reason1 said:
... the testers/observers cannot get inside the mind of the starer to see if he/she was actually staring as i describe it.
Reason1, this is the portion of your statement that makes your claim untestable.
What you are saying here is that the only way for observers to know that you were successful is when you tell them you were successful. I don't speak for JREF, but I can confidently tell you that they will reject your claim if this is true. Please search for, and read, threads concerning cloud-busting. Your claim exactly the same, and will be rejected for the same reasons.
Now, if I am correct in understanding you, you're stating that there is an objective way to measure this based on the angle by which people's heads move (and your head moves) when people are staring at you (as you describe it), by the angle at which your head moves when you are reacting to them, and by the fact that this will occur more or less simultaneously.
Let us entertain, for a moment, the setup that would be required in order to actually objectively measure this in a public setting (and bear in mind that there are a LOT of assumptions built into the following setup).
First, there would need to be an enormous number of cameras. They would have to have running synchronized timestamps, and they would need to be viewing the scene from a variety of viewpoints, including from straight above.
You'd need to obtain permission to do this in this public setting. If in a mall, it would require the permission of the mall's owners. If in a truly public setting, it would require the permission of the authorities (and probably a permit).
You would likely also need to obtain the permission of the people filmed to film them. I'd actually consult with a lawyer to see what privacy laws apply here.
Secondly, you would need either specially-written software or (simpler) clear film templates that could be overlayed on the screen. These would be used to determine whether the person's head had deflected from that person's centerline by a certain angular amount. This would only work, of course, if the person happened to be staring at you as he or she was passing directly underneath a camera. So persons who were staring at you but of whom a solid picture (for the purpose of management) couldn't be taken because of the camera position -- those "hits" would have to be discarded. That's why you'd need a lot of cameras. A LOT.
Because remember, there can't be someone saying "in my opinion, that person was staring".
Thirdly, you'd have to find a way to demonstrate that the person whose head was so deflected was actually looking at
you, as opposed to looking at something in between you and the person, or something on the other side of you and the person. I have absolutely no idea how you would do that. I don't think it could be done objectively other than by having someone run up to the person and say "excuse me, what were you looking at?" which, of course, presents the possibility of the person 1) lying or 2) being a plant. This goes for you, too -- there would either have to be a way for observers to determine exactly who you were looking at (or you would have to keep a list with a sufficiently detailed description of the persons you "caught" looking at you.)
Let's just say, however, that you present some way to overcome this problem. Also, let's also assume that we've found the perfect public place, with perfectly terrible acoustics and no reflective surfaces. Let's say we've figured out some way to prevent a confederate of yours from pointing out targets. Lastly, let's assume for the purpose of this test that we've determined that anyone who meets the "looking at reason1" angular parameters who are not located in the rear x-ty degrees of arc as measured with 000 being directly in front of you are also discarded as possible "hits". (Where "x-ty" is a number of degrees mutually-agreed upon as being outside of your peripheral vision)
Are you prepared to:
o investigate the legality of placing cameras in a public place and recording persons without their implicit permission, including paying any required legal fees to obtain the permit (as applicable) to do this or
o obtaining the permission of anyone who enters (or leaves) the scene if required, which will require extra assistants and lots of paperwork, the cost of which you will be paying for and
o pay for the purchase or rental of all of these cameras and their positioning rigs and
o pay for the rental of video processing equipment and
o pay for the time of the persons who then process this data, possibly including
o paying for the writing of bespoke visual recognition software or
o paying for the creation of the film templates (if you're unable to write/create it/them yourself) as well as
o pay for the lodging and expenses of all of the participants, including those from or representing JREF?
Are you ready to assume these costs?
-=-=-=-=-
Edited to add an off-topic aside: "One Froggy Evening" is my absolute second-most favorite WB cartoon...right on the heels of "Feed the Kitty" which is, in a way, another example of how one's senses can be fooled. ; )
