• 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.

Paranormal detection

Robert Oz said:
reason1,

Okay, rather than continuing our discussion on whether your experiences are normal or paranormal, let's get back on the protocol.
Click to expand...

This is what i call an open-minded objective discussion....thank you Robert Oz


UncaYimmy said:
My protocol, which was just a rough draft, either answers these questions or makes them irrelevant altogether. To be honest I would prefer you address my suggested protocol point by point.
Click to expand...

Hi,
I prefer to delay my response to any suggested protocols until my detailed post in which i will restate the following:
My claim.
Conscious/subconscious levels.
Telepathy.
How we see things.
Staring and why it's testable in regard to my claim.
Acting/simulating staring in the lab, and why it's untestable.
What is self-evident and what is not.
Confirmation/Disconfirmation bias.
Reflexes.


Jackalgirl said:
Also add:

"Are you ready to pay for all of this, and for the lodging, food, and expenses of everyone involved?"

Remember, you're responsible for all of the costs of the Challenge, per the Challenge Rules.
Click to expand...
Hi
well...I really don't like the idea of me paying anything :), i prefer the sponsors do this job for me.
Also i don't think that i need permission from people before video recording them, but of course i'll need the detected-starers permission before releasing any record to the public.
It will be like the candid camera shows,after a starer is detected he/she will be approached to sign the permission for publicly using the video.
Also i'm still thinking about other aspects of your suggestions.

I will need also independent media/observers and 4 American judges (2 males (one white and the other one black) and the 2 females (also one white and the other one black)) at the test.
And i'm also contacting the American government, i'm sure they will be interested in attending the test too (remember the "Sniper Detection System" hint).


H3LL said:
The de ja vu is very strong - Does a close friend of yours claim to have a PhD?.
Click to expand...

Yea...i feel that too, when discussing with some people here, i feel like i'm the skeptic talking with the believers

H3LL said:
Quite easy.

You misquoted me as saying:




Whereas my actual quote was:




Note my use of the period. It is customary to use it at the end of sentences so that full meaning is apparent and to prevent people "accidentally" stopping half way through.

Perhaps there is a new definition of dishonest that you have yet to tell us about.

The definition I know of makes you dishonest.
Click to expand...

Well...You called me dishonest several times before this post of yours that you allegedly proves that i'm dishonest.
Don't you think that calling someone dishonest (also other names) without giving good logical reasons is a dishonest thing to do ?!
Moreover we are here talking about dishonesty regarding my application not with each other.


H3LL said:
Claiming lack of time when you have enough for irrelevant searches also makes you dishonest.
Click to expand...

You did the same thing when you referred to my joke about suing in other thread ,and also I didn't search your posts ,I've read it when i joined the forum.
Also i don't recall saying that i don't have time except for repeated answered questions

H3LL said:
Meanwhile, you ignore my posts with suggestions/ideas for a protocol and an offer of my time to help you, stage by stage, to understand how to construct a protocol.

With each post you further demonstrate my suspicion that your motivations in this thread are dishonest.
Click to expand...

H3LL said:
Cherry-picking my posts and ignoring the offers made is also dishonest IMHO.

It was expected and I fully expect more to come later.

I'm sure you won't disappoint.
Click to expand...

There is no point in discussing you virtual protocol if you insist that my claim is untestable in the first place.

BUT let's not get in personal arguments , all i want from you, H3LL ,is NOT to repeatedly say that my claim is untestable, i want you to convince me using logical/reasonable argument like other objective members do.
I'd appreciate it if you do that, but if you still irritated and don't want to engage in rational argument, just unsubscribe like you did before and let other people continue their objective discussion.
Being on the defensive will not serve your cause ,but surely will serve mine....OK ???!!!!

GzuzKryzt said:
I think I have done enough to try to help you. Discussing with you seems futile at this point.

Good day, reason1.
Click to expand...
what !! :(........AH..please :rolleyes:

PS: All i want is for this to be an open-minded objective public discussion, not a public interrogation !
 
reason1 said:
This is what i call an open-minded objective discussion....thank you Robert Oz
Click to expand...


You're welcome. Don't let me down. I look forward to your protocol that eliminates all the problems we have raised to date in this thread.


reason1 said:
I prefer to delay my response to any suggested protocols until my detailed post in which i will restate the following:
My claim.
Conscious/subconscious levels.
Telepathy.
How we see things.
Staring and why it's testable in regard to my claim.
Acting/simulating staring in the lab, and why it's untestable.
What is self-evident and what is not.
Confirmation/Disconfirmation bias.
Reflexes.
Click to expand...


I think it has come to the point where we have raised all of the relevant problems with your ability and the possibility of testing it. Please make your next post the long detailed one. I don't think there is any reason to continue with this back-and-forth.

Please make your next post the detailed one and we will continue the discussion from there. Otherwise, I am worried this thread will die very soon with nothing achieved.
 
I agree with Robert Oz. I don't see any reason for anyone to post here until reason1's detailed post. Also, reason1 should let us know which post is the detailed one. I suspect that it might be hard for us to tell. If no one posts, he'll have to put up his detailed post. I don't think he'd let this thread die. If a detailed post is the only way to keep it alive.......

Ward
 
Hi,
as i said i will restate the whole thing, it's for the sake of clarification.i think i do a good job stating my posts,but i'll do it again in one post using other ways for anyone who still don't get.
you know what i'm also thinking...just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post :)
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
Hi,
as i said i will restate the whole thing, it's for the sake of clarification.i think i do a good job stating my posts,but i'll do it again in one post using other ways for anyone who one still don't get.
you know what i'm also thinking...just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post :)
Click to expand...


No, it isn't!

Your protocol must eliminate all problems raised in this thread. You must show what controls will be in place to eliminate every single problem raised including:

1. Controlling and filming the volume of people required;
2. Objectively determining whether they are actively or passively staring;
3. Objectively determining whether they are looking before you move your head;
4. Developing a method to count the misses; and
5. Developing a protocol where results will be self-evident (i.e. no judging required!).

Long post answering these questions please. If these questions are not addressed, I, for one, will not waste any more time on this thread.
 
Robert Oz said:
No, it isn't!

Your protocol must eliminate all problems raised in this thread. You must show what controls will be in place to eliminate every single problem raised including:

1. Controlling and filming the volume of people required;
2. Objectively determining whether they are actively or passively staring;
3. Objectively determining whether they are looking before you move your head;
4. Developing a method to count the misses; and
5. Developing a protocol where results will be self-evident (i.e. no judging required!).

Long post answering these questions please. If these questions are not addressed, I, for one, will not waste any more time on this thread.
Click to expand...

I do find your efforts commendable, Robert Oz. But do you really think this protocol has any chance of being approved by Randi? And do you really think reason1 will ever do more than addressing tangential issues - which he has done almost the entire thread - when addressing the core issues would very likely suggest even to him that he is deluded about the nature of what he claims happens?
[/Passive aggressiveness]

No valid claim.
No protocol.
No test.
Ever.
No dollars.

But hopefully some education.



@anyone: Whoever has misused the term "harassment" in regard to this thread is not allowed to use that term for at least six weeks or less.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
I do find your efforts commendable, Robert Oz. But do you really think this protocol has any chance of being approved by Randi?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think for a moment that reason1 will come up with a protocol that would be approved by the JREF. I was hoping to show reason1 that it is impossible to develop a satisfactory protocol based on what he is claiming. Maybe I have given him too much time, but I decided to give it one last shot before giving up - which I will if he doesn't come back with something that at least looks like he is trying.


GzuzKryzt said:
And do you really think reason1 will ever do more than addressing tangential issues - which he has done almost the entire thread - when addressing the core issues would very likely suggest even to him that he is deluded about the nature of what he claims happens?
[/Passive aggressiveness]
Click to expand...


We shall see soon, I suppose. But I share your doubt.


GzuzKryzt said:
No valid claim.
No protocol.
No test.
Ever.
No dollars.

But hopefully some education.
Click to expand...


That last line is exactly what I was aiming for.
 
reason1 said: "just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post"

Ah, well. There goes all hope that reason1 was really working on something. He is honest, though (eventually). He finally said that he had nothing more to offer. He can quote himself, but apparently cannot answer the questions in a detailed post as promised.

Ward
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
as i said i will restate the whole thing, it's for the sake of clarification.i think i do a good job stating my posts,but i'll do it again in one post using other ways for anyone who still don't get.
you know what i'm also thinking...just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post :)
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

So you want to start and go through the whole discussion again without even considering or replying as to why you do not have a valid claim? There is a word for that, and it starts with a T.

Norm
 
wardenclyffe said:
reason1 said: "just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post"

Ah, well. There goes all hope that reason1 was really working on something. He is honest, though (eventually). He finally said that he had nothing more to offer. He can quote himself, but apparently cannot answer the questions in a detailed post as promised.

Ward
Click to expand...

I will not do that (quoting myself) and that is a promise :)
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
as i said i will restate the whole thing, it's for the sake of clarification.i think i do a good job stating my posts,but i'll do it again in one post using other ways for anyone who still don't get.
you know what i'm also thinking...just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post :)
Click to expand...

I will not do that (quoting myself) and that is a promise
Click to expand...

So one of you lied. Thanks for clarifying that.

Norm
 
reason1 said: "I will not do that (quoting myself) and that is a promise"

So we still await your long promised detailed post that will answer all our questions.

Ward
 
reason1 said:
I really don't like the idea of me paying anything :), i prefer the sponsors do this job for me.
Click to expand...
You think you are going to be able to get sponsors willing to pay the cost of the experiment?

Good luck with that.

I will need also independent media/observers and 4 American judges (2 males (one white and the other one black) and the 2 females (also one white and the other one black)) at the test.
Click to expand...
You can bring whatever observers to the test you like. Bear in mind, though, that the results of the test must be self-evident, so neither they nor anyone else (including the JREF observer) can be called upon to judge the results, only to confirm that the previously agreed protocol was followed and that the success criteria either were or were not reached.

And i'm also contacting the American government, i'm sure they will be interested in attending the test too
Click to expand...
Good luck with that too.

All this is a bit premature though. You still have to produce a workable protocol which will be acceptable to JREF, not to mention obtain an academic affadavit and a media profile.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
My claim.
Conscious/subconscious levels.
Telepathy.
How we see things.
Staring and why it's testable in regard to my claim.
Acting/simulating staring in the lab, and why it's untestable.
What is self-evident and what is not.
Confirmation/Disconfirmation bias.
Reflexes.
Click to expand...

This looks like a set-up for you to waffle on about your pet hypothesis on various topic - Not just a derail but a major train wreck waiting to happen.

My claim. - Fine as long as it is purely what you claim to be able to do and with what success.

Conscious/subconscious levels. - There is no interest in your pet ideas on consciousness. It is irrelevant to the test. Results should be self evident and not open to interpretation, least of all your interpretation. Open another thread on this topic if you must.

Telepathy. Also irrelevant. No one cares how your super-power works. It can be invisible pink pixies carrying messages written in hieroglyphics on gold tablets transported in ethereal shopping bags as far as we care. Results should be self evident. How that happens is of no importance. Open another thread on this topic if you must

How we see things. How this happens is irrelevant. The self evident fact that people are actually seeing the results is all that's important. We neither know nor care how you think people see things. Open another thread on this topic if you must

Staring and why it's testable in regard to my claim. Just tell us what you consider to be staring and how that is to be assessed. Why is of no importance. Open another thread on your opinions of its testablility if you must

Acting/simulating staring in the lab, and why it's untestable. We don't want to know what is untestable only what can be tested. Untestable elements have no place in your MDC. Open another thread on this topic if you must

What is self-evident and what is not. We only want to know what parts of your protocol are self evident. Those that require interpretation cannot be part of your protocol. Open another thread on the topic of what is not if you must

Confirmation/Disconfirmation bias. You can tell us what parts of the test you have designed to remove bias if you wish, even though It's not needed. Rest assured that if there is any indication of allowing bias there will be many here to point that out. We do not need or require your ideas on what you think bias is.

Reflexes. All humans have them. No need to discuss in detail. How quickly you can detect staring should be covered elsewhere. Other peoples reflexes should not be an issue. Open another thread on this topic if you must

I've shortened your long post a little.

I look forward to you ignoring the suggestions.

.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if this is going to help but there are similarities with your vague claim:



Detecting flaws in this "test" might help you with designing your own.

If you can find none - You have a problem and major re-think might be in order.
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
as i said i will restate the whole thing, it's for the sake of clarification.i think i do a good job stating my posts,but i'll do it again in one post using other ways for anyone who still don't get.
Click to expand...


I'll just order a new irony meter, will I?



reason1 said:
you know what i'm also thinking...just quoting my previous posts is good enough for a detailed long post :)
Click to expand...


You may want to rethink again. Third time lucky is what some say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom