Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

dropzone said:
Either "Doctor" Ross is an idiot or a scoundrel and, as past behavior can help predict future behavior without it being a logical fallacy, I'm going with both.
Click to expand...

Past behaviour predicting future behaviour eh ?

Dr.Colin Ross was sued for, among other things, fraudulent concealment.
Ross settled out of court.

The document is embedded in Doug Mesner's article on process.org in the last page provided in the affidavit of Marth Ann Tyo:

here's just the affidavit if you don't have time:

http://sites.google.com/site/memoryabuse/martha-ann-tyo-vs-ross


here's the whole article if you do have time

http://www.process.org/discept/2010...y-the-supernatural-and-malpractice-most-foul/


I know that Dr.Colin Ross is insisting that this thread is only for his million Dollar Challenge discussion ,
however if past lawsuits about fraudulent concealment were successful against him then that could make him a person who would probably use fraudulent concealment again if what Dropzone said is right.

What if Ross was using fraudulent concealment in his application for the James Randi Educational Foundation Million Dollar Challenge ? :jaw-dropp

Would he get away with it ?
 
Last edited:
Roma said:
What if Ross was using fraudulent concealment in his application for the James Randi Educational Foundation Million Dollar Challenge ? :jaw-dropp

Would he get away with it ?
Click to expand...

Among other things, if he was known to have commited fradulent concealment in the past, that would make this highly relevant to the thread, and keep even 'dr' ross from claiming a derail. Roma for the win!

A
 
Post 130 and 140

Thanks for the Lilienfeld reference - I just ordered the book. From the Table of Contents it looks like they are saying extramission in any form is disallowed.
A non-contact device that can be moved around the head, or any other part of the body, is part of my second US patent application, which should be posted on the US Patent Office web page in June.
 
Colin Ross said:
Thanks for the Lilienfeld reference - I just ordered the book. From the Table of Contents it looks like they are saying extramission in any form is disallowed.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "disallowed"? There is no evidence that the act of seeing involves sending any sort of radiation that is necessary for the process, which is what 'extramission' means in this context. That does not rule out the emission of radiation detectable as coming from the eye (e.g. heat radiation would be the most obvious).

If you're trying to prove it is possible to detect someone is looking at you, then go right ahead and produce an experiment to detect that. You don't need to hypothesise a mechanism, just show the effect.
 
If you're trying to prove it is possible to detect someone is looking at you, then go right ahead and produce an experiment to detect that. You don't need to hypothesise a mechanism, just show the effect.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that one have been tried already, or at least there were protocol negotiations.
 
Jeff Corey said:
In Lilienfeld, et al. (2010)"50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology", Myth #4 "Visual percetions are accompanied by tiny emissions from the eyes", this statement appears, "More recently, psychiatrist Colin Ross claimed he can harness beams from his eyes to turn on a tone from a computer. Nevertheless, preliminary testing by a neurologist revealed that Ross' eyeblinks created a brain wave artifact that was inadvertently triggering the tone" (p. 34-35)
The reference was to this edition of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation newsletter.
http://www.fmsfonline.org/fmsf08.929.html

This is about 3/4 of the way down the page,
"The Colin Ross claim that he can send a beam of energy from his eyes
is on hold for further testing at this time. James Randi asked Yale
University School of Medicine faculty member Steven Novella, MD to
help with the preliminary testing. In an August 20 podcast, Dr.
Novella explained what happened during the testing. He said that most
people make a fairly shoddy connection between cause and effect and
that this was the problem with the Ross claim.[6] Novella said that
Ross was using Electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes and software in
conjunction with the glasses he designed.[7] Novella said that he had
done extensive research involving EEG and he knew that there is a
known EEG effect, an artifact of eye blinking. Dr. Novella noticed
that Ross's blinks and the sound were associated. It was the eye
movement that was causing the sound."
Click to expand...
Holy ****ing cow!!!!! I was right. He really did build an EEG.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
Holy ****ing cow!!!!! I was right. He really did build an EEG.
Click to expand...

And he's still using it. If you'll notice in his latest protocol, his body is not entirely detached from the equipment. Ground and reference are both still physically connected ... to a differential amplifier.
 
August 9 2008 Email to James Randi

On August 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM (12 days prior to Steven Novella commenting on my initial protocol) I emailed James Randi saying:

After doing further testing, I have satisfied myself concerning two points:
1. There is definitely an EM beam emerging from the eyes that has higher amplitude and distinct electrophysiological properties compared to the field emerging through the forehead.
2. The tone in my neurofeedback system is being triggered by eye blink artifact not by the EEG signal.

I need to do more work on modifying my system to eliminate movement artifact before I can do the preliminary test. This will most likely require a higher impedance electrode and may take a few weeks to a few months. I will get back to you in that time frame.
My goal is to set up a system where artifact can be ruled out to our joint satisfaction.
Thanks.

I submitted a revised protocol on October 15, 2008 and a further revision in February, 2009. My initial submission to the JREF was made on June 6, 2008. By August, 2008, within two months of the JREF receiving my initial Challenge, I had already informed the JREF of the fact that I was detecting an EM signal using neurofeedback equipment. The fact that the initial protocol was based on eye blink artifact was something I brought to the attention of the JREF, not the other way around.
 
August 9 Is Correct

August 9, 2008 is the correct date - it was a typo in the text of the previous posting.
 
Colin Ross said:
I need to do more work on modifying my system to eliminate movement artifact before I can do the preliminary test.
Click to expand...

I think you need to do more work on removing unnecessary components from your protocol, like the electrodes attached to the earlobes. My EM detector works just fine with absolutely no wired-connection to the transmitter. Doesn't yours?
 
Two Recent Posts

After some initial emailing to Alison Smith and James Randi in mid-2008, I have been following James Randi's instruction to communicate with Alison Smith. The initial Challenge materials were sent to the JREF by physical mail.

Note that I do not claim to be an electroencephalographer or neurologist, but as I understand it, standard surface EEG recordings involve an active and a reference electrode. That's how the hardware and software work throughout the field. That's how the Brainmaster equipment I purchased works and that's how I was taught to use it by the author of a textbook on neurofeedback. I think that for the JREF Challenge, it is best to stick as close as possible to standard technology, not counting the non-contact high-impedance electrode - this provides the JREF and critics the best chance to understand and critique the protocol, I think.
 
Colin Ross said:
Note that I do not claim to be an electroencephalographer or neurologist, but as I understand it, standard surface EEG recordings involve an active and a reference electrode.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what happens to those electrodes? What is done with the signals they convey? What is going on inside the Brainmaster device? I know. So do many others here. Do you?
 
daSkeptic Post

I don't claim to understand the electrical engineering details of EEG equipment. I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist. I doubt that you could find many neurologists who read EEGs clinically who understand the electrical engineering in any detail, similarly for cardiologists who read EKGs.
Electrical engineering details of how epuipment words are not taught in medical school, whether it's EEG, EKG, MRI, PET scan, or ultrasound, except some basic concepts at the level of an introductory undergraduate course.
One group of MD clinicians that gets into physics in some detail is radiation oncologists, but they are an exception.
As long as it is accepted that standard surface EEGs measure brainwaves emerging through the skull, then it seems to me that that is what my electrode is doing, except that the brainwaves are emerging through the eye. That is how it is described in the references from the University of Surrey group I posted earlier when they take a standard EKG tracing remotely, or a standard EEG tracing, using a high impedance electrode that makes no physical contact with the body.
 
Colin Ross said:
I don't claim to understand the electrical engineering details of EEG equipment. I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand how the device works, how can you possibly know the effects of your alteration? Is it not possible the results you claim to have achieved are due to of some aspect of electroencephalography you simply aren't aware of?
 
Colin Ross said:
I don't claim to understand the electrical engineering details of EEG equipment. I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist. I doubt that you could find many neurologists who read EEGs clinically who understand the electrical engineering in any detail, similarly for cardiologists who read EKGs.
Click to expand...
Then doesn't that put you at a decided disadvantage when understanding whether this phenomenon is paranormal or just something you haven't read up on? Lemme clue you in: It's the latter. Your claim is like someone running in and saying that his mad paranormal skillz tell him the sun rose today at 6:26 and that it will rise tomorrow a minute or two earlier.

I don't know how to break this to you gently, but your discovery ain't a discovery and, were you capable of embarrassment, I'd suggest you stop now before you embarrass yourself further, but this thread suggests you are incapable of making that conceptual leap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom