• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

"Live Challenge Event"

wardenclyffe

Master Poster
wardenclyffe
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
2,333
This is the thread in which I encourage wild speculation about what the "Live Challenge Event" will be this year at TAM. Last year, if I recall, was pretty much a bust.

Maybe this year, they will get one of the people they had on the ABC Primetime show.

Any ideas? Have they announced anything? Any wild guesses?

Ward
 
Calculon said:
*crickets*
Click to expand...


It was like this last year as well, which is why I decided to skip it and go to the Red Rocks instead.

Don't think I missed much. I may stay this time out of curiosity. Are there any rumors of an actual test being conducted? Sounds like that is very hard to pull off, and when they do get someone, like for TAM 8, it's a pretty tedious affair.
 
AdMan said:
It was like this last year as well, which is why I decided to skip it and go to the Red Rocks instead.

Don't think I missed much. I may stay this time out of curiosity. Are there any rumors of an actual test being conducted? Sounds like that is very hard to pull off, and when they do get someone, like for TAM 8, it's a pretty tedious affair.
Click to expand...

Tedious, it might be, but it was a packed house and an opportunity for all those people to see a test live and in person.

Since the last TAM, the IIG has tested at least three applicants for their $50K Challenge and JREF tested a whole slew of people on the Primetime show on ABC.

That's a lot of potential challengers. JREF was happy to have a "demonstration" with Anita Ikonen months after she failed the IIG test, so we know they will accept the IIG's sloppy seconds. And if they can't get someone out of that ABC show, then I don't know what to think.

Ward
 
AdMan said:
It was like this last year as well, which is why I decided to skip it and go to the Red Rocks instead.

Don't think I missed much. I may stay this time out of curiosity. Are there any rumors of an actual test being conducted? Sounds like that is very hard to pull off, and when they do get someone, like for TAM 8, it's a pretty tedious affair.
Click to expand...

I went two years ago when they tested that crazy lady, Connie <something>. It was like watching paint dry. No more boring than watching a chess match, but at least in a chess match, you don't know how it will end ahead of time.

I'll stay in the Del Mar or go to Dr. Nicole's Cosmo meetup. Should be some hot chicks there, it's Cosmo after all.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I went two years ago when they tested that crazy lady, Connie <something>. It was like watching paint dry. No more boring than watching a chess match, but at least in a chess match, you don't know how it will end ahead of time.

I'll stay in the Del Mar or go to Dr. Nicole's Cosmo meetup. Should be some hot chicks there, it's Cosmo after all.
Click to expand...

I think that was three years ago. Again, it might be tedious, but there aren't many chances to see a live challenge in person, tedious or not.

Ward
 
Since this thread is for wild speculation and rumor mongering, I will spread a rumor that I just heard:

Bryan & Baxter of Warning Radio and Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society will be filling the slot with.....something. No one seems to know if they actually have an applicant or what. Again, this is rumor, but I consider the source to be reliable-ish.

If you don't know who they are, here's who they are: http://www.warningradio.info/Warning/About_Us.html

Please feel free to speculate,

Ward
 
phyz said:
Any updates? Live applicant or slot-fill?
Click to expand...

Randi is on a panel as I write this and just mentioned that "it's a little iffy" if an actual challenge test will take place, but apparently they are still trying to make it happen. I haven't heard anything more.
 
I'm at the Penn & Teller show and not at the MDC event, but the claim of the guy being tested (Andrew Needles) is that he can tell his "energy/power"-type bracelet from a placebo, presumably double-blind and greater than just by chance.

http://t.co/0USybSmI
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
I'm at the Penn & Teller show and not at the MDC event, but the claim of the guy being tested (Andrew Needles) is that he can tell his "energy/power"-type bracelet from a placebo, presumably double-blind and greater than just by chance.

http://t.co/0USybSmI
Click to expand...

Help me out with this one. How would this be a paranormal claim? Even if could tell the difference, wouldn't that just mean the bracelet actually worked?
 
BlackLyon said:
Help me out with this one. How would this be a paranormal claim? Even if could tell the difference, wouldn't that just mean the bracelet actually worked?
Click to expand...

