• 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.
eirik said:
In my opinion, this thread must die. Everybody should stop posting. . . .
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have to agree. We should back off and let The Professor work on his
The Professor said:
MAGIC TRICK, MAGIC TRICK, MAGIC TRICK
Click to expand...
paranormal event until he figures out how to nail down his protocol. Maybe then we'll be able to assist him.

Wow, he even accused Jackalgirl of SNARKINESS. I'm still trying to get over that one.

The Professor, write when you get work.
 
The Professor said:
I am SIMPLIFYING the situation. A simple Mac laptop, placed on my knees with an examinable mirror and a standard feedback loop.
Pretty basic really.
Click to expand...

The Professor said:
Actually the "Sound Proof Box" would be the Easiest thing in my mind to gaff. Micro chips (or whatever they put into greeting cards etc) that produce sound could be built into absolutely any section of the box. You'd have to dismantle and disect each little piece. You'd have to cut the entire box into tiny 1/4 inch pieces to be "absolutely" sure.

So ... the Box Idea won't work realistically.

I'm now thinking that making EVERYTHING visible to the testers is the way to go. Everything totally visible!
Click to expand...

do you see the contradiction in these two posts?

As others have asked, I will ask again. How to you intend for the appearance of the voices on the tape to be self-evident paranormal? This is a critical part of your protocol. Your previous references as 'Not explainable by science' is not enough as this requires interpretation and your test must be self evident.

Because you come from a belief in the paranormal, what is self-evident to you is not neccesarily self-evident to a skeptic. This is why it would be useful to answer this question here on the forum, so we skeptics can acknowledge whether your intended method is self-evident paranormal to us and/or reccomend changes so that the demonstration would be self-evident to a skeptic. (since you must demonstrate your ability as self-evident to a skeptic in order to win the prize)
 
The Professor said:
The claim clearly states that the voices appear paranormally. Although TP hints at all sorts of other things, this is his claim, and this should be what is tested. I agree that other paranormal characteristics would be easier to test, but the claim would have to be changed if the protocol should test for this. Currently, TP is investigating if his voices can appear inside a sound-proof box, and when he finds that they cannot, he will be hard-pressed to find another method that eliminated hidden loudspeakers.<snip, bad quote end>

I've enjoyed this post.

It is clear, shows where the others have missed the mark, and reveals how you think it might be done AS A TRICK.

I applaud your honesty and clear thinking here!

Actually the "Sound Proof Box" would be the Easiest thing in my mind to gaff. Micro chips (or whatever they put into greeting cards etc) that produce sound could be built into absolutely any section of the box. You'd have to dismantle and disect each little piece. You'd have to cut the entire box into tiny 1/4 inch pieces to be "absolutely" sure.

So ... the Box Idea won't work realistically.

I'm now thinking that making EVERYTHING visible to the testers is the way to go. Everything totally visible!
:cool::cool:
Click to expand...

:dig: Keep up the good work! Yes, the protocol will be much easier to work out once you're more keenly aware of what is and is not necessary for the paranormal to appear. How terrible it would be to go through all this work only to find out in the end that paranormal entities simply HATE Faraday cages and won't go anywhere near 'em!

I also applaud your efforts to demonstrate the freedom with which you are allowed to discuss any topic of your choosing on these forums, and resist any attempts of others to suggest you should not do so. There have been many applicants in the past that appeared to have gotten distracted by discussing things unrelated to their claim and eventually wandered away without ever taking the preliminary challenge. Any encouragement I may have given to a focus on your protocol has been in light of such concern. I am relieved to discover you are quite able to discuss various topics and still pursue the necessary tasks to complete your challenge. Do note, however, that the forums have a policy that threads ought to remain on-topic, and be posted in an appropriate section. A reasonable policy I believe, and one which helps promote clear discussion. In recent posts for example, you have discussed a process using a laptop and a camera in a feedback loop in the hope of some useful result, Jackalgirl then made some comments related to your efforts and then you questioned it's relation to your claim (recording paranormal audio) while she was responding to something you had posted that similarly did not relate to your claim. This is why I've suggested you describe your non-claim research into the paranormal in a seperate thread for such a topic, so that this thread can remain on topic and avoid such confusion in the future.

Good luck in your studies! Understand that if you report incomplete results here, people are still likely to suggest ways your findings could be used to adjust your protocol. I hope you will take suggestions as attempts to be helpful, and not request they refrain from commenting on incomplete results. For indeed, if you did not wish to hear comments about your incomplete results you would not post them, yes?
 
The Professor said:
So ... the Box Idea won't work realistically.

I'm now thinking that making EVERYTHING visible to the testers is the way to go. Everything totally visible!
:cool::cool:
Click to expand...

So how about a plexiglass box from which the air has been evacuated, that would be soundproof. Of course the spirits would have to vibrate the microphone membrane without the aid of air, but this doesn't seem any harder than vibrating the air molecules.
 
Marcus said:
So how about a plexiglass box from which the air has been evacuated, that would be soundproof. Of course the spirits would have to vibrate the microphone membrane without the aid of air, but this doesn't seem any harder than vibrating the air molecules.
Click to expand...


I have done this experiment and think it would be a good option for him in this instance.

-Jim
 
I agree that this is all getting rather tiresome, but a couple of points came up where I might be able to add something...

The video "feedback loop" the Prof refers to is, I believe, a setup where a video camera is aimed at a TV screen (or monitor) displaying the image from the camera. This is quite easy to set up with any digital camera with a video-out socket, although in the Prof's case the mirror seems to be additionally required because he's trying to do it with his laptop's built-in camera. When setup just right, the feedback results in a psychedelic pattern on the screen, like an animated Rorschach test. I'm sure that if you stared at the pattern for long enough, you could convince yourself that you'd seen all sorts of things.

Second, the Prof mentioned producing voices on "blank magnetic media", and also that he hoped to also include "digital media". It's worth pointing out that there are digital magnetic recording systems. It would be much harder to remotely influence a DAT tape (excude my RAS syndrome) in such a way as to produce audible sounds on it, than it would to do the same thing with an analog tape.

I'd just like to add that I'm always incredibly impressed by the way certain forum members here (Jackalgirl stands out) go out of their way to remain polite and helpful, even in the face of applicants like the Prof.
 
The Professor said:
Paranormal Researchers use feedback loops ALL THE TIME
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly. But have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?

Why do paranormal researchers use feedback loops? Why do they generate loads and loads of useless, junk data?

Perhaps it is because they are looking for a pattern. Tons of junk data greatly increases the chance of some sort of pattern appearing at some point. If one generates millions of random digits, the chance of "123456789" appearing increases. The chance of some sort off odd pattern appearing increases even more.

A feedback loop creates mountains of data in which a pattern could appear by mere chance, accidentally and through non-paranormal means. It also creates the opportunity for the mind to think it sees a pattern where none exists. The tendency of the brain to see faces and hear voices in otherwise random audio/video noise is well established.

On the other hand, if a pattern appears out of nothing, there are far fewer non-paranormal explanations for it.

So, in my opinion, your feedback loop is an unnecessary complication that increases the chances of finding something while decreasing the chances that anything you find would be caused by a paranormal event.

I don't represent the JREF, but once again I have to caution you that you may be following a path that will not meet with approval.
 
Dave, I look forward to seeing your protocol so you can take the MDC. How are you going to show the entity or anomaly or whatever to be self-evidently paranormal?

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.
Click to expand...

Images and sounds from a laptop or scientifically explainable. Please tell us how they will be shown to be paranormal.
 
The protocol has just been written in the last few posts, thanks to the suggestion in Marcus' post. It can now be massaged with improvements by applicant and Forumites.

1) Two small plexiglass boxes, each containing a digital voice recorder.
2) The boxes will set upon two separate plexiglass tables, approximately five feet apart. This will allow visual inspection of no wiring leading from the ground (or otherwise), to the boxes.
3) Both boxes out in the open, within plain view of all witnesses and cameras, approximately 100 feet from the applicant.
4) Both boxes and recorders will be checked by representatives from applicant and JREF, as well as a mutually agreed upon neutral third party.
The recorders will be demonstrated to be in working condition and void of previous data.
5) The offering of money for volunteer assistants has obviously been allowed, but the exchange of said money will be disallowed in order to foster the integrity of those same volunteers and the test. The exchange of the $1,000,000 is understood by both parties to represent only the award for successful completion of the test, and not payment for assistance and it is agreed that both parties understand the difference.
6) The preliminary test will take place at Midnight, the night of Halloween - October 31, 2009. This means that once the test begins, the actual date of the test itself will technically be November 1st, 2009.

TP, are there any of the above protocol stipulations that would not be agreeable to you?
Can you, or someone else please try to fill in the blanks or gaping holes that are presented by the above offerings?
 
At this point, this challenge application is being put on the back burner, as it won't take place for at least a year, apparently. I sent The Professor mail a few days ago, but he has not responded.

If you'd like to continue working on protocol here, that's fine. This thread will be moderated by normal standards from now on, and I will not be following it. Any official communication regarding this challenge will take place via e-mail.

Thanks to everyone who tried to help reach a working protocol.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
At this point, this challenge application is being put on the back burner, as it won't take place for at least a year, apparently. I sent The Professor mail a few days ago, but he has not responded.

If you'd like to continue working on protocol here, that's fine. This thread will be moderated by normal standards from now on, and I will not be following it. Any official communication regarding this challenge will take place via e-mail.

Thanks to everyone who tried to help reach a working protocol.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine for the hell of it. :)
Whoop whoop roll on next year.For more of the same nonsense.;)
 
Jeff Wagg said:
At this point, this challenge application is being put on the back burner, as it won't take place for at least a year, apparently. I sent The Professor mail a few days ago, but he has not responded.

If you'd like to continue working on protocol here, that's fine. This thread will be moderated by normal standards from now on, and I will not be following it. Any official communication regarding this challenge will take place via e-mail.

Thanks to everyone who tried to help reach a working protocol.
Click to expand...


Who would have thought that The Professor wouldn't respond to something? Anyone want to continue working on a protocol, just for practice?
 
The Professor said:
I have been asked to simplify things and I am attempting to do so with the most modern technologies available. Seems logical to me. What's the problem with simplifying it?
:cool::cool:

I am in FACT designing protocol with every post!
Click to expand...

Professor: Might I point out a contradiction in the above post? In general, modern technologies are not simpler. Two tin cans and a piece of string is a whole lot simpler than a cell phone.

I agree with you in that simple is good. I just don't think you're simplifying in the right way.



Have you given any thought to my offer to volunteer as a neutral third party?
 
fakejakesnake said:
The protocol has just been written in the last few posts, thanks to the suggestion in Marcus' post. It can now be massaged with improvements by applicant and Forumites.

1) Two small plexiglass boxes, each containing a digital voice recorder.
2) The boxes will set upon two separate plexiglass tables, approximately five feet apart. This will allow visual inspection of no wiring leading from the ground (or otherwise), to the boxes.
3) Both boxes out in the open, within plain view of all witnesses and cameras, approximately 100 feet from the applicant.
4) Both boxes and recorders will be checked by representatives from applicant and JREF, as well as a mutually agreed upon neutral third party.
The recorders will be demonstrated to be in working condition and void of previous data.
5) The offering of money for volunteer assistants has obviously been allowed, but the exchange of said money will be disallowed in order to foster the integrity of those same volunteers and the test. The exchange of the $1,000,000 is understood by both parties to represent only the award for successful completion of the test, and not payment for assistance and it is agreed that both parties understand the difference.
6) The preliminary test will take place at Midnight, the night of Halloween - October 31, 2009. This means that once the test begins, the actual date of the test itself will technically be November 1st, 2009.

TP, are there any of the above protocol stipulations that would not be agreeable to you?
Can you, or someone else please try to fill in the blanks or gaping holes that are presented by the above offerings?
Click to expand...

WOW ... pretty good for your first post ... And what a great name!!!!
Who are you?
Really :)
:cool::cool:
 
Jeff Wagg said:
At this point, this challenge application is being put on the back burner, as it won't take place for at least a year, apparently. I sent The Professor mail a few days ago, but he has not responded.

If you'd like to continue working on protocol here, that's fine. This thread will be moderated by normal standards from now on, and I will not be following it. Any official communication regarding this challenge will take place via e-mail.

Thanks to everyone who tried to help reach a working protocol.
Click to expand...

Yes I did get you email a couple of days ago ..
Here it is ...


Yes, I had to tend to other things. Sorry for the delay.

This is an acceptable claim, and now we have to work on the protocol. At this point, I need you to submit a protocol which will eliminate the possibility of cheating or misinterpreting the results.

On the forum, you have indicated that you are now trying for October 31, 2009. You've also said that you've made contact during the day on dates other than October 31. To simplify things greatly, I think it would be wise to eliminate your date requirement. It would also allow us to test you much sooner.


Thank you,

Jeff Wagg
JREF

I have been preparing my protocol to be fine tuned and precise as advised.
There have been some good ideas here as well as the other form of communications that are disrespectful.

However, I have persisted and made it this far despite all of the folks trying to stop me.

I have not decided to eliminate my date requirement but it is being considered. I've never said that making contact is the same as actually getting the "Voices" onto a recording device. That's quite another thing. Perhaps that assumption is causing some problems.
:cool::cool:
 
fakejakesnake said:
The protocol has just been written in the last few posts, thanks to the suggestion in Marcus' post. It can now be massaged with improvements by applicant and Forumites.

1) Two small plexiglass boxes, each containing a digital voice recorder.
2) The boxes will set upon two separate plexiglass tables, approximately five feet apart. This will allow visual inspection of no wiring leading from the ground (or otherwise), to the boxes.
3) Both boxes out in the open, within plain view of all witnesses and cameras, approximately 100 feet from the applicant.
4) Both boxes and recorders will be checked by representatives from applicant and JREF, as well as a mutually agreed upon neutral third party.
The recorders will be demonstrated to be in working condition and void of previous data.
5) The offering of money for volunteer assistants has obviously been allowed, but the exchange of said money will be disallowed in order to foster the integrity of those same volunteers and the test. The exchange of the $1,000,000 is understood by both parties to represent only the award for successful completion of the test, and not payment for assistance and it is agreed that both parties understand the difference.
6) The preliminary test will take place at Midnight, the night of Halloween - October 31, 2009. This means that once the test begins, the actual date of the test itself will technically be November 1st, 2009.

TP, are there any of the above protocol stipulations that would not be agreeable to you?
Can you, or someone else please try to fill in the blanks or gaping holes that are presented by the above offerings?
Click to expand...

The only thing we need to figure out is how will the test be objective. We need to know if the entities can be persuaded to record specific phrases or answer specific questions that have only one answer like math questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom