George Russel Simpson

[Horatius]

Apparently, I made his list too.

He doesn't like our (AvalonXQ and xterra get equal shares of the credit) test protocol. I should point out that I was aware (from the lawsuit claim) that he wanted to test the Corn Gods Language against a different deciphering rule set. Not using the number 66, or not using the Bible, or something.

One thing he (and a lot of other MDC applicants) don't seem to get is that the protocol must be acceptable to both the applicant and the JREF.

As you say, a protocol which could be so easily gimmicked by the applicant would never be acceptable to the JREF.

 

[X]

Worse than Gematria. At least that has some pretense for being a code. The ET Corn Dog language, not so much, because truly anything can be turned into anything.

Here's a condensed version of a proof. By the rules, you can insert 66 anywhere you like, as often as you like. 6+6 = 12, and 2-1 = 1, so you can get 1 anywhere you like. The 1 can be used to adjust an adjacent letter up or down one letter in sequence (repeatedly if need be). It can be used to insert a new letter ("A") or remove a letter (by decrementing it to 0).

So, you can add and remove letters anywhere, and you can change them to anything else.

That, and identical names, which I mentioned earlier. Or words like "light", which can have more than one distinct meaning. If there truly were a hard-coded hidden language, it would return one "deeper meaning" for a word, and only one. Like a mathematical function.

It's crazy nonsense.

 

[xterra]

Speculations

Apparently, I made his list too.

He doesn't like our (AvalonXQ and xterra get equal shares of the credit) test protocol.

I am of the opinion that it would be to easy for Mr. Simpson to "gimmick" the results in favour of his method, which is why I avoided such tests. I make no secret of the fact that the whole thing looks hugely subjective, and thus if anyone other than Mr. Simpson were to use the translation rules, he could claim we screwed it up. Which means Mr. Simpson would have to be the one performing the translations. And this is an invitation to biased and unreliable results.

I can't speak for AvalonXQ, of course, but I will certainly take credit for my additions to the protocol.

However, I don't understand how GS could gimmick the results under that protocol merely by changing the calculation method he uses. I certainly do not believe that the theoretical or mathematical reasoning behind the translations matters, just as DowserDon's theory of how dowsing works (or not) did not affect whether he could detect disturbed ground.

It is possible to believe that gravity is a scam, a fraud, and a delusion; and still learn to throw a baseball accurately.

Suppose that GS really can do what the proposed protocol tests: he can determine the birthdays or birth dates of 20 people to the required standard. And further suppose that subsequent testing produces the same results -- but that he uses a different method in the second test. Which is paranormal, the method or the practitioner?

Continuing our suppositions, what if The Central Scrutinizer (whom I don't know well enough to call anything else) can use one or the other of GS's methods to determine yet another set of birthdays? Now what?

Perhaps using the method in any of its guises develops the paranormal ability....

With respect to the last sentence that I quoted, aren't testing protocols supposed to prevent "biased and unreliable results"?

And I'll add, "What am I missing here"?

 

[X]

I can't speak for AvalonXQ, of course, but I will certainly take credit for my additions to the protocol.

However, I don't understand how GS could gimmick the results under that protocol merely by changing the calculation method he uses. I certainly do not believe that the theoretical or mathematical reasoning behind the translations matters, just as DowserDon's theory of how dowsing works (or not) did not affect whether he could detect disturbed ground.

It is possible to believe that gravity is a scam, a fraud, and a delusion; and still learn to throw a baseball accurately.

Suppose that GS really can do what the proposed protocol tests: he can determine the birthdays or birth dates of 20 people to the required standard. And further suppose that subsequent testing produces the same results -- but that he uses a different method in the second test. Which is paranormal, the method or the practitioner?

Continuing our suppositions, what if The Central Scrutinizer (whom I don't know well enough to call anything else) can use one or the other of GS's methods to determine yet another set of birthdays? Now what?

Perhaps using the method in any of its guises develops the paranormal ability....

With respect to the last sentence that I quoted, aren't testing protocols supposed to prevent "biased and unreliable results"?

And I'll add, "What am I missing here"?

I'm not saying he'll gimmick the result's intentionally. Unintentional bias is very real. My aversion to the alternate method is as follows:

I think that the ET Corn God's language is highly subjective. It appears to pre-determine an answer and work towards that. I'd be more impressed if the samples on his website didn't all reflect recent news events, but rather made predictions for people (celebrities would be a good test; they're in the paper often) and those predictions were shown to be accurate. Obviously, this wouldn't work for obvious things like Lindsay Lohan being in court again or the Kardashians being sleazy. If Mr. Simpson does not think that the alternate method will work, he may wind up with nonsense, because it's what he believes the outcome will be. So comparing his preferred method with an alternate would prove nothing, because the question of bias would be inescapable. Once Mr. Simpson has shown that this ET Corn Gods language can work in a double-blind study, then it would be time to look into the man or the method. But not before.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I am frustrated by having more ideas than ability to follow through on them. If I had any talent with Photoshop I'd create a corndog Nazca line. Anyone up to the challenge?

 

[xterra]

Once Mr. Simpson has shown that this ET Corn Gods language can work in a double-blind study, then it would be time to look into the man or the method. But not before.

But isn't that what the 3X protocol (X, AvalonXQ, xterra) for the determination of birth dates is?

I thought you were saying that our protocol could be gimmicked.

I haven't looked at Simpson's explanation of his translation method, because as I said earlier, it doesn't matter unless his translations are "paranormal," whatever we and he mean by that.

 

[X]

But isn't that what the 3X protocol (X, AvalonXQ, xterra) for the determination of birth dates is?

I thought you were saying that our protocol could be gimmicked.

I haven't looked at Simpson's explanation of his translation method, because as I said earlier, it doesn't matter unless his translations are "paranormal," whatever we and he mean by that.

The 3X (I like that name) method is as close as I can come up with to a double-blinded study. I would want someone more familiar with such things to help flash out the fine details.

And no, I wasn't saying our protocol could be gimmicked. I was saying that having Mr. Simpson compare two different methods for deciphering the Corn God language could be gimmicked because he would have a bias towards one method. A result in such a test in favour of one method could not be trusted, unless you had a way to verify that no subjective bias could influence the deciphering results. As the deciphering method is highly subjective, I can think of no way to do that. Thus, any result of a trial comparing Mr. Simpson's preferred method with another, less preferred method would not yield useful results. That is why I went with only one deciphering method (which Mr. Simpson could choose).

 

[TheDoLittle]

i am frustrated by having more ideas than ability to follow through on them. If i had any talent with photoshop i'd create a corndog nazca line. Anyone up to the challenge?

Not my best...

 

[Dancing David]

Not my best...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25255

 

[xterra]

Clarifications

The 3X (I like that name) method [...].

Thanks. Let's trademark it.

And no, I wasn't saying our protocol could be gimmicked. [...] Thus, any result of a trial comparing Mr. Simpson's preferred method with another, less preferred method would not yield useful results.

Good. I am sure that there are gaps in Protocol 3X^TM somewhere, but since it's not going to be used soon, we have time to plug them.

That is why I went with only one deciphering method (which Mr. Simpson could choose).

I think you and I both got sidetracked here. GS has not been tested under Protocol 3X^TM, so it is premature to worry about his method. In fact, I believe that we both agree that under Protocol 3X^TM, the method is irrelevant.

 

[Macgyver1968]

"Protocol 3X" sounds like some super-secret contingency plan for a zombie invasion involving nuclear weapons....not some plan to test the delusions of the mentally ill.


Lieutenant: General! The zombies have completely taken over Washington DC!

General: Initiate Protocol 3X.

Lieutenant: But sir!! That will mean....

General: Just do it, soldier!!...and may god have mercy on our souls.

 

[xterra]

Clarifications

Duplicate posting removed.

 

[xterra]

Lieutenant: General! The zombies have completely taken over Washington DC!

No, no. Protocol 3X^TM is the test for GS.

You, sir, are referring to Method 3X, which is never to be used in unimportant areas like Washington DC! Its use is restricted to critical areas -- like Ten Sleep, WY.

[size=-2]
Two other items of importance:

Please note and respect the trademark on Protocol 3X^TM.

You may expect a visit from friendly people from your government who are interested in how you found out about Method 3X.
[/size]

 

[X]

"Protocol 3X" sounds like some super-secret contingency plan for a zombie invasion involving nuclear weapons....not some plan to test the delusions of the mentally ill.


Lieutenant: General! The zombies have completely taken over Washington DC!

General: Initiate Protocol Method 3X.

Lieutenant: But sir!! That will mean....

General: Just do it, soldier!!...and may the Corn Gods have mercy on our souls.

Fixed that for you.

 

[xterra]

"Protocol 3X" sounds like some super-secret contingency plan for a zombie invasion involving nuclear weapons....not some plan to test the delusions of the mentally ill.


Lieutenant: General! The zombies have completely taken over Washington DC Ten Sleep, Wyoming!

General: Initiate Protocol Method 3X.

Lieutenant: But sir!! That will mean....

General: Just do it, soldier!!...and may god have mercy on our souls.

Fixed that for you.

X, I fixed what you missed when you fixed what you fixed.

 

[X]

X, I fixed what you missed when you fixed what you fixed.

Thank you. You missed my other change, though...

 

[xterra]

Thank you. You missed my other change, though...

I didn't miss it. Just didn't need to fix it because it was the proper change.

 

[Klimax]

Thank you. You missed my other change, though...

Subtle... No corndog for you!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Not my best...

View attachment 25255

Wonderful! You've made my day.

 

[TheDoLittle]

Wonderful! You've made my day.

Download an EPS of corndogs to use in your own images here: http://thedolittle.deviantart.com/art/Corn-Dogs-302103642

 

[AdMan]

I've only skimmed the various threads on the topic, but how does George explain the fact that his "translations" only seem to work backward but apparently can't predict future events? Or has he ever tried to do that?

 

[X]

I've only skimmed the various threads on the topic, but how does George explain the fact that his "translations" only seem to work backward but apparently can't predict future events? Or has he ever tried to do that?

From his page on "Maurice Bernard Sendak"

Poster Tim H. asked: "Fascinating. So who’s going to die next?"

Admin (presumably George Russel) replied: "Thanks for asking. I can’t predict. Only after the Death, you can see that the date of death (and birth) was pre-coded into the name of the person. Scary stuff. everything is Predetermined.

The word “Predetermined”.
Predermined:
<snip nonsense>
Therefore:
Predetermined = “Pre Death Date ET Game G R Simpson”."

Tim H. then asked: "If you can only see the connection afterwards, how do you know it’s pre-determined?"

Admin responded: "You can find that date, and perhaps the birth date, but not other dates. Think about it."



In my opinion, this reinforced the idea that George Simpson is engaging in number/letter swapping games to arrive at whatever results he wants to. Nothing is predicted, he can only arrive at the present/past things he knows (or opinions he holds; he seems to have a serious and suppressed man-crush on James Randi. Rut rut rut).


ETA: I took screenshots, in case that discussion gets deep-6'd. We know he's watching us, after all. Hi George!

 

[AdMan]

In my opinion, this reinforced the idea that George Simpson is engaging in number/letter swapping games to arrive at whatver results he wants to. Nothing is predicted, he can only arrive at the present/past things he knows (or opinions he holds; he seems to have a serious and suppressed man-crush on James Randi. Rut rut rut.)

Well, this is obvious to me as well, but I was wondering how George explained it away. If the system can't be used to predict, it makes it much harder to come to an acceptable test protocol.

 

[AdMan]

Admin responded: "You can find that date, and perhaps the birth date, but not other dates. Think about it."

Thanks, George--now that I do think about it, if you can only find two dates and no others in a name, why wouldn't you be able to predict the date of death?

 

[zooterkin]

Thanks, George--now that I do think about it, if you can only find two dates and no others in a name, why wouldn't you be able to predict the date of death?

It's been proved that you can find anything you like starting from any initial string.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The question is whether or not George believes he can reliably identify new information from his game.

If, in fact, he only claims to be able to corroborate information that he already knows, then there are no identifiably paranormal results that we can test.

Does George claim that he could figure out birth and death dates from a name if he didn't already know the dates? It looks like maybe he doesn't claim this -- that maybe he concedes that he has to know what information he's looking for before he can find it.

 

[AdMan]

Here's something else--if a name can only have two dates encoded in it and no others, then everyone named "Michael Jackson" has been born and died on the same dates.

Nonsense.

 

[X]

I don't know. I only clicked on the Maurice Sendak page out of curiosity. He keeps harping on Randi's homosexuality ("queer" and the rutting reference occur often in his translations) and I wanted to see if the Corn Gods told him that Sendak was also gay. They didn't, if you're wondering.

I haven't clicked further through his site. The "rules" of his game are arbitrary, poorly explained and entirely subjective. Which renders all his translations as nonsense. And I am on a strict nonsense diet.

From what little I've seen, he hasn't explained his inability to predict other than to say "Think about it". Which I've done, but not to a conclusion favourable to Mr. Simpson.

He may well have more details elsewhere on his blog. I haven't found it.

 

[X]

Here's something else--if a name can only have two dates encoded in it and no others, then everyone named "Michael Jackson" has been born and died on the same dates.

Nonsense.

Yes. Which is why I made my earlier comments about words like "light" and people with the same name disproving the foundational assumption of the Corn God language.

 

[AdMan]

Yes. Which is why I made my earlier comments about words like "light" and people with the same name disproving the foundational assumption of the Corn God language.

I had missed that--thanks.

 

[xterra]

Yes. Which is why I made my earlier comments about words like "light" and people with the same name disproving the foundational assumption of the Corn God language.

Note that this observation in no way invalidates Protocol 3X^TM.

(Not that GS is likely ever to agree such a test under that protocol, even if it would win him only a paltry $50,000.)

The disparate nature of the tests of the Corn Gods code must be kept strictly separate in our discussions.

Post-dictive decoding proves nothing. Only Predictive decoding, which GS has said is not possible, would tend to validate his claims.

Protocol 3X^TM also would tend to validate the claims, if it is a rigorous protocol and it is rigorously applied.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It sounds like the protocol George is looking for, revised for reasonableness, is something like this:

1) George specifies the Corn Gods rules precisely. These rules will be based on the number 66, the elements, etc.

2) George and the testers specify another set of rules similar in scope to George's but different in number. These rules may be based on the number 65 instead of 66, etc.

3) George is supplied with a name or other word. Using the precisely specified rules ("the 66-based rules"), he produces a set of resulting words.

4) The testers verify that George's derivation contains no errors -- that is, he precisely follows the 66-based rules as agreed-upon.

5) A designated individual ("the opponent") is given George's resulting words and attempts to produce the exact same words using the second set of rules ("the 65-based rules").

6) The testers verify any derivation produced by the opponent in the same way as #4.

George passes the Challenge if and only if the opponent fails to reproduce his words using the 65-based rules.

If the opponent succeeds in reproducing George's resulting words using the 65-based rules, then George fails the Challenge.

How does that look, and how do you think it would strike George?

 

[AdMan]

5) A designated individual ("the opponent") is given George's resulting words and attempts to produce the exact same words using the second set of rules ("the 65-based rules").

I don't think this is the case. The application says that "it is projected that such different translation rules will not produce meaningful translations."

(Emphasis added.)

It is not clear, at least to me, just who is going to do the second set of translations and who will determine whether the results are "meaningful."

ETA: Oops, my mistake--I see this is a modified protocol being proposed. I think if/when the 2nd set of rules yield the same words, George will have a complaint with step 6.

 

[AdMan]

Delete double post.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, see, I believe we can demonstrate mathematically that the 65-based rules can get any words. So why argue about what's meaningful? Just produce George's exact words with the 65-based rules.

 

[Almo]

Yeah, see, I believe we can demonstrate mathematically that the 65-based rules can get any words. So why argue about what's meaningful? Just produce George's exact words with the 65-based rules.

That won't prove anything to him. Just the proof that anything can be anything with the existing rules would be enough if that would work.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That won't prove anything to him. Just the proof that anything can be anything with the existing rules would be enough if that would work.

You'd think so -- but my protocol is in-line with what he himself appears to have proposed to the JREF.

So maybe this is one he would accept.

 

[jsfisher]

Maybe George would consider an alternate test. Since he's convinced his corn dog rules reveal hidden truths, and only hidden truths, he should be willing to propose words and phrases that cannot possibly be obtained from other words and phrases. If words or phrases of George's choosing cannot be translated into other words or phrases George claims impossible, then George wins. Otherwise, and let's say 10 times out of 10 being able to complete George's impossible translations, George loses.

George, are you reading this? What do you say?

 

[jsfisher]

You'd think so -- but my protocol is in-line with what he himself appears to have proposed to the JREF.

So maybe this is one he would accept.

Perhaps, but the way I remember his application (and that was a while ago I last read it), it sounded like he'd be the one doing the translations with both codes....I should probably re-read his proposed protocol to be sure. But on second thought, no, I shouldn't.

 

[jojonete]

he should be willing to propose words and phrases that cannot possibly be obtained from other words and phrases.

He's done in 2007, with the following result:

Could you give me an example of two words that can't be transformed into one another?

the word "two" and the word "words".

two = 202315 '''(rule 1) ltr >> num
..... = 22o315 '''(rule 2) take away 0, add o
..... = 2215315 '(rule 1) o=15
..... = 235315 ''''(rule 4) 2+1=3
..... = 23oo5315 (rule 2) add oo
..... = 23oo31 '''''(rule 7) cancel 5's
..... = 23o1531 ''(rule 1) o=15
..... = 23o181 '''''(rule 4) 5+3=8
..... = 23o18133 (rule 5) 1+2*66=133
..... = 23o1843 '''(rule 4) 1+3=4
..... = 23o184201(rule 5) 3+3*66=201
..... = 23o18419 '(rule 4) 20-1=19
..... = words ''''''''(rule 1) num >> ltr

That is the same answer I got, but I used a more efficient method.

George answers some other posts and ignores this, so prewitt81 quotes the previous message from blobru and asks:

George, what say you to this?

I say you are a mindless jerk.

Hmm. Not exactly what I was looking for. Can you comment on blobru's post?

I've figured out a fun application that helps keep your mind nimble while also helping to prove that any word in the English language can be translated into any other word.

Go to this Random Word Generator and get two words. Then go to work:

My two words were SEX and CRISP. Here's what I came up with:
[...]
George - Can you provide any example of any two English words that cannot be transformed into each other? If not, will you admit that your code is not to be taken seriously?

how about the words:
"provide", "any", "example", "of", "any", "two", "English", and "words"
There are 8 words.
No, of course i won't admit to your silly claim. I've worked 22 years on this stuff. You think it isn't true?
See if you can get any meaning out of any other formula you create -- try the number 60 instead of 66, make up 60 books of a bible you invent. Make up 100 names/Atomic numbers/atomic symbols of your ficticious elements.
Think a little harder, or maybe you aren't interested in understanding.

Loss Leader:
if you have put up with this mindless chatter for 3,600+ posts, you must be brain dead.
I can see why you don't under the ET Corn Gods language significance.

The word ANY to the word OF:
[...]
Once again, George, can you provide any example of any two words that cannot be changed into each other?

So Prewitt81 is a mindless jerk for asking that you comment on blobru's demonstration that you can indeed get from the word "two" to the word "words" using your system?

he goes through contrived 13 steps to get from a 2 letter word to a 5 letter word.
The Corn God translations are Miracles -- when you identify the conversion, a person with a statistical background goes "gee that can't be an accident".
13 steps is a Contrivance, certainly not a Miracle. Use the examples i have provided -- tell me how they could be an accident.
These guys are trying to derail this demonstration, and they know it.

[quote of 14-step translation by George]
George, you previously criticized one person for taking thirteen steps to translate one word into another. Above, you used at least fourteen steps. Your written rules don't put any limit on the number of steps. How many are allowable? Why isn't this limitation stated in your rules? Why is your use of fourteen steps allowable but thirteen not?

[quote of 13-step translation by George]
Thirteen Steps.

My code hasn't been broken by anyone. You guys are grossly simplifying the math.
The math is not simple like you suggest. It involves a non-random database (the English Language – pre-restructured by GOD/ET's) -- and involves links to a roman numeral database, a Periodic Chart of Elements database, and a books of the Bible database.
It is you guys that are wrong.
[...]
May I suggest that you stop your naïve analysis and contribute to the Thread with substitutive argument.

You try another code and see if you get anything but noise. Use 48 instead of 66. Use a different list of elements and atomic symbols and atomic numbers -- you have noticed that they are all used in the translations. Use a different list of Bible Book names and Abreviations--also used in the translations.

OK. I will use the number 48. Instead of the Atomic Elements, I'll use the names of the 83 original Star Trek episodes.
[translation of ET into MY TIN HAT using 48 instead of 66]

I have no idea what your number jibberish is.

In that respect, we are equal.