The fact that there is zero logical reason why it SHOULD work would make its working paranormal. Whether or not a claim is paranormal is determined at the time at which the application is received. If a claim is determined to be paranormal at that stage, it will remain paranormal for the duration of the negotiations/testing, even if later it is found that there is a scientific reason for the results.
 
OK, so was this a preliminary test for the MDC, like with Connie Sonne, or was it a "demonstration," like with Anita Ikonen?

And should I have heard of Andrew Needles? Does he have a media presence or academic affidavits?

Ward
 
RemieV said:
The fact that there is zero logical reason why it SHOULD work would make its working paranormal. Whether or not a claim is paranormal is determined at the time at which the application is received. If a claim is determined to be paranormal at that stage, it will remain paranormal for the duration of the negotiations/testing, even if later it is found that there is a scientific reason for the results.
Click to expand...

Thanks for trying to clear it up for me Remmie! I was still a little confused about how this would be a paranormal claim, but then I went and read the JREF Twitter feed.

Andrew Needles designed this particular bracelet! Now I understand how this would be accepted as a claim. Here I was thinking he was claiming that he could tell the "real" from "false" on any of these types of woo bracelets, such as the Power Bracelet, for example.
 
BlackLyon said:
Thanks for trying to clear it up for me Remmie! I was still a little confused about how this would be a paranormal claim, but then I went and read the JREF Twitter feed.

Andrew Needles designed this particular bracelet! Now I understand how this would be accepted as a claim. Here I was thinking he was claiming that he could tell the "real" from "false" on any of these types of woo bracelets, such as the Power Bracelet, for example.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not sure if it's still the case, but when I was the Challenge Coordinator, you didn't have to be the designer of the product in order to make the claim that you could tell one thing from another. For instance, there was a speaker cable challenge - some super expensive speaker cables that were supposed to make sound oh so very awesome and whatnot. And Randi offered the Challenge to anyone who could hear the difference between the super expensive cables and regular ones.
 
wardenclyffe said:
OK, so was this a preliminary test for the MDC, like with Connie Sonne, or was it a "demonstration," like with Anita Ikonen?

And should I have heard of Andrew Needles? Does he have a media presence or academic affidavits?
Click to expand...

I've been Googling for information. If the information I found is correct, Mr. Needles created a line wristbands, bracelets and pendents under the brand name Dynactiv SR. In other words, he trademarked his own version of the woo "balance bracelet" that were all the rage for a short while last year.

http://vimeo.com/37786570

The above link is Mr. Needles Vimeo page. It contains two videos of him testing out his bracelets on "skeptics" with positive results...

There is also a main product website and Facebook page for the product, but since I'm not sure if posting links to those would be against the forum rules...Just do a Google search for "Dynativ SR."
 
wardenclyffe said:
OK, so was this a preliminary test for the MDC, like with Connie Sonne, or was it a "demonstration," like with Anita Ikonen?

And should I have heard of Andrew Needles? Does he have a media presence or academic affidavits?

Ward
Click to expand...

I was there, and my understanding/memory is that it was a preliminary test.

It was pretty awesome to witness an actual MDC test, even as it was a little boring to hear Banacheck intone, again and again, "Put one box on top of the other. Put the boxes in the bag. Shake the bag. . . ."

The other highlight was Andrew Needles' random placement of the word "placebo" in his explanations for why failing the MDC preliminary didn't dissuade him for believing in his product.
 
Paul2 said:
The other highlight was Andrew Needles' random placement of the word "placebo" in his explanations for why failing the MDC preliminary didn't dissuade him for believing in his product.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. What explanation did he give for his failure or why he continued to believe?
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
This is interesting. What explanation did he give for his failure or why he continued to believe?
Click to expand...

Immediately after the event it was impossible for me and my friends to discuss his explanation because it was so incoherent. He scattered the word "placebo" throughout his explanation so liberally and so randomly that it was impossible to make sense of what he was trying to say. Maybe there was some meaning there, but it was hidden too well behind ambiguous or unclear uses of the word "placebo." At least I and my friends couldn't follow him, maybe someone else was able to.
 
I was at the event and still can't decide if the guy is a scam artist or a believer.
 
TAM 2012 Live Challenge: A lesson in Cognitive Dissidence

Personally, I found the 2012 challenge fascinating. I agree that they do not provide entertainment in the traditional sense however it is a perfect time to witness cognitive dissidence. After be unsuccessful, the applicant answered questions on what he believed happened and had many excuses. Conformation bias has set in.

This is something in which I have had a great interest. When a person’s belief system is shaken and broken, something must fill the void. How can we as educating skeptics guide and influence that person towards a more positive direction so they need not fall into the excuse track?
 
happyskeptic said:
When a person’s belief system is shaken and broken, something must fill the void. How can we as educating skeptics guide and influence that person towards a more positive direction so they need not fall into the excuse track?
Click to expand...

I don't know that we can. That's a very personal battle to fight, coming down to deciding that the truth is more important. And in that moment when they've not only missed out on the biggest payday of their life, but have the stigma of failure implied at the very least, I would suggest the most humane thing to do is let them travel through what they're feeling, don't judge, and thank them for stepping up to the test unlike so many others. Only they can fix their own magical thinking and commitment issues with reality.
 
Tim Harrod said:
I don't know that we can. That's a very personal battle to fight, coming down to deciding that the truth is more important. And in that moment when they've not only missed out on the biggest payday of their life, but have the stigma of failure implied at the very least, I would suggest the most humane thing to do is let them travel through what they're feeling, don't judge, and thank them for stepping up to the test unlike so many others. Only they can fix their own magical thinking and commitment issues with reality.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I was a little uncomfortable when Banachek begin to lightly grill (maybe @ 325o Farenh.) the claimant. Right then, right after he whiffed, is not the time to have an extended conversation about why he whiffed, in front of hundreds of people. Single questions from Banachek or the audience are perfectly fine, but when follow-up questions have the goal of finding a "Gotcha," as I think a few of Banachek's did (don't ask me for a citation), then I think that went too far, as I felt the situation in the room that night.

I absolutely respect Banachek, who no doubt was influenced by Randi, for admonishing the audience to respect the claimant, and his feelings. He just went a touch too far in the wrong direction with a few pointed questions.

Ah, fuggeddaboudit. Banachek was within the margin of error.
 
I disagree. That is exactly the right time to get a straight and unrehearsed answer to those questions-before the claimant has time to second guess and think up excuses.
 
SkepticScott said:
Imagine how Banachek felt! He couldn't let his attention wander, or let himself get bored and risk deviating from the procedure.
Click to expand...

It's lonely at the top.

When the going gets boring, the pros turn [. . .].

[/cliches]

Seriously, I'm sure it was incredibly boring for Banacheck, and he, like I would have not traded the experience for anything.
 
Test Subject #8 here. Yes, it might have seemed a bit repetitive at times, but as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, it was necessary. Through this experience I gained a deeper appreciation for the level of rigor applied to ensure that the protocol is fair to both parties.

After meeting and speaking with Andrew, who was tremendously friendly and confident, I'm convinced he's honestly a believer. The Q&A immediately after the test was instructive, as it provided fresh insights into how the claimant viewed the results.

Paul2 said:
Seriously, I'm sure it was incredibly boring for Banacheck, and he, like I would have not traded the experience for anything.
Click to expand...

Well said, and ditto.
 
So let me get this straight. His excuse for not being able to detect the effects of his magic wristband is that the placebo performed just as well!? And he doesn't think that that's basically the definition of "does not work as advertised"?
 
xtifr said:
So let me get this straight. His excuse for not being able to detect the effects of his magic wristband is that the placebo performed just as well!? And he doesn't think that that's basically the definition of "does not work as advertised"?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it seems.
 
Just got back home today. I went to the outlet mall north of the South Point Casino the next day after the test and in there was one kiosk selling a balance band and people were buying it (paying money). I informed a purchaser that it was all a scam and that they need to check the web for the videos and proof - the buyer basically ignored me having been convinced by the demonstration the "salesman" gave her........ People are so gullible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom