Anyone heard about this dude? (pavelprorok on youtube)

[pavel_do]

the claim propose

As I got all I needed to apply for challenge, such as media coverage, I got academic witnessing from 2 professors and signed application at notary. Now I need to submit my claim and send it to be signed by James Randi. As I would prefer make sure that the text good enough to be accepted, in order to save time and not to resend claim.

Would it be good enough if I submit next test as a claim.

"I have the ability to name the photograph that is sealed in double envelopes without seeing it first, just by holding the envelope between my hands and the concentration for a few minutes. I would prefer to use the set of photos that will be completely different from each other, like horse, gun, statue of liberty, Ship, human etc and the photos will be known to me and the set would be of the pictures that was picked by me. However, no one can speak while I perform it and there should be no destruction of any kind for that reason I prefer my eyes to be covered with the mask and I will use ear plugs to illuminate light and sound destruction, although it is important that in the room where test will be taken, there should be NO any king of photos or pictures on the walls or anywhere near. "

As to the accuracy with which I can perform it, I think I have no choice but to claim that I can perform the results that beat 1 to 1000 odds as that what JREF want to be beaten. If I am not mistaken, or I have a choice? Like to claim I can beat 1 to 300 or even 400 odds? 200-300 odds that is way more than just by chance but that will not be considered as a success isn’t it? Or I misunderstood something from requirements? Can you please clarify it for me. Although I am not specifying how many envelopes and what is the way the test ill be done as I guess during the protocol discussions we`ll have to agree for the best possible test for both sides. So the test, number of envelopes and trials will depend on what we will agree.

ANY SUGGESTIONS ABOUT IT?

 

[Paul2]

"I would prefer to use the set of photos that will be completely different from each other, like horse, gun, statue of liberty, Ship, human etc and the photos will be known to me and the set would be of the pictures that was picked by me.

You should go through the photos and eliminate those that can be obviously and most directly connected to another photo so that there is no chance of you mistaking one for the other. For instance, in the list you provide, the statue of liberty could be mistaken by you for a picture of a human, and vice versa.

 

[pavel_do]

You should go through the photos and eliminate those that can be obviously and most directly connected to another photo so that there is no chance of you mistaking one for the other. For instance, in the list you provide, the statue of liberty could be mistaken by you for a picture of a human, and vice versa.

I have done it already tried to make it as independent as possible and still keep improving it...

 

[steenkh]

( though not many of you care here and wish me to win )

Why do you think so? I wish you to win. It will make the world even more exciting, and it will give work and funding for thousands of physicists who will try to find out how the laws of physics will have to be rewritten.

But I do not think you will win.

 

[Crundy]

Why do you think so? I wish you to win. It will make the world even more exciting, and it will give work and funding for thousands of physicists who will try to find out how the laws of physics will have to be rewritten.

Agreed, I think you'll find that everyone here wants you to 'win'. We are interested in science and scepticism, and if you are able to do what you claim then it will open up a whole new world of research. Remember that this isn't a competition, it is a challenge. The money is there as an incentive, not as a prize in some kind of seedy gameshow.

As for your claim, I'd include what you stated above, but also specify as detailed a protocol as you can. For example, state what that the pictures will be (and list them), and that they will be shuffled and placed into sealed envelopes by a third party in a separate room who will then be kept separate from everyone else involved for the duration of the test. The envelopes will be checked for marks, folds, creases etc before being brought into the test room. The envelopes will then be numbered 1 - 10 using a marker pen, and you will have a single A4 sheet with thumbnail images of the same pictures also labelled 1-10. You will take each envelope one at a time and state the thumbnail number that corresponds to the picture inside. This will either be written on the envelope or on some kind of answer sheet which matches the envelope number to the thumbnail number. After the answer sheet is complete, another third party (who may not be a psychic, magician or connected to either the jref or yourself) will open the envelopes in order, one by one, in front of everyone, and the answer sheet will be marked.

How does that sound? If you agree then you MUST make sure you can do this, in the exact sequence of steps above, before taking the test to ensure you can actually do it.

Make sure you do include all the items you stated that may interfere, such as the room not having pictures on the wall. Also, when you first go into the room, make sure you are comfortable with the setting and make it very clear if you arn't. A big get out clause for failed tests is 'bad vibes' etc from the setting, and if you don't pipe up about this beforehand then it won't be an acceptable excuse.

 

[chillzero]

"I have the ability to name the photograph that is sealed in double envelopes without seeing it first, just by holding the envelope between my hands and the concentration for a few minutes. I would prefer to use the set of photos that will be completely different from each other, like horse, gun, statue of liberty, Ship, human etc and the photos will be known to me and the set would be of the pictures that was picked by me. However, no one can speak while I perform it and there should be no destruction of any kind for that reason I prefer my eyes to be covered with the mask and I will use ear plugs to illuminate light and sound destruction, although it is important that in the room where test will be taken, there should be NO any king of photos or pictures on the walls or anywhere near. "

Hi,
The word you are looking for here (bolded) is 'distraction'.

Also, in your last sentence, it should read '...there should be NO any kind of photos or pictures on the walls...'

I know it seems like a nitpick, but you want as little confusion as possible, which would delay your application as communications bounce back and forth trying to identify what you actually mean.

 

[Crundy]

Hmm, maybe should be "there should not be any kind of photos or pictures on the walls of the room or nearby"

 

[chillzero]

doh.

 

[pavel_do]

Agreed, I think you'll find that everyone here wants you to 'win'. We are interested in science and scepticism, and if you are able to do what you claim then it will open up a whole new world of research. Remember that this isn't a competition, it is a challenge. The money is there as an incentive, not as a prize in some kind of seedy gameshow.

As for your claim, I'd include what you stated above, but also specify as detailed a protocol as you can. For example, state what that the pictures will be (and list them), and that they will be shuffled and placed into sealed envelopes by a third party in a separate room who will then be kept separate from everyone else involved for the duration of the test. The envelopes will be checked for marks, folds, creases etc before being brought into the test room. The envelopes will then be numbered 1 - 10 using a marker pen, and you will have a single A4 sheet with thumbnail images of the same pictures also labelled 1-10. You will take each envelope one at a time and state the thumbnail number that corresponds to the picture inside. This will either be written on the envelope or on some kind of answer sheet which matches the envelope number to the thumbnail number. After the answer sheet is complete, another third party (who may not be a psychic, magician or connected to either the jref or yourself) will open the envelopes in order, one by one, in front of everyone, and the answer sheet will be marked.

How does that sound? If you agree then you MUST make sure you can do this, in the exact sequence of steps above, before taking the test to ensure you can actually do it.

Make sure you do include all the items you stated that may interfere, such as the room not having pictures on the wall. Also, when you first go into the room, make sure you are comfortable with the setting and make it very clear if you arn't. A big get out clause for failed tests is 'bad vibes' etc from the setting, and if you don't pipe up about this beforehand then it won't be an acceptable excuse.

Yes I understand, but as from the JREF`d letter that I received some time a go it says next.. “A full protocol description is not required during the application process. What we will need is a two-paragraph description of your claim, the conditions required to perform it, and the accuracy with which you can perform it. For instance, it might say something like "I have the ability to predict the order of a shuffled deck of playing cards when they are laid facedown on a table. However, no one can speak while I perform. I guarantee that I will get 90% correct."

I know that isn't your claim, but the layout of the two paragraph statement should be similar. “


So I need only the claim at first and the protocol will be discussed letter…
Re to the protocol I know it has to be as close and as good as possible with all details and steps described.. like you say I should state that I have to be comfortable.. for example I would like to put as a condition that I need to come 30-40 minutes before the test to be comfortable in char and get use to the room and people around etc.. But that all will be designed and discussed after my claim will be signed and I will put it all here to tread and hopefully with your help will be able to design best possible protocol..

So for now I need to make claime.. and I offering the one I described before..
"I have the ability to name the photograph that is sealed in double envelopes without seeing it first, just by holding the envelope between my hands and the concentration for a few minutes. I would prefer to use the set of photos that will be completely different from each other, like horse, gun, statue of liberty, Ship, human etc and the photos will be known to me and the set would be of the pictures that was picked by me. However, no one can speak while I perform it and there should be no destruction of any kind for that reason I prefer my eyes to be covered with the mask and I will use ear plugs to illuminate light and sound destruction, although it is important that in the room where test will be taken, there should be NO photos or pictures of any kind on the walls or anywhere near me. "


if it is good enough tofor claim description.. another thing still I have to state the accuracy..
I don’t have much choice as if I don’t claim I can beat 1 to 1000 odds it will not be accepted..? Unless I misunderstood something before.. Because in my opinion for 1st test that a bit too much.. can everybody beat let say 100-200 odds from 1-2 trials? 1-2 only not with 100 tries..?
Let say I claim with the test I can bit minimum .117 odds.. meaning that to do that I have a chance 10% out of 100 trials.. wouldn’t that be significant that it is more than a chance??

 

[pavel_do]

=)

Hi,
The word you are looking for here (bolded) is 'distraction'.

Also, in your last sentence, it should read '...there should be NO any kind of photos or pictures on the walls...'

I know it seems like a nitpick, but you want as little confusion as possible, which would delay your application as communications bounce back and forth trying to identify what you actually mean.

How about this...
"there should be NO photos or pictures of any kind on the walls or anywhere near me. "

 

[pavel_do]

Question

I have a question.. is there any scientists here? Can any one say, what odds would be significant enough ( minimum odds) for the scientific point of view? ( lets forget about 1000 odds that JREF want to be covered) what are the numbers that the scientist would consider as unusual and more than the chance it self…

 

[Marcus]

if it is good enough tofor claim description.. another thing still I have to state the accuracy..
I don’t have much choice as if I don’t claim I can beat 1 to 1000 odds it will not be accepted..? Unless I misunderstood something before.. Because in my opinion for 1st test that a bit too much.. can everybody beat let say 100-200 odds from 1-2 trials? 1-2 only not with 100 tries..?
Let say I claim with the test I can bit minimum .117 odds.. meaning that to do that I have a chance 10% out of 100 trials.. wouldn’t that be significant that it is more than a chance??

In a case like this where the exact odds can be determined, JREF will want those 1000 to 1 odds. If you can do the same thing in the final test, you have passed the million to 1 odds( by doing it twice in a row). Do the self test as described, if you don't come anywhere close, there is no point in applying.

 

[Startz]

I have a question.. is there any scientists here? Can any one say, what odds would be significant enough ( minimum odds) for the scientific point of view? ( lets forget about 1000 odds that JREF want to be covered) what are the numbers that the scientist would consider as unusual and more than the chance it self…

You need to deal with the JREF rules, not an abstract "scientific point of view."

The standard in scientific research is that the probability of getting a result by chance has to be less than five percent. There is no good reason why this is the accepted standard, but it is. But scientific publication standards are not calibrated to be relevant to a one-time challenge.

Let's turn this around. When you have run a test with 10 pictures (or however many you like to use), how many do you typically get right?

 

[pavel_do]

one of the tests

You need to deal with the JREF rules, not an abstract "scientific point of view."

The standard in scientific research is that the probability of getting a result by chance has to be less than five percent. There is no good reason why this is the accepted standard, but it is. But scientific publication standards are not calibrated to be relevant to a one-time challenge.

Let's turn this around. When you have run a test with 10 pictures (or however many you like to use), how many do you typically get right?

Here is the description of one of the tests that I had done with 10 pairs of photos with the independent parties they run the protocol.

Method

In advance of our meeting, Pavel assembled 10 sets of pictures. Each set contained two pictures; 20 pictures in total. The pictures were approximately 3.5 X 5 inches in size. When he arrived, he provided us with the sets of pictures and a name for each picture (e.g. star, dogs, ship). We placed the pictures into letter sized envelopes and then placed the letter sized envelopes into larger manila envelopes.

As the testing started, we told Pavel what two pictures were in the set; for example, house and sunset. Pavel then placed earplugs in he ears and a mask over his eyes. We shuffled the two envelopes and handed him one. He held the envelope between his hands and after a period of time, offered a guess. Once he made his guess we opened the envelopes and recorded the result as either correct or incorrect. The process was repeated for each of the ten sets of pictures.

Results

Pavel correctly identified 7 of the 10 pictures given to him. Given the probability that identifying any one picture is .50, the probability of observing this result is .117.

 

[steenkh]

As the testing started, we told Pavel what two pictures were in the set; for example, house and sunset. Pavel then placed earplugs in he ears and a mask over his eyes. We shuffled the two envelopes and handed him one. He held the envelope between his hands and after a period of time, offered a guess.

Hmm, why only have two pictures in a set? That would take a large number of tests before the 1:1000 odds were reached (You would need 10 successful tests if your ability is 100% certain, and if you are only 50% you will have to do 10 out of 20 - I think).

If you increase the number of pictures in a set, you will need fewer tests, and there will not be so many suspicions that you might be using a sophisticated marking system to distinguish between the two pictures in the set. Of course, if you are not involved in producing the pictures, there can be no suspicion.

 

[Startz]

Here is the description of one of the tests that I had done with 10 pairs of photos with the independent parties they run the protocol.

Method

In advance of our meeting, Pavel assembled 10 sets of pictures. Each set contained two pictures; 20 pictures in total. The pictures were approximately 3.5 X 5 inches in size. When he arrived, he provided us with the sets of pictures and a name for each picture (e.g. star, dogs, ship). We placed the pictures into letter sized envelopes and then placed the letter sized envelopes into larger manila envelopes.

As the testing started, we told Pavel what two pictures were in the set; for example, house and sunset. Pavel then placed earplugs in he ears and a mask over his eyes. We shuffled the two envelopes and handed him one. He held the envelope between his hands and after a period of time, offered a guess. Once he made his guess we opened the envelopes and recorded the result as either correct or incorrect. The process was repeated for each of the ten sets of pictures.

Results

Pavel correctly identified 7 of the 10 pictures given to him. Given the probability that identifying any one picture is .50, the probability of observing this result is .117.

This is a very clear description of an experiment. Thank you!

My calculation shows that the probability of getting 7 or more hits on 10 tries is 0.17, which is a little different from .117...but I may have made an error.

Do you think you could do 3 (or 4 or 5) sets of these experiments with 10 sets of cards and get 7 or better right in each try?

 

[pavel_do]

Hmm, why only have two pictures in a set? That would take a large number of tests before the 1:1000 odds were reached (You would need 10 successful tests if your ability is 100% certain, and if you are only 50% you will have to do 10 out of 20 - I think).

If you increase the number of pictures in a set, you will need fewer tests, and there will not be so many suspicions that you might be using a sophisticated marking system to distinguish between the two pictures in the set. Of course, if you are not involved in producing the pictures, there can be no suspicion.

That was one of the examples of the tests that I had run and still running to determine the best.. I am planning to use more then 2 pictures.. probably 5.. in a set.. and make let say 6 runs, then
Here are the probabilities (If they want to do better than 1 in 1000, or .001):
--all 6 correct: .000064
--5 of 6 correct: .001536
--4 of 6 correct: .01536
--3 of 6 correct: .08192

so I have to be correct in 5 out of 6 runs.. or if there is more runs then more then 5..
That the reason I am trying to find the best.. as for example with pair of 2 and 10 runs there was a fw times I was right all 10 out of ten, but sometimes it is 7-8-9- even 5 there was don’t know the reason.. mood, weather or what ever.. but that the fact. I cant claim every time I can make 10 out of 10.. that why also keeping in mind the test with 20 photos where let say 3 will be pulled out and if I identify all of them correct then I’ll bit the 1000 odds..
Doing my best to make it as simple and easy for me as possible as I am the one who will have all the stress and pressure etc on me during the test and this things as a stress, pressure, tension etc you cant not to take in a count.. like if I would be forced run 50 runs.. I doubt I can do that cause I get tired and all the photos will be mixed up in my brain etc.. I am human at first place not only psychic..

 

[Startz]

That was one of the examples of the tests that I had run and still running to determine the best.. I am planning to use more then 2 pictures.. probably 5.. in a set.. and make let say 6 runs, then
Here are the probabilities (If they want to do better than 1 in 1000, or .001):
--all 6 correct: .000064
--5 of 6 correct: .001536
--4 of 6 correct: .01536
--3 of 6 correct: .08192

Can you clarify how many within one set you need to get right for that set to count as a success?

For example, if you have five cards in a set do you need to get all five right?

 

[pavel_do]

This is a very clear description of an experiment. Thank you!

My calculation shows that the probability of getting 7 or more hits on 10 tries is 0.17, which is a little different from .117...but I may have made an error.

Do you think you could do 3 (or 4 or 5) sets of these experiments with 10 sets of cards and get 7 or better right in each try?

During the testing that was described above, we made 5 runs during this 5 runs the results was 3 times I was right in 7 , 1 time with 8 and 1 time with 4... i guess I got tired when made only 4 right, so we made a small brake..
but the average was 7 right. ( though honestly when I practice at home sometime i make 10 out of 10, or 9 or 8 or 7.. but usually my bets result are 1st or the second run.. then i get a bit tired so i need a brake to clear my mind..

 

[Startz]

During the testing that was described above, we made 5 runs during this 5 runs the results was 3 times I was right in 7 , 1 time with 8 and 1 time with 4... i guess I got tired when made only 4 right, so we made a small brake..
but the average was 7 right. ( though honestly when I practice at home sometime i make 10 out of 10, or 9 or 8 or 7.. but usually my bets result are 1st or the second run.. then i get a bit tired so i need a brake to clear my mind..

That's very good. It sounds like you got 33 out of 50 right. The chances of that happening are between 1 and 2 percent.

Be sure to build a break into your proposal if you need one to be effective.