell the story form the beginning and it will answer these questions. The afternoon thunder storms are here right now and I will have to shut off the computer in a minute.
I will answer these questions when I return if the mods permit it?

I'm waiting and listening, Professor.

 

[The Professor]

"In My Spare Time" clearly meant post #356, made by yairhol, who in fact posed 5 questions (indicated by the use of question marks), none of which you answered. No yelling will help you there. Please stop accusing others, when in fact, we are just trying to help you.

Squirm and try to change the facts if you want but HIS POST did not contain the five questions. That's a fact!
What kind of Critical Thinking are you using here? Just change the post numbers around and it's all OK, so you can say whatever you want and we must accept it? We are not blind.

 

[The Professor]

TP,

Just to try and start cutting this down to the bare basics... do you agree that a voice on recorded media does not constitute objective evidence of the paranormal? That even if the voice is perfectly clear, and even if the observers do not immediately know how the voice was recorded on the media... this is not objective evidence?

Do you agree with this statement? I think the general confusion is occurring because of a disagreement about what is "testable".

Removing All trickery, a voice or image that appears on a tape, hard drive, or video, of a sound, word, picture, or image that could not have gotten there in any earthly manner, then that would be Paranormal.

 

[Czarcasm]

Squirm and try to change the facts if you want but HIS POST did not contain the five questions. That's a fact!
What kind of Critical Thinking are you using here? Just change the post numbers around and it's all OK, so you can say whatever you want and we must accept it? We are not blind.

We?

 

[Personal Grudge]

No squirming from me, TP. I'm interested in your clear-cut definition of objective evidence of the paranormal, as well as your thoughts concerning my question in post # 365.

Since the results of a successful test should be evident to the casual observer, then exactly what form do you expect these results to take? I am truly interested, especially if you actually have a method by which objective evidence may be obtained in this test.

However, keep in mind... a voice on a tape is only objective evidence of... well, a voice on a tape. No matter how it got there.

 

[Loss Leader]

I've already said I will remove all trickery!

How will you remove all trickery?

What steps will you take to remove all trickery?



Bonus: Do you agree that my fake protocol above removes all trickery? If not, how could a person cheat that protocol?

 

[jimtron]

So you are Nit Picking about the TENSE of a statement that could be taken either way? Is that it? That's all you got? One problem with the tense of a word?
Transparent!

No, not nitpicking about tense--what was meant, I think, was that NOW is the time to tell us how trickery will be eliminated. You and the JREF MUST agree on the specifics of the protocol to proceed with the challenge. Have JREF reps agreed yet that your claim follows the rules--that it's testable? If not, are you going to work on that? Here is a good place to hammer out ideas, as we have experience with previous challengers. We are not discouraging you from applying and winning--on the contrary, we're encouraging you to specify a testable claim, which is absolutely essential to apply. I haven't seen any posts that are trying to talk you out of applying, or to discourage you. You are holding yourself back by not getting more specific about your claim. Please let me know if a JREF rep has agreed that you have a testable claim (most of us on this thread are not JREF reps).

You continue to participate on this thread, so it seems as though you're interested in discussing your challenge. We saw that you said no trickery will be involved. We hear you. But why do you keep avoiding the question of HOW YOU WILL PROVE THAT THE VOICE (or whatever) IS ACTUALLY PARANORMAL? Saying "no trickery" is not enough information for applying, AFAIK.

Dave: Why do you keep avoiding this question: How will you prove that your event will objectively demonstrate the paranormal (as opposed to a magic trick or spook show)?

Have you looked at threads in this forum with previous applicants, to see what kinds of issues come up? That would help, because you could avoid these pitfalls.

Once again, you can apply without participating on this forum if you like. But the suggestions we are giving you are ones that will help you to comply with the rules of the challenge. If you don't comply with the rules of the challenge, you can't win it. Do you sincerely believe that you have a paranormal event to demonstrate? If so, how do you know it's paranormal? What is it--a voice from the dead? Something else?

Do you sincerly want to apply for the challenge, or are you hoping that you'll get turned down so you can complain about the MDC? If you truly can demonstrate a paranormal event, I see no reason why you can't apply and win, and I encourage you to do so.

 

[Personal Grudge]

Forgive me, I do see that you responded to my question in post # 365.

However, I would still disagree that this constitutes objective evidence of the paranormal. I am not trying to accuse you of dishonesty. I'm simply saying that an image is evidence of an image... a voice is evidence of a voice. None of these are within themselves paranormal. And being unaware of how an image or voice was recorded on the media does not default the answer to "paranormal" phenomena.

 

[Personal Grudge]

Also, please forgive me if I seem argumentative. That is not my intent. I have seen way too much altered video, photoshopped images, tricks with invisible ink, etc. It becomes natural to start questioning this type of evidence.

If possible, can you please give your suggestions on how trickery will be avoided? I know you mention that you and the JREF will work together to remove all chances of trickery, but I'm sincerely interested in your initial thoughts.

 

[The Professor]

Removing All trickery, a voice or image that appears on a tape, hard drive, or video, of a sound, word, picture, or image that could not have gotten there in any earthly manner, then that would be Paranormal.

The what would YOUR definition of paranormal be if Images voices or pictures that could have been made in NO EARTHLY MANNER and with NO TRICKERY not be considered Paranormal?

 

[jimtron]

Excerpt of official correspondence from the JREF (this is from the Challenge Applications forum):

Mr. Koenig,

Thank you for your continued interest.

I ask again - how is recording a name and responses to questions paranormal? If you say "Because they came from a paranormal entity," then I have to ask how you know that it's a paranormal entity. And then you have to show me the evidence that any paranormal entity exists whatsoever. Again, you're still working off a prior assumption. Changing the word from "ghost" to "paranormal entity" does nothing for your cause.

Again, no matter what is captured it is a subjective interpretation - and I don't mean just because of what the "paranormal entity's voice" says, but also because whether or not it is paranormal in the first place is up for subjective interpretation.

This is simply not how Challenge tests are conducted.

I am asking you to, once more, please clarify how this test could ever be objective in any way. And if you are again unsuccessful, then I see no reason to leave your Challenge file open.

Thank you again.

That is the last official word from JREF. Dave, I want you to apply. All you need to do is answer the questions above. Please, prove us all wrong. Follow the rules carefully and apply. What's keeping you from doing that?

Obviously they're not going to give a million bucks up for a magic show or mentalism show or spook show. We're looking for actual paranormal stuff. If such a thing exists, I don't know why it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.
- Jim

 

[0m3g4]

Squirm and try to change the facts if you want but HIS POST did not contain the five questions. That's a fact!
What kind of Critical Thinking are you using here? Just change the post numbers around and it's all OK, so you can say whatever you want and we must accept it? We are not blind.

"In My Spare Time" never claimed that his post would contain five questions. Still you start yelling and accusing him of being misleading. Now you are being aggressive towards me. Fine. Start calling me names if it helps you. Still this will not bring you any further to a testable claim or even an acceptable protocol.

 

[The Professor]

Forgive me, I do see that you responded to my question in post # 365.

However, I would still disagree that this constitutes objective evidence of the paranormal. I am not trying to accuse you of dishonesty. I'm simply saying that an image is evidence of an image... a voice is evidence of a voice. None of these are within themselves paranormal. And being unaware of how an image or voice was recorded on the media does not default the answer to "paranormal" phenomena.

If something "Appears" from NO EARTHLY SOURSE and ALL TRICKERY HAS BEEN REMOVED will you still say it is not Paranormal?

Say an Elephant "Appears" in a large crate and Randi and I have removed all chances of trickery, you would still say it's a trick wouldn't you.