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

[chillzero]

Please read what I've said again. The writer is to help with the CHALLENGE CLAIM! Not the protocol. Why do you misquote me?
If Alison does not like the way I phrase my Claim then a professional Writer is needed to help me "Jump through This Hoop".
Why are you afraid that I've hired one?
I just want some basic Fairness here.

The problem with your challenge claim is not the phrasing, the grammar or the writing. It is the fact that the claim is unclear, and the protocol is not addressed. This is not a matter for a writer, but for someone to assist you in detailing what the claim is, and what protocol can be used to identify it.

No one's afraid that you have hired one: some of us may be concerned you have wasted your money by addressing something inconsequential to your claim.

 

[Piggy]

I just want some basic Fairness here.

Seeing as how you've been given a fast track over others who applied before you, and that all the other rules are being applied to you just the same as to everyone else, I'd say you've been getting more than fair treatment all along.

I'm glad you've decided to get help w/ writing a new application. That's probably a good thing. Not everyone is adept at writing applications and such, and it can speed the process.

But some attention to the points that keep recurring on this thread will be crucial. Specifically:

1. Putting forward a claim that describes a demonstration that provides clear evidence of something which is self-evidently paranormal, requiring no judgment on anyone's part.

2. Providing complete specifics which show exactly how, down to the last detail, the demonstration can be controlled so that trickery, bias, and all other forms of error are eliminated.

Thanks -Piggy

 

[The Professor]

The problem with your challenge claim is not the phrasing, the grammar or the writing. It is the fact that the claim is unclear, and the protocol is not addressed. This is not a matter for a writer, but for someone to assist you in detailing what the claim is, and what protocol can be used to identify it.

No one's afraid that you have hired one: some of us may be concerned you have wasted your money by addressing something inconsequential to your claim.

The writer will make sure everything is on the up and up. Some words have double meanings and sometimes what the JREF itself asks is unclear. So I've gotten a professional writer to look through everything and dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s if you will.
I just want this to be fair and all. I Want it to be clear!

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I just want this to be fair and all. I Want it to be clear!

Great. Can you provide evidence for this:

...
I have had GREAT success making contact at the Devil's Chair.
...

Would anyone consider expecting a reply from The Professor to this inquiry fair?

 

[yairhol]

Uri Geller reading this thread?
get outa here!! Seriously???
He's my hero....

 

[e-sabbath]

We're waiting. However, while we're waiting, and admittedly, to satisfy my personal curiosity, why must this be done on 10/31, Professor? Is there a reason the phenomena will not occur on any other date?
Or is it simply for atmosphere? There's nothing wrong with atmosphere, but I _am_ concerned as to the probability this test will be ready by that point.

If it is possible to perform this test on another date, it might be well to note that. Is the winter solstice acceptable, for example? The death of the year, perhaps?

Or, if 10/31 is missed, are we stuck and waiting till next year?

 

[Piggy]

The writer will make sure everything is on the up and up. Some words have double meanings and sometimes what the JREF itself asks is unclear. So I've gotten a professional writer to look through everything and dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s if you will.
I just want this to be fair and all. I Want it to be clear!

That's fine, but are you going to also produce a testable claim?

Clarity is not the fundamental problem here. The most basic problem is that no amount of rephrasing the old claim is going to somehow turn it into a testable one.

You have been told this repeatedly, consistently, and unanimously, even by the one person here who really matters.

If you refuse to listen, and continue to focus on rewording your old claim, you should not be surprise when your file is closed. As you've been told, there are other people with applications to be considered here.

So please, just say here and now: Are you going to change your claim to one that clearly demonstrates a self-evidently paranormal ability or event?

If not, and you insist on simply re-phrasing the old claim which you have been notified is unacceptable, then you're wasting everyone's time (unless, of course, getting rejected is your goal).

 

[The Professor]

Seeing as how you've been given a fast track over others who applied before you, and that all the other rules are being applied to you just the same as to everyone else, I'd say you've been getting more than fair treatment all along.

I'm glad you've decided to get help w/ writing a new application. That's probably a good thing. Not everyone is adept at writing applications and such, and it can speed the process.

But some attention to the points that keep recurring on this thread will be crucial. Specifically:

1. Putting forward a claim that describes a demonstration that provides clear evidence of something which is self-evidently paranormal, requiring no judgment on anyone's part.

2. Providing complete specifics which show exactly how, down to the last detail, the demonstration can be controlled so that trickery, bias, and all other forms of error are eliminated.

Thanks -Piggy

As to your statement about "No judgement on anyones part" that would seem to be a dog chasing it's tail. How could it be? Someone is making some kind of judgement just to be considered for the challenge. You are making judgements every second of every day as to what is real or not.
If an entity responds in German, then a "Judgement" must be made by someone that it really Was German. Explain that?

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

As to your statement about "No judgement on anyones part" that would seem to be a dog chasing it's tail. How could it be? Someone is making some kind of judgement just to be considered for the challenge. You are making judgements every second of every day as to what is real or not.
If an entity responds in German, then a "Judgement" must be made by someone that it really Was German. Explain that?

people may make as many judgements as they like but, when it comes to the determination of whether you passed or failed, no judgement should be necessary. This stipulation is part of the protocol design.

Asking someone, even an expert, to decide if a person is German based upon their speech alone requires judgement upon their part. There is room for subjective opinion and a second expert could conceivably disagree. What if the person was born in Austria but had lived in Berlin for 10 years etc?

A protocol requiring no judgement should be self evident when it comes to assigning success or failure. Take the dowser trials, for example, either they find the concealed material x times out of y or they do not. There is no room for debate or disagreement over their passing or failing.

This is why EVP claims are hard to test, say, for example a question is asked whose answer is bananas. If there is room for someone to listen to a recording of the answer and say, "hmmm, well it sounds like containers, or maybe manyanas," then they are having to make a judgement and that would mean that your protocol was flawed.

If you were to say, when 10 people listen to the answer, at least 8 of them will agree, without prompting or intercommunication, that the voice said bananas. In that case, if 8, 9 or 10 of the listeners wrote down the word bananas and only bananas then it would be evident, without judgement that you had passed.

The above is all moot, though, until you describe, in detail, exactly how you will ensure that the voice appearing on the tape was not a trick.

How, precisely, will you rule out all forms of trickery?

Even with a writer working for you, the above question is one you will have to answer for yourself. Why have you been avoiding it thus far?

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted
What? No. That is certainly not necessary.

I have the right to hire a professional to help me through all of this Red Tape, and I've done so. Why would you say I shouldn't do this? I just want to keep everything on an even and neutral playing field. Something wrong with that?

He didn't say you didn't have a right to do it. He just said it wasn't necessary.

You seem to have a habit of rewording what other people write so you can pretend to be offended, insulted or compromised in some way. Considering how often you accuse others of lying and other wrongdoing (or imply it by writing things like "would it change you mind to know"- and then completing the sentence with something that's not true) I'm occasionally still surprised that you can be so dishonest.

 

[MattC]

Mr. Koenig,

I am indeed making assertions every second of every day about what is real and what is not (that explains a lot about me), however each of my judgments must stand the test of proof to truly be considered 'real'. If I believe a wall is not real, there's a very simple test to prove or disprove my assertion.

A version of that is the JREF's problem with your claim, in a nutshell. When they agree to have a test performed, they want to test one thing and one thing only. In your specific case, they seem entirely willing to test your ability to summon a paranormal entity, their crisis seems to be one of definition - they have no idea precisely how to define 'paranormal entity' for the purposes of the test.

This cataclysm of definition seems to stem from the nature of the word 'paranormal' - the agreed use of the term in a testing protocol implies that both parties agree upon what is to be considered 'normal'. While this doesn't matter in most claims, as what is normal is very clearly defined and may be taken as understood (it would certainly not be normal to be able to summon UFOs, as Prophet Yahweh claimed he could), your case deals with the paranormal to such a degree that it requires a definitive claim as to what exactly 'paranormal' may be taken to mean.

~ Matt

 

[Bob Klase]

As to your statement about "No judgement on anyones part" that would seem to be a dog chasing it's tail. How could it be? Someone is making some kind of judgement just to be considered for the challenge.

If it takes someone's judgement (or opinion) to determine what language is being spoken then you could be correct- that might require judgment and would be ineligible for the MDC.

In the normal world, if you put two apples on an otherwise empty table then anyone can see that there are two apples on the table- no more, no less. No judgment is required. Of course a 1 year old, or an adult who never learned to count to two might not know how many apples were on the table, but that would be a matter of education and not judgment.

In the world inhabited by you (and Jim Callahan), judgment might be required because you'd want to add a lemon and call it an apple, or you'd want to slice the apples in half can claim there were four apples, or perhaps claim that the two apples just didn't exist in your reality.

 

[jimtron]

Some words have double meanings and sometimes what the JREF itself asks is unclear.

Please specify anything that the JREF has asked for that is unclear--I'm sure it can be clarified for you.

How could it be? Someone is making some kind of judgement just to be considered for the challenge. You are making judgements every second of every day as to what is real or not.

What is meant by "judgement on anyone's part:" Please read the rules and past protocol discussions in this forum. Let's say you do a demonstration and a voice is heard, without a visible person behind it. Maybe you, and maybe others, say it's evidence of the paranormal (a ghost, or whatever). But others might say it's not evidence of the paranormal, it's merely a magic trick. This requires a judgment.

Here's an example of a test that is self-evident (a phrase which has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as "objective"--if you don't understand what we mean by these, please let us know): Someone says they can remote view. A protocol is agreed to: someone will write a long number on a board, and the applicant, in the next room, will accurately identify the number (without being able to see it or have a third party communicate it to the applicant). If that protocol was agreed to, it wouldn't require judging or subjective interpretation--it's clear cut: either the number was correctly identified or it wasn't.

This is the most fair kind of test for both the JREF and the applicants, because this rules out an argument after the test about whether the test was a success or failure. This is in the rules--what constitutes success and failure must be agreed to by JREF and applicant.

So far, you haven't come up with a test like this, and that's what you've been told, AFAIK, officially by the JREF.

It's been 12 pages, let's move this forward!

 

[IMST]

As to your statement about "No judgement on anyones part" that would seem to be a dog chasing it's tail. How could it be? Someone is making some kind of judgement just to be considered for the challenge. You are making judgements every second of every day as to what is real or not.
If an entity responds in German, then a "Judgement" must be made by someone that it really Was German. Explain that?

It is easy to have a no judgement test. All you have to do is use a protocal where no doubt can be made about the results.

For example, a recent test had a person try to detect the gender of the author of diaries by simply holding it without opening it. It was determined that if should was right 16 times out of 20, that would constitute success. No judgement necessary. She said "Male" or "Female" the results were recorded and she was right 12 times and wrong 8. No judgement necessary.

Another recent test was a person claiming to be able to force someone to urinate using psychic force. She was given 15 minutes to do so. The subject did not urinate. No judgement necessary.

With the protocal I and another member (name forgotten, sorry) were suggesting and the one Loss Leader was suggesting, there would be no judgement necessary. With one if you got the numbers right, you'd pass. With the other if you got the right device to record, you'd pass. No judgement necessary.

If you make a claim along these lines, it may be accepted. If you claim you can get recordings of a voice speaking German, it will almost certainly be rejected.

 

[Loss Leader]

The last fake protocol I wrote was to show that EVP can be tested objectively. It occured to me, however, that TP might be claiming that he will make audible voices emanate as if from nowhere. This is much, much harder to test. There are so very many ways to use technology to broadcast a voice. In an uncontrolled area, I believe it is impossible to test. However, this protocol is designed to show that it may be possible to design an objective test:

Claim: Loss Leader will cause a voice to emanate from no normal source.

1. Loss Leader will meet the representative of the JREF at the Florida State University College of Music along with a representative of the college.

2. The JREF will unwrap a new in package dB meter with new batteries. It will be tested and the parties will agree it works.

3. The college rep. will prepare a numbered list of soundproof practice rooms. The JREF rep. will roll a die to randomly choose a practice room. The entire retinue will go to the hallway outside the practice room. Loss Leader will at no time enter the room, touch the door or doorway, or touch any outer wall of the practice room.

4. The JREF rep. will enter the room and close the door. The FSU rep will then begin banging a drum, shouting loudly or playing any instrument he or she chooses.

5. Inside the room, the JREF rep. will use the dB meter to measure the sound in the room once every twenty seconds for five minutes. The highest and lowest scores will be thrown out and the rest will be averaged. This will be agreed to as the average ambient noise level of the room. (The second highest dB reading shall not be higher than 2x the second lowest reading.)

6. The JREF rep. will again enter the room, closing the door and setting the dB meter to "max hold."

7. In the hallway, the FSU rep. will not speak or intentionally make noise. Loss Leader will not, either.

8. After 5 minutes, the test period will end.

9. A successful result will be a maximum dB of at least 3x the average ambient noise in the room.

10. Why can't I write a protocol with exactly ten steps?

Would the individuals on the forum consider this a proper protocol? It can be defeated by the claimant going to FSU beforehand and hiding transmitters in every single practice room. Is this possibility remote enough to make the protocol workable?

 

[Piggy]

As to your statement about "No judgement on anyones part" that would seem to be a dog chasing it's tail. How could it be? Someone is making some kind of judgement just to be considered for the challenge. You are making judgements every second of every day as to what is real or not.
If an entity responds in German, then a "Judgement" must be made by someone that it really Was German. Explain that?

German is self-evidently German. There are plenty of German speakers in the world. There are German dictionaries and books on the linguistic features of German. It is easy to objectively determine that German is German.

You're playing childish games here.

The fact that I make judgments every day is irrelevant to the very clear and fair requirement that a test be self-evident.

If a dowser finds hidden water in 2 runs of 8 out of 10 tries, in a double-blind controlled test, that is a tremendously higher success rate than mere chance, and you'd have no problem getting JREF to agree to that kind of protocol.

A "hit" can be made "self-evident" by defining how far apart the rods must move to indicate water.

As for your claim, merely producing voices on tape does not, in itself, provide a self-evident demonstration that the origin of the voices is paranormal.

This is starting to get downright silly.

 

[e-sabbath]

I can think of several ways to perform this task without judgment. For example, noise meters. That said, we need a better definition of the entities that you claim are paranormal, in order to assist you.

... wasn't there something in the Challenge that said 'no, we won't accept talking to Angels' or something?

 

[Robaato]

Semantical nitpicking

In order to insure fairness and meet with the strict requirements of the JREF MDC and Alison Smith, I have agreed to hire a professional writer to construct the challenge claim to meet everyones criteria.

A quick, possibly off-topic question:

When you say that you have agreed to do this...did the JREF ask you to do this? I ask because agreeing to do something by definition requires someone to whom you have made the agreement, and we've heard nothing officially that you have responded to the JREF's last official communication....

Just curious.

 

[Azrael 5]

If after 12 pages The Professor has not stated the information required I think it likely he is never going to do.
He is not stupid,though he is pretending to be for some reason.I said on page 1(possibly)it's just a magic trick and not a serious applicaiton.I stand by that statement.

 

[Pantaz]

One small reminder to Mr. Koenig:

Nothing discussed in this thread (or any other) has any relevance to the claim and/or protocol unless it is specifically submitted by the claimant to the JREF.​