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

[Personal Grudge]

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?

I think perhaps I'm confused about what would constitute a voice or image that could have been made in no earthly manner... would this voice and/or image actually be different from other voices and images? Or do we just mean the following:

1) The media is verified to be blank.
2) The media begins recording.
3) Replaying the media reveals a voice or image that was not there before.


If you do mean the above scenario, then I am more inclined to believe this to fall within the realm of the paranormal. But again, please forgive me, I have seen stage magicians perform tricks that I could not explain. I have seen an image appear on a canvas with just a wave of the magician's hand.

Granted, this was a trick. The magician was involved in the setup. So, I am very interested in your suggestions for removing a chance for trickery. Once we have heard your list of suggestions, that may allow others to gauge if there are any holes.

 

[IMST]

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!

This seems to be much anger over a mistake you made in reading. Here is what I said:

That post also contained five questions that you have never answered.

You should note that I did not say "this post" that would have meant that I was refering to the post you quoted in your statement above. In fact, I was refering to the post requoted below by yairhol which does contain five questions, only one of which you in any way adressed.

Why are you using future tense when you should be using present tense?
October 31st (or is it the 30th) is coming awfully quick this time of year.
Do you think you will be ready on time?
Have you thought about addressing your claim more clearly?
Have you thought about how to stop any trickery possibilities?
I have suggested some protocol adjustments on the previous page. Maybe you can address them?

The last four are highly relevant to your claim and it would be very helpful to those here that are interested in discussing the protocal if you were to answer them.

Oh, and thanks 0m3g4, you were exactly right with your points defending me here.

 

[Personal Grudge]

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.

Actually, I wouldn't adamantly demand it was a trick. But I also would not immediately assume that it was paranormal. I freely admit that I can be fooled. I'm happy that I can be fooled, as it allows me to enjoy a show by a skilled illusionist. Do I suspect that the lady on stage is not really levitating? Certainly. But, if someone wants to claim that they really can levitate, then I probably want to know they are not performing the same trick I saw on stage.

Which is why I am very interested in how you would suggest that trickery be prevented? If an elephant appeared in a box, I would certainly want to examine the box before I accepted that something paranormal occurred.

 

[jimtron]

Dave:

I think we're all (including you I'd guess) getting tired of this bickering. Why not just answer the questions that were asked by the official JREF rep on the application forum, and let's move forward. I want to see this happen.

To remind you:

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.

From here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122607

best,

Jim

 

[Azrael 5]

Is it me or is all the constant reminders of a YouTube video and references to Randi off topic just baiting by The Professor?
Also Professor,Houdini never set up this challenge of yours.He had an agreed code word with his wife should he ever give message from the grave.Nothing to do with sat on silly stone chairs on Halloween.

Answer the JREF official question or just go away.You bore me with your circular talk.
Here's Azrael's challenge:In your next post write clearly the answers to offical JREF questions.Nothing else whatsoever.
See if you manage it.

 

[Piggy]

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!

FYI, I am not impressed by exclamation points.

And in fact, Remie has told you that your original proposal is not testable and will not qualify. I am not lying.

I am not saying that you can't write a successful application. What I have said is that simply rewording an unacceptable application won't help. You have to actually change something.

In fact, you have indeed refused to discuss serious specs. All you do is keep repeating that you will -- by means you don't explain -- remove all chance of trickery, with more caps and bangs every time.

You have left many questions unanswered. The most important of which is: How will you demonstrate anything self-evidently paranormal?

It seems to me that when a question interferes with the trick you intend to perform -- such as the suggestion regarding the box -- you waive it off or ignore it, but if it's something you feel your set-up can work around -- like not knowing the questions beforehand -- then you'll discuss it.

Of course, you can remove this impression by actually discussing all relevant issues.

Bottom Line: You still do not have a testable paranormal claim.

 

[Piggy]

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!

That tears it, right there.

We know you've stated your claim -- and it's been rejected.

You have not stated your protocol. Not even close.

The fact that you think you can "rephrase" your claim to make it "seem Paranormal enough" indicates that you have no paranormal ability and are treating this as a stage performance.

We've told you umpteen times now that merely promising to "remove all trickery" doesn't cut it.

You're wasting everyone's time here.

Your goal is to get rejected and use that fact to promote your show.

 

[Piggy]

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.

You have not stated how you will "remove all trickery". Empty words so far.

All you've promised to do is produce the voice. Deeming that it could not possibly be produced by normal means will not be self-evident, therefore your claim does not qualify.

End of story.

 

[RemieV]

I would like to point out that, barring some kind of extreme e-mail error that is sentient enough to delete only e-mails from Dave Koenig, I have not heard a word since the eleventh.

Mr. Koenig, you have put a specific date on your claim, and we are daily drawing nearer to it. If you are no longer interested in the Challenge, please inform me so I can close the file and continue on to another claim.

~Remie

 

[e-sabbath]

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.

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.

Congratulations. You have answered question 3.
Question six is partially answered. However, there are many, many, many ways to get a sound or image on a tape, hard drive, or video. More than there are to get said image on, say, a camera.

Could you tell the story from the beginning, as you have stated you would? Could you answer the rest of the questions?

 

[Personal Grudge]

Assuming that TP is sincere in his errorts, I'm a little worried that he's just not grasping what is meant by "self-evident" objective evidence.

If an individual claims they can sense, out of 10 upside-down cups, which cup has a coin placed beneath it... and a 70% success rate is required to pass the preliminary test... there is no subjective interpretation needed. If the applicant successfully chooses the correct cup 7 times out of 10, no one can argue that the 70% success rate was not achieved.

The question then becomes, "How can this same type of test be performed in this circumstance?" There is nothing to measure. A recorded voice is not self-evident, a recorded image is not self-evident. There are many ways to record voices and images. And even should no immediate explanation for the recording be available to the observers, this still doesn't prove that a paranormal entity was the cause.

Perhaps this is the side-effect of living in a world that is accustomed to trickery, optical illusions, and adept magicians. Severe skeptism is necessary now to avoid falling for every huckster... and this will of course make things much more difficult should anyone with true paranormal evidence emerge.

 

[Marcus]

No one can make you answer our questions, as you have amply demonstrated in this thread. But if you are also ignoring RemiV's questions, that is very strong evidence that your challenge is not sincere.

 

[The Professor]

Well Alison, I guess the old saying about The Pot Calling the Kettle Black seems to fit here!

On August 20th I asked several questions of you. I asked for you to respond.You didn't respond for TWO WEEKS!!!!!!
Here's the proof!
(I've edited it to show the dates and no personal information)

David Koenig to Alison
show details Aug 20

Reply

Sorry Allison
I have not said that I have made such arrangements. Where was that said? I would appreciate a link. Thanks.
I have applied to be tested. You said yourself that you haven't seen the application so I guess you must be in the dark about all of this too. Why do you say I haven't applied. I sent the application via Certified letter to the address printed on the application itself. I also Called the JREF and left a message to please contact me if the address had changed . No contact was made . So I mailed the letter as instructed. Your forum started a Thread about me with almost 30 posts before I was made aware, by YOUR membership, that they were interested about the test. I've provided information even though the membership seems to be rather closed minded and of a ridiculing nature. Is this some way to get people to QUIT The Challenge perpetuated by the JREF or are you really interested in providing an honest and scientific test?
Thank you for your time
David Koenig

If you need more contact information I will be glad to provide it.
- Show quoted text -
Reply
Forward
Alison Smith to me
show details Sep 3 (13 days ago)

Reply

Mr. Koenig,

Thank you for your continued patience and interest.

I have reviewed your Challenge application and, from what I am seeing, your claim would not qualify for the Challenge as yet. I'd like to ask a few questions in order to verify whether or not this is the case.

Your claim is the ability to record EVPs. However, you are giving the demonstration in a completely uncontrolled environment that you will have access to prior to the demonstration. What is there to stop either you or us from rigging the setup?

How will we verify that you do not simply have an audio player on your person?

Let me put this in a clearer manner -

There is a mentalist/magician named Mark Edward. (You can see his site at themarkedward.com, if you wish). As part of his show, Mr. Edward performs seances wherein he "contacts the dead" in an audible and visible manner. However, Mr. Edward is a magician. The seances are part of an act. They would not be testable for the Challenge. Yet they would appear, if one were watching both, to be identical to the claim you are making.

So what stops yours from being a simple magic trick?

Additionally, we do not allow anyone to skip the preliminary Challenge test. Your request that we do so is denied.

Thank you again for your continued interest,
- Show quoted text -

Many have said that you only responded at this time because Jim Callahan had released his DragonCon video in which Randi said I had not applied and you said that I did.
You emailed this within two hours of the video release after two weeks of silence.
Just for the record.

 

[The Professor]

I think perhaps I'm confused about what would constitute a voice or image that could have been made in no earthly manner... would this voice and/or image actually be different from other voices and images? Or do we just mean the following:

1) The media is verified to be blank.
2) The media begins recording.
3) Replaying the media reveals a voice or image that was not there before.


If you do mean the above scenario, then I am more inclined to believe this to fall within the realm of the paranormal. But again, please forgive me, I have seen stage magicians perform tricks that I could not explain. I have seen an image appear on a canvas with just a wave of the magician's hand.

Granted, this was a trick. The magician was involved in the setup. So, I am very interested in your suggestions for removing a chance for trickery. Once we have heard your list of suggestions, that may allow others to gauge if there are any holes.

Good post!
The media will be shown to be totally blank. There is no way other than a Paranormal event to add something to it.

 

[puppypundit]

Loss Leader is my new hero.

I don't post here often but I'm fascinated with the process of protocol negotiations.

If The Professor were to use the skeletal structure of Loss Leader's protocol and work from that, it wouldn't be "smoke" it would be a good starting point.

Please, take it from a bona fide neutral party here...I want The Professor to succeed. I have no vested interest in either side but whenever a claimant makes it to the preliminary challenge, it is a huge accomplishment. Hurt feelings and accusations from either side won't help.

The Professor, do you think it might be possible to parse your claim in a manner more similar to Loss Leader's sample protocol? The details will help the more experienced forum members to work out "the elimination of trickery" to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Czarcasm]

I would like to point out that, barring some kind of extreme e-mail error that is sentient enough to delete only e-mails from Dave Koenig, I have not heard a word since the eleventh.

Mr. Koenig, you have put a specific date on your claim, and we are daily drawing nearer to it. If you are no longer interested in the Challenge, please inform me so I can close the file and continue on to another claim.

~Remie

I'm confused. He said that he was working with JREF to eliminate all trickery. How is this being done without communication between the two parties?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Thank you, LL. Looks like a protocol that accurately states what The Prof claims he can do, minus the hand-waving. This is what I was trying to get him to commit to. Good roadmap you've proposed. Maybe he can start with something like it.

Which, of course, means he won't. All indications are that he will ignore this since it doesn't allow much leeway for stage magickery. Do you think if he ignores it along with the other questions that it will go away?

Sad really... Yours sounds like a testable claim and protocol that, if successful, would get him to the final test. His is untestable as stated and smacks of a trick.

I predict he will skip steps 1-8. Can I collect $1 million when he proves me right?

 

[Doubt]

I would be interested to know if the professor is doing anything to secure access to the site of his proposed test.

Not that this really matters. He appears to have plenty of time to post here but not enough time to work out an acceptable protocol or at least e-mail Remie to ask question.

Unless, of course, some one person wants to pass of this their participation in this thread as some sort of official communication about the protocol, which it is not. Easier to bluster here and put no effort in where it counts.

 

[Pup]

The problem is that you (The Professor) seem to think that saying you'll remove all chance of trickery is satisfying to everyone, but that's actually the hardest part of the whole protocol, and the part that needs to be the most specific. We all know that every magician and fake psychic wants to make his performance appear as if there's no trickery, while in fact hiding the fact that there is trickery--it's almost the very definition of stage magic.

That's a great idea! And even to show how fair I can be. I will be willing to ask the same questions that Randi wanted to use when debunking a recent Medium. They are secret questions that I couldn't know. That should remove any doubt! I will use question designed by Randi himself! (Although I do want to ask their name, even if I am seeking Houdini himself)

Of course it's not the questions that are crucial, it's whether the answers are the right ones. But as several people have said before, using certain questions and answers would eliminate many of the complications in negotiating a protocol that rules out all forms of trickery in just getting the voices on the tape.

I don't know the questions that Randi wanted to use, but are there questions which the "entity" could answer, that you couldn't know the answer to at the time, but which would have answers that could be later proven correct?

"How many unicorns live on alpha centauri?" wouldn't do, because it couldn't be proven correct, so any answer would be as good as any other, and we'd be right back to trying to prove that the voice which said "none" or "twenty" wasn't done through trickery.

"What number is written on the paper in this sealed box?" would do. Or "What number is John Smith in Miami looking at right now?"--while John Smith is being videotaped with a synchronized camera. Or "What number will be rolled next with these dice?"

This is not an attempt to tell you what your entity can do, as you've accused other people of doing before. It's an attempt to give hypothetical examples to help you think of a question and answer that would make your paranormal entity more easily testable, based on the attributes that you know about the entity.

 

[yairhol]

No, not nitpicking about tense--what was meant, I think, was that NOW is the time to tell us how trickery will be eliminated.

That's exactly what I meant in post 356. I don't know why TP addressed only this satirical question I posed (which was supposed to tell him that NOW is the time to address the questions of how to remove trickery since October 30th is very close and he will not have enough time to complete the protocol (as I have stated further on in that post)) and not my other questions which were about the test itself.

strange.