• 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

My mistake. Let's change it to:

Think of it this way: if there were an infinite number of people around you, then statistically there would always be someone staring at you, somewhere, from any given direction. So growing the number forever helps you. But shrinking the number, as you said, does not help. So there must be some perfect crowd size range. Is that a number you think you can define?
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
No...i meant that the number of self-evident hits (synchronous reflexes) is proportional to the number of people around me.
Even with endless number of people, the odds will be still against me, and I think randomness will make the test more controlled as it eliminates any cheating on part of me or the JREF.

Also notice the following :
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or does the randomness described here make the test less (to the point of zero), not more controlled? I understand that Reason1 wants to eliminate cheating on both sides, but it is not possible in this scenario to guarantee that either Reason1 or the JREF could plant "ringers" to ensure the success of failure of the test and therefore the test is not controlled.

A controlled test would be one that both Reason1 and the JREF agree to all the people involved. This would include the people staring at Reason1 under the conditions defined by him/her and agreed to by the JREF and any impartial observers that both sides agree upon to act as observers of the test to ensure it was done in a manner fair to both sides. Note that I did not say judges - the MDC rules specifically state that the results must be self-evident to everybody (the applicant, the JREF and the observers) with no judgement of the results required.
 
If reason1 insists that only a specific type of staring works
Then there needs to be a way to be certain that anybody invovled stares in this particualr way

And if the JREF wants all results to be self-evident, and not up to the interpriation of anybody
And the only way to know the type of staring somebody is doing is to ask them

The reason1's claim can never result in a protocol that would be acceptable by the JREF...

If that's true, then the purpose of this thread has ended, and the mods should be able to close it, correct?
 
reason1 said:
news:
I'm contacting the amazing man himself James Randi !.
news:
i'm contacting ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC.
news:
I'm contacting Discover, nature , Scientific American,Science News Magazines !.
Click to expand...
:yahoo Not even I've gotten that far after 20 months of investigation! I'm cheering for you! I'm glad you've reached that stage, I mean, I wouldn't dare to contact all of these people unless I had already passed at least a properly conducted preliminary test! Wow! :) Especially Randi! ;)
 
desertgal said:
Yeah. Being able to detect "real" staring. That's an earth shaking, world changing ability. :rolleyes:

“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” - Aristophanes
Click to expand...
No, desertgal, it's not staring, it's cacakoka! :rolleyes: Geez, get the terminology right. We're dealing with special topics here. I'm sure the news channels will get it right, pronounciation and all.
 
reason1 said:
JackalGirl :
I have a problem with the cheating factor in your protocol, as the JREF are the ones who will be choosing the starers ?.
Also this apply to other suggested protocols...?
Click to expand...

Even if the JREF recruited the snipers (as opposed to you, or a third party), I'm not sure that cheating would be possible.

You see, the sniper is going to shoot you. So the sniper has to look at you intently in order to find, and maintain, the sight picture in order to shoot you.

You could argue that if the sniper misses that the sniper was not properly looking at you. But we can write into the protocol a statement that says that if the sniper does not hit you, that attempt is considered a null attempt and is repeated.

We can use different colors of paintballs for each attempt. If there are, say, five colors of paint, then after every five attempts, we pause and wipe you down (or we buy some cheap tyvek poopie-suits and have you wear them; we can just swap out suits every x colors so that you're a nice, clean blank slate when we've gone through our set of colors).

Also, since you'll be moving from behind a barrier, your end position (that is, the position you'll be at when the sniper shoots you) will be slightly different each time. So it will not be possible to set up the rifle at a certain position, get the shot right the first time, then just keep shooting. The sniper will have to actively find a sight picture each time.

I hope this answers your objection. Please let me know if you figure out any others.

Oh, and a comment re: the crowd: I would think that this actually makes things a lot EASIER for you (rather than reducing the chance of your success). You only have ONE active starer, so there's only ONE target for you to find, and nothing else to "distract" you, as it were.
 
Denver said:
My mistake. Let's change it to:

Think of it this way: if there were an infinite number of people around you, then statistically there would always be someone staring at you, somewhere, from any given direction. So growing the number forever helps you. But shrinking the number, as you said, does not help. So there must be some perfect crowd size range. Is that a number you think you can define?
Click to expand...

Hi,
note also that there is a practical problem here , if there is infinite number of people around, how many of them could actually see me at any certain moment ?

Also i don't want many people to be standing around me , i want people to be walking behind me in all directions.
but you have a good point, how crowded is the place, is certainly a factor here, i don't want it to be even crowded !.

To eliminate the chances of success by cheating on part of me, there could be also instructed simulated reflexes of which the opposite reflexes could be compared against the actual hits.
 
Lrrr said:
Is it just me, or does the randomness described here make the test less (to the point of zero), not more controlled? I understand that Reason1 wants to eliminate cheating on both sides, but it is not possible in this scenario to guarantee that either Reason1 or the JREF could plant "ringers" to ensure the success of failure of the test and therefore the test is not controlled.
Click to expand...

Hi,
could you please explain how this "ringers" attempt could happen ?
 
Jackalgirl said:
Even if the JREF recruited the snipers (as opposed to you, or a third party), I'm not sure that cheating would be possible.

You see, the sniper is going to shoot you. So the sniper has to look at you intently in order to find, and maintain, the sight picture in order to shoot you.

You could argue that if the sniper misses that the sniper was not properly looking at you. But we can write into the protocol a statement that says that if the sniper does not hit you, that attempt is considered a null attempt and is repeated.

We can use different colors of paintballs for each attempt. If there are, say, five colors of paint, then after every five attempts, we pause and wipe you down (or we buy some cheap tyvek poopie-suits and have you wear them; we can just swap out suits every x colors so that you're a nice, clean blank slate when we've gone through our set of colors).

Also, since you'll be moving from behind a barrier, your end position (that is, the position you'll be at when the sniper shoots you) will be slightly different each time. So it will not be possible to set up the rifle at a certain position, get the shot right the first time, then just keep shooting. The sniper will have to actively find a sight picture each time.

I hope this answers your objection. Please let me know if you figure out any others.
Click to expand...
Hi,
I'm not sure about how the hits and misses will be counted in your protocol ?

Jackalgirl said:
Oh, and a comment re: the crowd: I would think that this actually makes things a lot EASIER for you (rather than reducing the chance of your success). You only have ONE active starer, so there's only ONE target for you to find, and nothing else to "distract" you, as it were.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Unfortunately The "chances of my success at the test becoming smaller" was intentionally/unintentionally misinterpreted by some people.
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
I'm not sure about how the hits and misses will be counted in your protocol ?
Click to expand...

1) Your observer will write down what platform you pointed out as the source of the sniper.
2) When you are shot (at), your observer will take a look at you to determine whether a mark was made of the appropriate color. (You should probably also turn around slowly in front of a video camera before the next attempt; that way, any mistakes on the part of the observer can be caught upon a review of the test results.)

We'll need to work in a way to signal that the shot was not successful (that is, it did not hit you). Perhaps your observer will key on the walkie-talkie twice for an unsuccessful shot and annotate the recording of the attempt (on his/her clipboard) as null. We want to make sure you have ten on-spec attempts.

3) After all of the attempts are done, the observers will compare clipboards. For example, the sniper's observer will have a list of attempts and the platforms at which he/she and the sniper were located at each attempt. Your observer will have a list of attempts and the platforms which you identified as the location of the sniper for each attempt. If, upon comparing an attempt, the platforms match, that's a hit. If they don't, that's a miss.

It occurs to me that the barrel should not protrude from the screen. If you are moving, the sniper will have to move the weapon in order to sight on you. We can't have a situation in which movement can give away the location of the sniper -- we need to rule out that possibility so that the only remaining explanation is that you are paranormally detecting the sniper's location.

I hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns with the protocol. Thanks!
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
could you please explain how this "ringers" attempt could happen ?
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll give example from both sides. On your side, you arrange for friends, family or anyone else to just "show up" at the test and perform the actions that you define as a success. From the JREF side (because they don't want to give up the million $$$), arrange for people to just "show up" and peform the actions that you define as a failure.

Now don't take this as an accusation as I don't believe you would employ ringers any more than you believe that the JREF would. What I am saying is that in an uncontrolled setting such as a public place (like a mall) it is difficult if not impossible to remove this and as such the public place is not suitable for a protocol.
 
reason1 said:
JackalGirl :
I have a problem with the cheating factor in your protocol, as the JREF are the ones who will be choosing the starers ?.
Also this apply to other suggested protocols...?
Click to expand...


reason1,

It's nice to see another protocol being discussed.

Regarding your concern about cheating. The protocol needs to eliminate this possibility. The protocol is not there to merely protect the million at all costs. It is there to make sure neither side can cheat - making it a fair, controlled test.

The following steps can be taken to ensure the JREF does not cheat:

1. Six snipers can be organised by a third party with no links to the JREF or to you.

2. The sniper selected to aim at you could be selected by the roll of a die, ensuring a random choice of sniper (i.e. The JREF do not choose the sniper).

3. The selected sniper is documented by a third party.

4. The selected sniper aims at you. You have 60 seconds to call out from which direction you believe you are being aimed at.

5. If you call out the correct direction, the sniper does not shoot. If you call out the incorrect direction, the sniper shoots. If you do not call out any direction after 60 seconds, the sniper shoots.

Can you still see any way to cheat under this protocol?
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
note also that there is a practical problem here , if there is infinite number of people around, how many of them could actually see me at any certain moment ?
Click to expand...

I think a "practical problem" is the opposite of a theoretical problem. You realize that 'infinite' is a mathematical term, which doesn't (to my knowledge) correspond to anything in the physical world?

reason1 said:
Also i don't want many people to be standing around me , i want people to be walking behind me in all directions.
but you have a good point, how crowded is the place, is certainly a factor here, i don't want it to be even crowded !.

To eliminate the chances of success by cheating on part of me, there could be also instructed simulated reflexes of which the opposite reflexes could be compared against the actual hits.
Click to expand...

Ok, I officially don't understand anything of this. I'm pretty sure this is not a good protocol. But good luck anyway.
 
Hi all,
I'm a little busy right now, working on getting sponsors and media/academic attention for my application.

Hold your thoughts for now :).
thanks.
 
It's awfully quiet in this thread at the moment?

Is it because we finally started making some progress (albeit slow) towards a controlled test of reason1's claimed ability?

Where are you reason1? Can you please respond to my last post regarding provisions in the protocol to prevent the JREF from cheating?
 
news:
I'm preparing a website for promoting my application, so please be patient.
 
eirik said:
I think a "practical problem" is the opposite of a theoretical problem. You realize that 'infinite' is a mathematical term, which doesn't (to my knowledge) correspond to anything in the physical world?
Click to expand...

But the physical world itself is infinite in size.
to mods:
I'm not the one who brought this to the arguement, so please allow me to reply at least once...You could remove this hidden text though


eirik said:
Ok, I officially don't understand anything of this. I'm pretty sure this is not a good protocol. But good luck anyway.
Click to expand...

The simulated reflexes could be there for eliminating any chance that I'm detecting people just because most of them stare at me all the time, but also this will give the JREF more chance of cheating, so the time of this simulated action should be randomized somehow.

PS: i'm still not rejecting any protocols, but I prefer to discuss them in parallel with mine.
 
reason1 said:
PS: i'm still not rejecting any protocols, but I prefer to discuss them in parallel with mine.
Click to expand...


You're protocol is unsuitable for the MDC for the many, many reasons you continue to ignore!

The JREF would NEVER EVER accept a protocol such as the one you have suggested for oh so very long!

Can you PLEASE respond to my last post regarding provisions in the sniper protocol to prevent the JREF from cheating?

A fully developed sniper protocol has a very good chance of being accepted for the MDC and it covers active staring and can be developed to eliminate cheating from both sides.

If you refuse to let go of your suggested protocol, there is no point in continuing with your application! It will go nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom