• 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

reason1 said:
;)
You know what else would also help, responding on behalf of me to false claims , harassment , answered questions or anything you know can help me concentrate or can spare me the disappointment
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't help you. Nobody is forcing you to respond to anything here and I don't see any false claims or harassment (a bit of name calling but not much more) and answering questions with "I've already answered that" is not sufficient because obviously the questioner feels the original answer did not completely answer the question.

Everyone here is offering you suggestions on how to make a protocol that will be acceptable to the JREF (which right now you are not an official applicant) and you don't seem to be listening. If you think they are wrong, point out why. If you don't accept what they are offering, agree to disagree and move on.

ETA: while the people here offering you suggestions do not work for the JREF and what they are telling you is "for whatever it's worth", I have been lurking here long enough to come to the conclusion that they know what they are talking about. You really should take what they tell you into consideration instead of just brushing it off because in your own mind you know you are right.
 
Last edited:
Lrrr said:
Sorry, can't help you. Nobody is forcing you to respond to anything here and I don't see any false claims or harassment (a bit of name calling but not much more) and answering questions with "I've already answered that" is not sufficient because obviously the questioner feels the original answer did not completely answer the question.
Click to expand...

Throwing claims at me without proof is forcing me to reply as you are doing now...tell me, where did i ever do that, saying "I've already answered that" without clarification ???????!!!!!!
Just quote me....GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!

Lrrr said:
Everyone here is offering you suggestions on how to make a protocol that will be acceptable to the JREF (which right now you are not an official applicant) and you don't seem to be listening. If you think they are wrong, point out why. If you don't accept what they are offering, agree to disagree and move on.
Click to expand...

GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!

Lrrr said:
ETA: while the people here offering you suggestions do not work for the JREF and what they are telling you is "for whatever it's worth", I have been lurking here long enough to come to the conclusion that they know what they are talking about. You really should take what they tell you into consideration instead of just brushing it off because in your own mind you know you are right.
Click to expand...

GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!
 
Oh no. I haven't been following this thread, but because of this most recent post made by the claimant I need to make a statement.

Dear Claimant: It is so easy to end up in bickering here with the JREF Forum Skeptics, some of them love to start conflicts. Try to simply ignore it and focus on the main points of your paranormal investigation. They might keep asking and posting the same irritable things, and making untrue statements about you, and they do their best to turn your words around to try to find contradictions in what you say, and they will say things that are intended as just plain mean, but do ignore the negative content if the topics they bring up are not relevant to your reasons for being here.

The Skeptics are a valuable resource for a paranormal claim. Sometimes I think that the Skeptics don't realize how valuable and necessary they are for paranormal claimants who want to find an explanation to their experience, so some Skeptics begin to suspect other reasons for your being here, such as seeking attention, being a liar, or delusional. They will very often forget that the Skeptics are here as a valuable resource and that there are claimants who do experience things and who are sincerely interested in investigating it scientifically, together with Skeptics.

Dear Skeptics: Be polite and communication with the claimant will proceed much easier and reach a final conclusion much sooner. You don't have to be rude to falsify paranormal claims and to be a good Skeptic. But if you're rude then that is just a personality issue that you should not express when dealing with other people. Claimants are people too, you know.

Grouphug: (Locknar is still the one in the middle.)
:grouphug5​
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Oh no. I haven't been following this thread, but because of this most recent post made by the claimant I need to make a statement.

Dear Claimant: It is so easy to end up in bickering here with the JREF Forum Skeptics, some of them love to start conflicts. Try to simply ignore it and focus on the main points of your paranormal investigation. They might keep asking and posting the same irritable things, and making untrue statements about you, and they do their best to turn your words around to try to find contradictions in what you say, and they will say things that are intended as just plain mean, but do ignore the negative content if the topics they bring up are not relevant to your reasons for being here.

The Skeptics are a valuable resource for a paranormal claim. Sometimes I think that the Skeptics don't realize how valuable and necessary they are for paranormal claimants who want to find an explanation to their experience, so some Skeptics begin to suspect other reasons for your being here, such as seeking attention, being a liar, or delusional. They will very often forget that the Skeptics are here as a valuable resource and that there are claimants who do experience things and who are sincerely interested in investigating it scientifically, together with Skeptics.

Dear Skeptics: Be polite and communication with the claimant will proceed much easier and reach a final conclusion much sooner. You don't have to be rude to falsify paranormal claims and to be a good Skeptic. But if you're rude then that is just a personality issue that you should not express when dealing with other people. Claimants are people too, you know.

Grouphug: (Locknar is still the one in the middle.)
:grouphug5​
Click to expand...

Please don't speak for me or prescribe what my role or purpose here is. I find your tone condescending and patronizing
 
VFF, the frustration is born from 8 pages of walls of text and not one single sentence from the OP definitively stating what paranormal phenomenon the believe they can perform and that can be tested against the MDC.

It's all there in the MDC application form, Rule 1:

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Oh no. I haven't been following this thread, but because of this most recent post made by the claimant I need to make a statement.

Dear Claimant: It is so easy to end up in bickering here with the JREF Forum Skeptics, some of them love to start conflicts. Try to simply ignore it and focus on the main points of your paranormal investigation. They might keep asking and posting the same irritable things, and making untrue statements about you, and they do their best to turn your words around to try to find contradictions in what you say, and they will say things that are intended as just plain mean, but do ignore the negative content if the topics they bring up are not relevant to your reasons for being here.

The Skeptics are a valuable resource for a paranormal claim. Sometimes I think that the Skeptics don't realize how valuable and necessary they are for paranormal claimants who want to find an explanation to their experience, so some Skeptics begin to suspect other reasons for your being here, such as seeking attention, being a liar, or delusional. They will very often forget that the Skeptics are here as a valuable resource and that there are claimants who do experience things and who are sincerely interested in investigating it scientifically, together with Skeptics.

Dear Skeptics: Be polite and communication with the claimant will proceed much easier and reach a final conclusion much sooner. You don't have to be rude to falsify paranormal claims and to be a good Skeptic. But if you're rude then that is just a personality issue that you should not express when dealing with other people. Claimants are people too, you know.

Grouphug: (Locknar is still the one in the middle.)
:grouphug5​
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Speaking of delusional, dishonest attention seekers...
 
Last edited:
You asked me to come to your defence. I declined and gave you the reasons why. There were no accusations [ETA] intended [/ETA] in anything I said.

reason1 said:
Throwing claims at me without proof is forcing me to reply as you are doing now...tell me, where did i ever do that, saying "I've already answered that" without clarification ???????!!!!!!
Just quote me....GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I never said "without classification" - you added that. To list the first two I found, posts number 238 and 329. Specifically in message 290, you respond to the topic of flooding with questions "most of I've already answered". This is not an accusation, it is a fact. I'm sure there are other instances, but I think two examples are enough.


reason1 said:
Originally Posted by Lrrr View Post
Everyone here is offering you suggestions on how to make a protocol that will be acceptable to the JREF (which right now you are not an official applicant) and you don't seem to be listening. If you think they are wrong, point out why. If you don't accept what they are offering, agree to disagree and move on.
Click to expand...
GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
There is no accusation here, just my opinion that "you don't seem to be listening". I have seen many good comments on why people don't think your protocol is sufficient to win the MDC, but have not seen you respond with "hey, that's a good point that I didn't consider. thanks for the input". If you have done this, I apologize for my misconception. However, I believe that even if you have done this, I have observed (again - this is my observation and is NOT an accusation) your responses as being "you are wrong and here's why" (paraphrasing my understanding - NOT an accusation) and then using the same answers/reasons as in previous posts. Perhaps in my original text "If you think they are wrong, point out why" I should have added "in a different way because we are just not getting it".

reason1 said:
ETA: while the people here offering you suggestions do not work for the JREF and what they are telling you is "for whatever it's worth", I have been lurking here long enough to come to the conclusion that they know what they are talking about. You really should take what they tell you into consideration instead of just brushing it off because in your own mind you know you are right.
Click to expand...
GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Same as above. If you have responded to suggestions with "thanks, I'll take that into consideration" then I have missed them and I apologize for the accusation. My recollections are that this is not happening.
 
Last edited:
Miss_Kitt said:
No, but that's a great one. It's the Wild West high-wire act. I just lose it every time I watch it...now I have to find a DVD with the ship cartoon, though. Thanks!!
Click to expand...

You mean high-diving act? 'Cause that'd be "High-Diving Hare," also on Google Video. (can't post links yet)
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Dear Skeptics: Be polite and communication with the claimant will proceed much easier and reach a final conclusion much sooner.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but understand why some people get this way. You can only bang your head against a perceived wall before you need to vent.

VisionFromFeeling said:
You don't have to be rude to falsify paranormal claims and to be a good Skeptic.
Click to expand...

I don't see how one (a skeptic being rude) is related to the other (falsifying claims). Please explain.
 
Guys, I believe the OP did clarify his protocol very clearly from the beginning:

He has already explained to us that his supernatural powers cannot be tested. They only work when the staring is "sincere", and such type of staring would not be possible in an experiment, for it would always have a different kind of intent.

Therefore, it can't be tested

So stop being hard on him. He has already explained from early on why his powers cannot be tested

Case closed
 
Lrrr said:
There is no accusation here, just my opinion that "you don't seem to be listening".
Click to expand...

But we don't know what Reason1's definition of "accusation" is. It might be a Humpty Dumpty definition, just like his definition of "staring".

Norm
 
With regard to this post by Ron Tomkins,
Ron_Tomkins said:
He has already explained to us that his supernatural powers cannot be tested. They only work when the staring is "sincere", and such type of staring would not be possible in an experiment, for it would always have a different kind of intent.
Click to expand...
reason1, you seem to have implied somewhere in this thread that you worry that the quality of the staring taking place on a test would not be good enough for you to detect it, and that this reduction in quality is merely because of the intents and purposes of a test whereas when you have allegedly experienced the claim successfully in the past. You are worried that the persons doing the staring would somehow be nervous, or that they would have the test in their mind while staring so that it would interfere with the quality of the stare, or something along these lines am I right?

ETA: Or are you worried that the persons who do the staring might somehow be "skeptics" who expect and intend you to fail, thus unintentionally or intentionally lowering the effectiveness of their stare. In such a case I am sure a test could be designed in which persons are employed to do the staring whom you have approved of prior, rather than persons "hired by the untrustworthy skeptics", if that's where the problem lies. :confused:

It sounds to me that you are taking a very simple paranormal claim and simple test procedure and making it complicated. It sounds to me like your nerves, that perhaps you are nervous about failing such a test now that it comes to it. I'm not accusing, I'm speculating. I'd suggest that you do this exact type of test on your own with your friends. You can even do it without letting us know. That way if you do fail such a test and you wouldn't want us to know, we would never find out, but you could find closure in this paranormal inquiry of yours.

Have you had an actual test of your claim in which you have actually experienced a reduction in the quality of the stare, or is this merely something that you are worried that you would encounter?
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
ETA: Or are you worried that the persons who do the staring might somehow be "skeptics" who expect and intend you to fail, thus unintentionally or intentionally lowering the effectiveness of their stare. In such a case I am sure a test could be designed in which persons are employed to do the staring whom you have approved of prior, rather than persons "hired by the untrustworthy skeptics", if that's where the problem lies. :confused:
Click to expand...

Please read the thread before you jump in with something that has already been discussed and rejected by Vision1

It was suggested several times that Vision1 use his own friends to do the staring in controlled conditions. But he rejected this saying that the staring could not be done in the right way, even by people he utterly trusted, and is adamant that the test must be performed in a public place, by complete passing strangers.

Perhaps you should do a minimum amount of research (i.e., read the thread) before jumping in.

Norm
 
Last edited:
to VisionFromFeeling:
thanks for being objective, please read this also objective post by UncaYimmy


Also i will be restating the whole thing in one post
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
thanks for being objective, please read this also objective post by UncaYimmy
Click to expand...

Are you looking for her advice on how to ignore issues brought up by UncaYimmy? She's got an entire dedicated thread's worth of experience to share on that. But don't worry, you seem to doing just fine in that regard.

reason1 said:
Also i will be restating the whole thing in one post
Click to expand...

Real Soon Now (t.m.)
 
reason1 said:
to VisionFromFeeling:
thanks for being objective, please read this also objective post by UncaYimmy


Also i will be restating the whole thing in one post
Click to expand...


See how much more effective? If you post the same unsubstantiated tripe repeatedly, you should go to larger bolded text, lest we lose interest.... and colors, lots of colors. It just lends so much more credibility, I find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom