• 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.
I want ALL of the people working on this project to be motivated to PROVE THE PARANORMAL.

That's what this whole thing is about.
While I don't agree on you about the financial aspects, this is not the place to discuss that. Per chillzero's request: The protocol.

The Professor: A lot of smart people has suggested protocols here, but I have not seen you entertaining them seriously.

We know that you want to put voices on tape. How will you go about doing that, in a way that ensures paranormality?
 
Yes!!!
Someone who finally gets it!!!!!!!!!!

I want ALL of the people working on this project to be motivated to PROVE THE PARANORMAL.

That's what this whole thing is about.

They also SHARE in the financial end of the VICTORY!!!!!
It's perfect. :)


That's exactly why this won't be allowed. Offering money contingent on winning provides motive for cheating. The use of neutral third parties is a control to prevent cheating. If you pay them contingent on winning, they're no longer neutral, which defeats the purpose of employing them.

You can offer them a minor non-financial reward if you want, such as a round of drinks at the local pub, but you'll have to rely on their personal integrity and professionalism, not self-interest, to get the job done properly.


Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for topic. Protocol, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So who Pays them?
If I Can't, and the JREF Won't, then what quality folks do you know that WORK FOR FREE?
Not too logical is it?
:cool::cool:

The Professor:

I would like to officially volunteer my services. I am not, nor have I ever been, a representative or employee of the JREF. I am willing to act in the role of "neutral 3rd party participant", doing whatever the protocol calls for such a person to do. I am willing to do this *without* your offer of $25,000, and it's not due to lack of competence or character. Here are several reasons why I would volunteer to do this.

1) I am fascinated by the MDC. I think it'd be pretty cool to say that I was involved in a test in some way.
2) I like to travel. The trip to Florida and the opportunity to be part of the test would be payment enough.
3) If you pass, I can say "I was there".

All I would need is for someone to provide travel expenses. Other than that, I'm more than willing to free up my schedule on Halloween, 2009.

What do you say?
 
After reading the IIG's report (Please do before responding) I see they deviated from the conditions by haulting the demonstration towards the very beginning to make sure they weren't being Cheated.

WHAT IS THAT? (letting information go up and down the stairs by their own men trying to determine if they were being Hoodwinked)

If the Claimant had gotten them right would they have said ... "OH NO ... WE ARE BEING DECEIVED!" (Think for a second ... They only continued because he HADN'T gotten them right)

Let's look at Mr. Koenig's accusation:
From the IIG report ("Achau Nguyen Test") to which he refers:
On July 23, 2005, The Independent Investigations Group (IIG), in conjunction with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), conducted a test of alleged telepathic ability. This test was held at the Center for Inquiry-West (CFIW) in Hollywood, CA.
. . .
When Achau signaled his readiness, Jim U. said, “Sending the first word.” Jim then placed the 1st card (out of the audience’s sight) on the lectern facing Achau for him to see. Bernie radioed to Matt downstairs that Achau was sending.

After E. wrote a word, Matt radioed back upstairs “Word received.” The test followed this sequence throughout with a minor adjustment after the first word or two.

After the first three words had been sent, we requested a brief pause so Jerry could bring them to Dennis on the stairs. Matt C. brought Dennis the first 3 words received by E. Dennis examined both short lists, and sent word upstairs with Jerry that we should proceed. This was our early warning system to alert us in case we were being deceived. None of the first three words matched, so we suspected no cheating at that point, and continued until all twenty words had been transmitted.

Achau paused a number of times during the test in order to do more push-ups. He said the push-ups helped him “feel it” and allowed him to transmit more effectively. About halfway into the test, Achau requested and was given some Coca-Cola ™ to give him more energy and caffeine.

After sending the 20th word, the downstairs crew came upstairs with the results. We asked Achau if everything went well, and he said yes. We asked if he thought he had been successful, and he said yes. E. signed the “received” sheets verifying that they were written by him and accurately received by him.


The section highlighted in blue appears to be what bothers Mr. Koenig. However, reading the paragraph in full, it ends with, "... continued until all twenty words had been transmitted." -- That leaves 17 words out of 20, without interruption.

After that one pause, the test was not stopped. Unless someone can present evidence that a test (preliminary or otherwise) for the MDC has ever been stopped by anyone other than the claimant, Mr. Koenig's accusation ("They only continued because he HADN'T gotten them right") is baseless. Furthermore, the claimant did not complain about the interruption.

Certainly, one can infer from the statement, "None of the first three words matched, so we suspected no cheating at that point", that had a matching word appeared, the testers would have been suspicious. That is still a far cry from claiming the test would have been stopped.

Note: MDC information regarding Achau Nguyen = http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28936
 
Yes!!!
Someone who finally gets it!!!!!!!!!!

And you are somebody who completely does not get it. I see you managed to miss the point of my post (how, I cannot imagine, since it was bolded to stand out).

I was attempting to make two points.

1. if you persist with your offer of offering $25K to people to help you but only if you win, then nobody of your choice will be acceptable in the final protocol because they are not unbiased.

2. I wanted to remind you that per the rules, you are responsible for all costs of conducting the tests. Some of the suggestions you have made regarding the protocol will require the use of unbiased 3rd party highly technical staff and equipment. Such staff and equipment is not cheap and I can see your preliminary test easily costing tens of thousands of dollars to conduct if the protocol is not brought under control soon. This will be your responsibility to pay for regardless of the outcome of the preliminary and even if you succeed it will be another year before you can take the final test (due to your insistence that the tests can only be on 10/31). The fact that you find the $1M so appealing leads me to believe that you do not have tens of thousands of dollars available for this. I suggest that you seriously start looking at the protocols offered and start working on a protocol that you accept and that you can afford.

I further wanted to remind you that while the people here have been very generous in suggesting protocols it is your responsibility and yours alone to negotiate a protocol with the JREF. The people here have offered good suggestions based on thier knowledge of the MDC and what past protocols have been like. It is in your best interest to consider all of those suggestions even from the SNARKY ones (as you put it) and start working on your initial draft of your protocol to submit to the JREF.

It is your responsibility to come up with an initial protocol, nobody elses. If you do not submit a protocol, the JREF will have to assume you do not intend to take the test and will terminate your application. Do not wait for the JREF to submit a protocol for your approval. That will never happen. Once you submit an initial draft, they will advise what needs to be added/removed/changed for it meet thier satisfaction. The negotiations do not begin until after you have submitted your initial draft.

Others have suggested that you attempt your test this Halloween so you can better understand what you intend to do and how you intend to do it for your preliminary test on 10/31/09 and your final test (should it come to that) on 10/31/10. This is an excellent suggestion and I think only a fool would pass it up.
 
TF, you seem to be wandering a bit, posting "snarky" comments of your own, rather then responding to protocol suggestions or questions. Perhaps you would like to work on possible protocols?

If the spirits can't read inside envelopes, that is fine. That could have been cleared up with a single sentence. You encouraged this avenue by objecting only to the security of envelopes, an easily addressable issue.

Maybe you could start by addressing some of the questions directly applicable to a protocol, like that list of questions Jackagirl posted on the last page. Also please respond to the protocols that have been proposed.
 
That's exactly why this won't be allowed. Offering money contingent on winning provides motive for cheating. The use of neutral third parties is a control to prevent cheating. If you pay them contingent on winning, they're no longer neutral, which defeats the purpose of employing them.

You can offer them a minor non-financial reward if you want, such as a round of drinks at the local pub, but you'll have to rely on their personal integrity and professionalism, not self-interest, to get the job done properly.


Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for topic. Protocol, please.

Don't be narrow minded.

The JREF ALREADY has a Million reasons or motives for cheating.

What I'm offering is a lot less. (But I'm sure it will help in these trying times)

Just depends on how you look at this. Put the shoe on the other foot (In your Mind)
:cool::cool:
 
I am currently working on a FEEDBACK LOOP using my Mac Notebook, a Mirror, and the notebooks built in camera. If all goes well, I'll be able to catch images and sounds using the laptop! If others have had success with this method please chime in. I've never heard of anyone trying this before.
I may need to introduce some form of Carrier Wave.
 
I am currently working on a FEEDBACK LOOP using my Mac Notebook, a Mirror, and the notebooks built in camera. If all goes well, I'll be able to catch images and sounds using the laptop! If others have had success with this method please chime in. I've never heard of anyone trying this before.
I may need to introduce some form of Carrier Wave.
 
yeah and I am posting this from a MacBookPro. So what. (sosumi).

Evidence rules.

Give us evidence, and we have your undivided attention.
 
Yes!!!
Someone who finally gets it!!!!!!!!!!

I want ALL of the people working on this project to be motivated to PROVE THE PARANORMAL.


But for an impartial test, we need people who are disinterested, and who are motivated to find the truth.
 
I am currently working on a FEEDBACK LOOP using my Mac Notebook, a Mirror, and the notebooks built in camera. If all goes well, I'll be able to catch images and sounds using the laptop! If others have had success with this method please chime in. I've never heard of anyone trying this before.
I may need to introduce some form of Carrier Wave.

I'm assuming that your laptop has an iSight camera, yes?

There's a standard Mac application called iMovie -- at least, it came pre-installed on my MacBook Pro. Don't know if you have that on your laptop, but it is pretty basic Mac software (I believe it's part of the iLife suite, which is probably worth purchasing if you don't have it already).

Anyway, if you do, there's a little icon along the bottom of the screen that looks like the profile of a stylized movie camera. Click on that and you get a pop-up menu. Select "Built-in iSight". The picture area of the screen will go "live" and a button will appear that says "Record with iSight". Click on that. It will record the clip. Click on the "Record with iSight" button again to stop it. I recommend you do this with the mic turned all the way up -- although for your purposes, I would recommend buying a mic that you can plug into the laptop, since the built in mic does not have the best gain in the world and is probably insufficient for your needs.

You shouldn't need a feedback loop or a carrier wave. The Mac does this all on its own and is so frequently used for this type of project that it is standard software.

However, that's just a recording method and has absolutely nothing to do with the testability of a paranormal event. Also, your claim involves AUDIO PHENOMENA, so unless this is MORE TESTABLE than your AUDIO CLAIM, I would suggest that you are getting side-tracked (again). Unless, of course, you're also focused on the laptop's audio recording capabilities.

I ask again:

What are the "paranormal entities" capable of doing, beside simply answering questions? Are they:

a) capable of seeing into opaque containers into which normal human beings cannot see?
b) capable of going into sound- and vibration-proofed containers?
c) able to effect completely implausible changes to recording media (CDs, tapes, etc.,) that are not present within a recording device (i.e., still in their wrappers), where "implausible" means, for example, making an identifiable voice speaking identifiable English words appear on the media?
d) capable of otherwise affecting objects physically, such as moving or lifting objects?*
e) capable of causing a clearly defined and marked change in the temperature of a container of liquid, such as water?*

In short, are they capable of doing anything else beyond simply providing audible responses to questions? Please provide a list of the things that the "entities" can do.

If you are not sure, please go ask them, then let us know. This is critical for the design of the protocol.

*If they are capable of doing either of these last two things, it would change your claim. But it should also be relatively easy to test. The important thing, though, is that you have to know what they can and are willing to do in order to even start thinking about a protocol.

Also, once again, if you would be so kind as to answer my question as to whether you're actually trying to set up JREF and the Forum for an "expose" (with the slanty-thing over the e) rather than actually trying to pursue the MDC, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
 
I am currently working on a FEEDBACK LOOP using my Mac Notebook, a Mirror, and the notebooks built in camera. If all goes well, I'll be able to catch images and sounds using the laptop! If others have had success with this method please chime in. I've never heard of anyone trying this before.
I may need to introduce some form of Carrier Wave.
Why?

Just turn the camera on and hit the record button on the software associated with it?

WHy the smoke and mirrors (pun intended) with a feedback loop?
And what IS your definition of a feedback loop anyway.

Lastly, for the 3rd time, why did you not attempt to record the "voices" that you heard when you last visited the cemetary?
Surely supplying JREF with exactly the sort of recordings you are expecting to pick up for the MDC would have been a great aid to you and JREF finalising a protocol for your application?
 
TP, please concentrate on your protocol. Technical difficulties can be solved later. Several protocols have already been suggested, but without knowing what your paranormal entities can or can't do, it's rather pointless to continue doing so.
 
I am currently working on a FEEDBACK LOOP using my Mac Notebook, a Mirror, and the notebooks built in camera. If all goes well, I'll be able to catch images and sounds using the laptop! If others have had success with this method please chime in. I've never heard of anyone trying this before.
I may need to introduce some form of Carrier Wave.
Is this somehow connected with your protocol? I doubt that your laptop or phone will be accepted for the test because it opens up for a lot of tampering. The same goes for any other device that you have to set up in any complicated way.

Try to keep it simple, and use new or borrowed equipment.
 
After reading the IIG's report (Please do before responding) I see they deviated from the conditions by haulting the demonstration towards the very beginning to make sure they weren't being Cheated.
You are wrong. This was not a deviation of the conditions.

I'm sure it wasn't written into the protocol.
You are not sure. The test was conducted as an IIG $50k Challenge that would qualify as a preliminary JREF MDC test. Paragraph 4 of the IIG Statement of Challenge Offer specifically permits that testing may be halted and even that the protocol may be changed (upon approval by both parties) before testing continues. You can read the rules here: http://www.iigwest.com/documents/iig_50kchallenge_termsconditions.pdf

If the Claimant had gotten them right would they have said ... "OH NO ... WE ARE BEING DECEIVED!" (Think for a second ... They only continued because he HADN'T gotten them right)
Yes. If the applicant had got all three right, I expect the testers would have reviewed the specific conditions of the test to make sure there was no possibility for trickery. Because the applicant had got them all wrong, the testers could make a reasonable determination that even if trickery were being used, it was not being used well and needed no further precautions.

It is not unlike an umpire at a baseball game. If the pitches look a bit strange, the umpire can call a halt to the game and check out the ball, pitcher’s mitt and hat to make sure that there is no tar, Vaseline, Emory boards, or scuffing of the ball. In other words, no cheating. Of course if a pitcher is pitching poorly, the umpire, and everyone else, may not be too concerned about any cheating because it clearly isn’t working.

Is that not a very simple and basic means of detecting trickery? Should not those very simple checks be made in an investigation? Especially one concerning proof of an unprecedented, unexplainable, paranormal event for a large a large cash prize where trickery may well be expected?
 
TP, if you want to create a workable protocol, it is not hard. A good start would be to answer Jackalgirl’s questions.

I’ll ask a few more to help move you along:

How far can the recording device be from you during the test?

Can you get the entities to repeat a word or phrase on demand? If, for example, you were given 20 cards with words or phrases and had 2 minutes each to have the entity project that word or phrase onto tape, could you do that?

In you own view of how this test would be conducted:

1) What would constitute a positive result?
2) What would constitute a negative result?
3) What would constitute an inconclusive result?
4) How would the results be measured?

Those should be easy questions. Once we get that nailed down, it should be easy for us to proceed with a protocol acceptable to the JREF.

Also, since we can’t probably get things in place for 2008, it would be great if you did a demo on 10/31/08 to really show the specifics your ability. Just video tape it and put the video and the tape recordings up on YouTube or something. That would make it a lot easier for us to really see what this is all about and work out an air-tight protocol to give to the JREF.

Hope to hear from you soon.
 
Why wouldn't I want to be tested?

I believe you do not want to be tested because you have not shown an actual willingness to implement a testable protocol.

That aside I see your incessant derails as evidence of my above statement.

You are all talk. As I stated before I expect you to respond with more words but not an actual protocol for testing. You are just having fun.

I reccomend at this point that this whole thread be moved as there is, and never will be, an actual challenge here, just self promotion.
 
I am currently working on a FEEDBACK LOOP using my Mac Notebook, a Mirror, and the notebooks built in camera. If all goes well, I'll be able to catch images and sounds using the laptop! If others have had success with this method please chime in. I've never heard of anyone trying this before.
I may need to introduce some form of Carrier Wave.

I will also venture a guess that you've never actually done this before and are just now trying to come up with a way to make nebulous sounds/images appear from feedback. Won't work for a protocol or the test, open to subjective interpretation. Give up the laptop and mirror.

Or try it sitting at your kitchen table on Thursday morning. If that works, we can skip the part in :) your protocol :) (sorry, snarky inside joke) that says you can only do it on Oct 31. What you've described here isn't anything like paranormal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom