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

TAM 2014 "Live Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge"

ZapMePlease said:
As do I (agree with the approach). All the same - science isn't always fun to watch. Ask anyone who has sat and watched their gel electophoresis run for an hour :)

All the same - I'll still look forward to it next year and I'll still try my damnedest to get there to see it. Oddly I'll still be rooting (silently) for the applicant. It'd be so cool if someone actually COULD do some of this stuff. The April fools MDC was really fun.
Click to expand...

A lot of skeptics would love to see this. We're not haters, as many proponents of woo claim. We have seen the same BS over and over again. Bring us some cold, hard evidence and we'll be cheering.
 
gerdbonk said:
I don't. Every year I talk to them at TAM and every year I say "hey, I'm gonna go check them out" and every year I fail to follow through.

We'll see what happens this year.
Click to expand...

They appear to be meeting this weekend and I have no doubt that the TAM test will be a topic of conversation.

Ward
 
I asked Krystyn Lambert how she got the subjects, and she said that she left a neutrally-worded flyer in every "psychic" shop in LV. I would guess that the subjects would be sympathetic to the claimant.

I heard from another source that one of the subjects was rejected by the claimant because the subject was too weird.
 
SkepticScott said:
I heard from another source that one of the subjects was rejected by the claimant because the subject was too weird.
Click to expand...

Too weird to have him zap him with his right to left energy beam hand. That's gotta be pretty weird, huh?

If you want some weird ones then do check out the iig site. They have archived ustream videos of the paranormal challengers they've seen. One in particular - the guy who figgers he can telepathically send the identity of every card in a deck - is more like watching an episode of Cops than a test of the paranormal. Complete with shirt off.
 
I am writing the official report on the MDC and I hope it will answer many of your questions. I can say that we and Mr. Wang worked very closely together over the days of TAM in order to bring you a live show. It was a pleasure to work with him.
 
Thank you, Richard.

I don't think it ultimately affected the test, but during the second trial Banachek prematurely instructed you to remove the subject's blindfold and ear covers. I think you hesitated and then complied. Were you concerned at that point that it might invalidate the test? I don't know what the subject could possibly have been exposed to at that point.
 
Richard said:
I am writing the official report on the MDC and I hope it will answer many of your questions. I can say that we and Mr. Wang worked very closely together over the days of TAM in order to bring you a live show. It was a pleasure to work with him.
Click to expand...

I look forward to reading it.

Thanks,

Ward
 
gerdbonk said:
I don't think it ultimately affected the test, but during the second trial Banachek prematurely instructed you to remove the subject's blindfold and ear covers. I think you hesitated and then complied. Were you concerned at that point that it might invalidate the test? I don't know what the subject could possibly have been exposed to at that point.
Click to expand...

Ah yes I remember that. I was not worried about it invalidating the test, it was more that I thought I was to do something else at that stage. It did not affect the flow. But I'll be reviewing it for the report. I did learn that I am very good at standing on stage :)
 
Richard,

Perhaps in your report you can break some news. A few years ago, it was announced that the rules for the MDC were changing, but there was never any follow-up announcement explaining what those changes were. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to suggest that this applicant did not have a media presence nor any academic affidavits. Are those requirements now gone or were they waived in this case? No need to answer here, but if there's news to break in your report, please break it.

Thanks,
Ward
 
I have the Application for Status of Claimant that was handed out at the MDC workshop at TAM. The document is version 2.0 dated March 9, 2011.

Applicant must provide one out of three listed items:

1) Medical or academic reference
2) Media coverage
3) Video which shows the applicant performing the claimed ability. Can be self-produced.

Submitting a video is the lowest standard of these three options, and Applicants who choose to provide a video instead of a letter of reference or media sample are not automatically considered for a Preliminary Test and are not entitled to a written explanation of their rejection. The selection of video Applicants for the Preliminary Tests may be done by any method, at the JREF's sole discretion.

In all cases, the JREF will determine whether the submission is acceptable.
Click to expand...

It is possible Mr. Wang provided options one or two from Chinese sources. But he could have instead supplied a video.

I'm sure Richard will cover this in his report.
 
Thank you. Perhaps this has been public knowlege for quite some time, but certainly not to this member of the public.

Ward
 
gerdbonk said:
I have the Application for Status of Claimant that was handed out at the MDC workshop at TAM. The document is version 2.0 dated March 9, 2011.

Applicant must provide one out of three listed items:

1) Medical or academic reference
2) Media coverage
3) Video which shows the applicant performing the claimed ability. Can be self-produced.



It is possible Mr. Wang provided options one or two from Chinese sources. But he could have instead supplied a video.

I'm sure Richard will cover this in his report.
Click to expand...

Yep - when I was the MDC Coordinator, I think the requirement was three letters and one piece of media coverage. Something like that. Very few applicants were able to pull that together. The hope with the requirement, though, was to weed out people who were truly in mental distress. In the three years I was doing that, I think only maybe 8 applicants fully qualified.
 
Of the 8 applicants who fully qualified, how many were actually tested? Connie Sonne was one, I think. Were there others?

Ward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom