• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

Please keep to the topic of this thread which is the protocol for Pavel Ziborov. If you wish to discuss other protocols, applications and so on do so elsewhere.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
I am here to encourage you Pavel!
Keep at it. Time is running out but I have faith in you.
I will help you in any way!
Stick to your guns :)
 
Crundy said:
Can the room not contain the tester, Pavel, a JREF cameraman, and Pavel's cameraman? 4 shouldn't be too many for one room.
Click to expand...

No-one answered this. So don't you think this would be sufficient?
 
How Cool! Happy birthday to me!:) JREF must tell you that is something cool! Note with Happy birthday!:)
xxx
 
Dear forum members,

I would like to thank you all for your time, help and patience during the negotiation of my protocol with JREF. Thank you for your support, critique and ideas. I have learned a lot, some of the suggestions helped me to improve the protocol and move on with negotiations.
This morning I received the next email from JREF.

Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”


I am speechless, to be honest. After dragging it for over a year and deliberately pushing me to accept THEIR conditions that would complicate the test and make it impossible for me to pass, JREF just want make it my fault and close file. I am given a “great” choice—my file will be closed or I have to agree with the protocol that guarantees my failure! JREF has dragged me with my protocol for so long, I had to wait MONTHS sometimes for their reply and seemed like they were sort of happy with it. And the problem was a bottle of water and the presence of someone from my side. Then I answered all there question, reviewed the protocol with the help of Startz and accepted some of JREF’s suggestions and objections, waited for the reply and opinion and what’s happened? After exactly four months I’ve received a reply which completely ignores all previous negotiations with NO answers to my questions. JREF asked me to send the latest protocol. OK. I was a bit confused but OK, did it, sent it! And here we go, after months of waiting—GET IT PAVEL! Now its as simple as: you fail or you fail!

I never from the very first day, NEVER claimed 100% accuracy and it was the JREF who asked me to state my accuracy. I did it, as you all know, totally transparent from my side and posted on forum. The JREF accepted my claims and after some months we started negotiating and we arrived where we arrived.

In the view of over a year of my "STRUGGLE" corresponding with JREF—one letter in a few months— and their deliberate push, as I said before, to the conditions that would guarantee JREF that I will fail.

There last threat to close my file if I don't agree to correctly identify 20 and I am not given even 1 chance to be wrong, they know I will not agree to this. They perfectly know it. Again, I never claimed 100% accuracy and even if supposedly we negotiated, say, 18 out of 20 that, first of all, more than my accuracy claimed and, second of all, I am not given chance anyway, Starz has offered me to write to JREF and ask for possible negotiation. Very kind of him but what negotiation are we talking about when… “What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility? If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.”

I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.

Nevertheless, I want to thank everybody here on this forum again.
My challenge is over! I leave JREF to their business that is to ridicule applicants and than to shout everywhere that they are the fairest challenge ever.
Now my file will be closed.
And, unfortunately, the words of Sally Feather, daughter of the founder of Rhine’s parapsychology center, finally came true: “You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.”

She was absolutely right. I guess she should get 1.000.000$ for prediction coming through!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

P.S.

My reply to JREF as follows..

Dear Alison,

From my side I have done more than enough to prove my willingness to be tested. And I think it is a normal wish to be tested fairly. I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure. I have nothing more to say but to close my file as I see no more point in negotiations with JREF.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel
 
pavel_do said:
...
I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.
...
Click to expand...

Pavel, while you were one of the more courteous applicants, you did do a lot of waffling, which is usually the sign of someone not wanting to get tested.

We can never be sure whether it was due to a language barrier. I think you are quite intelligent, and I think you made calculated moves.

All in all, your walk in JREF territory was not a straight line, which can easily be seen from your posts.

If I were you - that is: serious about providing evidence for my claim under controlled conditions - I'd take up another challenge and do a test where possible. The JREF is obviously not the only girl at this dance.
 
I agree with GzuzKryzt. Find other organizations that are willing to test you. Try the local universities. Try the media. You need to have something very simple to show. Once you can demonstrate the simple then you can do the more complex things. Doing the MDC is a hard task. No one has come close to winning the prize.
 
pavel_do said:
Dear forum members,

...Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”
Click to expand...
pavel,

Since you are being asked to simplify the protocol you sent to JREF (June?) and the latest protocol on the MDC thread was in February, could you list the protocol in this thread to enable sincere posters to help you refine it to meet JREF's suggestion? If you prefer, you could PM the protocol to me.

It would seem a shame to have come all this way only to fall at the last fence.
 
Pavel, they didn't say you had to get all 20 correct to pass. Someone help me out here, wouldn't the number be more like 17? I don't see how this protocol guarantees your failure.
 
Marcus said:
Pavel, they didn't say you had to get all 20 correct to pass. Someone help me out here, wouldn't the number be more like 17? I don't see how this protocol guarantees your failure.
Click to expand...

The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.
Click to expand...
According to Pavel, Randi said:

"Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

"I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested."

All that Randi had to add is something like: "Of course, he doesn't have to get all 20 right. 16 would be acceptable, at least for the preliminary test."

So, will Randi make such a clarification?
 
pavel_do said:
Dear forum members,

I would like to thank you all for your time, help and patience during the negotiation of my protocol with JREF. Thank you for your support, critique and ideas. I have learned a lot, some of the suggestions helped me to improve the protocol and move on with negotiations.
This morning I received the next email from JREF.

Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”


I am speechless, to be honest. After dragging it for over a year and deliberately pushing me to accept THEIR conditions that would complicate the test and make it impossible for me to pass, JREF just want make it my fault and close file. I am given a “great” choice—my file will be closed or I have to agree with the protocol that guarantees my failure! JREF has dragged me with my protocol for so long, I had to wait MONTHS sometimes for their reply and seemed like they were sort of happy with it. And the problem was a bottle of water and the presence of someone from my side. Then I answered all there question, reviewed the protocol with the help of Startz and accepted some of JREF’s suggestions and objections, waited for the reply and opinion and what’s happened? After exactly four months I’ve received a reply which completely ignores all previous negotiations with NO answers to my questions. JREF asked me to send the latest protocol. OK. I was a bit confused but OK, did it, sent it! And here we go, after months of waiting—GET IT PAVEL! Now its as simple as: you fail or you fail!
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The response seems quite unfair. I followed your application process, but it's been so long that I have forgotten some of the details. However, I just re-read the last protocol you submitted to Alison and I don't understand why they suddenly felt it was too onerous (or why they made a fuss over something as simple as some water). If eight hours is now too long for a Challenge test, then it means that many claims will be dismissed on a technicality, rather than on merit, which makes the presence of the Challenge even less useful.

I never from the very first day, NEVER claimed 100% accuracy and it was the JREF who asked me to state my accuracy. I did it, as you all know, totally transparent from my side and posted on forum. The JREF accepted my claims and after some months we started negotiating and we arrived where we arrived.
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood (or at least, I hope you have). Your success rate will probably be expected to correspond to the same probability given for success in the other test. However, you are right to be concerned. Reducing the number of tests means that you need a much higher success rate to reach the same level of probability. And this success rate will be higher than the success rate you have actually claimed (through your own testing). It sets you up to fail even if your claim is true and accurate. Which would make the critics of James Randi and the Challenge right. This is very disappointing.

In the view of over a year of my "STRUGGLE" corresponding with JREF—one letter in a few months— and their deliberate push, as I said before, to the conditions that would guarantee JREF that I will fail.

There last threat to close my file if I don't agree to correctly identify 20 and I am not given even 1 chance to be wrong, they know I will not agree to this. They perfectly know it. Again, I never claimed 100% accuracy and even if supposedly we negotiated, say, 18 out of 20 that, first of all, more than my accuracy claimed and, second of all, I am not given chance anyway, Starz has offered me to write to JREF and ask for possible negotiation. Very kind of him but what negotiation are we talking about when… “What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility? If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.”

I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.

Nevertheless, I want to thank everybody here on this forum again.
My challenge is over! I leave JREF to their business that is to ridicule applicants and than to shout everywhere that they are the fairest challenge ever.
Now my file will be closed.
And, unfortunately, the words of Sally Feather, daughter of the founder of Rhine’s parapsychology center, finally came true: “You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.”

She was absolutely right. I guess she should get 1.000.000$ for prediction coming through!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

P.S.

My reply to JREF as follows..

Dear Alison,

From my side I have done more than enough to prove my willingness to be tested. And I think it is a normal wish to be tested fairly. I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure. I have nothing more to say but to close my file as I see no more point in negotiations with JREF.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel
Click to expand...

Before you consider the matter closed, is it possible for you and Starz to review the protocol again and attempt a response? Otherwise, I'd do as others suggested and simply look elsewhere.

Linda
 
Rodney said:
According to Pavel, Randi said:

"Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

"I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested."

All that Randi had to add is something like: "Of course, he doesn't have to get all 20 right. 16 would be acceptable, at least for the preliminary test."

So, will Randi make such a clarification?
Click to expand...

Before we play chinese whispers or delve into a he said, she said bonanza, let's await an official JREF response. Or, if one can't wait that long, ask [email protected]
 
pavel_do said:
I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure.

Pavel
Click to expand...

Pavel,

Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.
 
Gr8wight said:
Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.
Click to expand...
AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.
 
Pixel42 said:
AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.
Click to expand...

Let me remind everyone that Pavel wanted to use 200 photographs (or copies) in the last available protocol. If I remember correctly, at one point he wanted to use even more.

That is not a streamlined test. I'm sure we can agree on that.

Given Randi's penchant for simple test set-ups, he seems to have recently insisted on 20 trials, after a simple test did not materialize in the months and months before.

I also doubt very much that Randi insisted on Pavel nailing all 20 of those 20 trials. That's why I'd like to see a JREF statement.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Let me remind everyone that Pavel wanted to use 200 photographs (or copies) in the last available protocol. If I remember correctly, at one point he wanted to use even more.

That is not a streamlined test. I'm sure we can agree on that.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Given Randi's penchant for simple test set-ups, he seems to have recently insisted on 20 trials, after a simple test did not materialize in the months and months before.
Click to expand...
Which should be ample for a preliminary test.

I also doubt very much that Randi insisted on Pavel nailing all 20 of those 20 trials. That's why I'd like to see a JREF statement.
Click to expand...
Likewise. I can see nothing in the correspondence he quoted that says he'd have to get all 20 right. Pavel seems to have simply assumed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom