Anyone heard about this dude? (pavelprorok on youtube)

[Gmonster2]

Photos only please

Just out of curiosity, Pavel, why would you need one hundred images if we do the test the way you have outlined? I mean... It could be fifty sets of apples and pyramids. Ya know?

Can someone from jref go to egypt for that shot ? we will need fresh energy for this??

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Again, Pavel: Keep your protocol proposal much simpler. If you claim a 65% success you will need to find a way to have the test done in an absolute maximum of eight hours.

How long did the demonstration take you did for Dr. Eric D. Heggestad and Dr. Linda Shanock? How many trials and what success rate did you achieve? What controls were used?

Pavel, I want to see you tested as much as you do. Hence, I repeat: Please keep it simple and short.

 

[pavel_do]

Hi every body, I will answer to all question a bit later today.
Have a nice day.

 

[Marcus]

Just out of curiosity, Pavel, why would you need one hundred images if we do the test the way you have outlined? I mean... It could be fifty sets of apples and pyramids. Ya know?

Pavel is hoping to persuade you to accept a protocol with odds easier than 1000 to 1. Namely, 65 out of 100 correct, with a 50/50 chance on each one.

 

[Startz]

Pavel is hoping to persuade you to accept a protocol with odds easier than 1000 to 1. Namely, 65 out of 100 correct, with a 50/50 chance on each one.

You may be right, but in the example you give the chance of success is only 2 out of 1,000...which would still be pretty impressive.

 

[pavel_do]

Startz,

If Pavel knows the two options for each set of two that he is identifying (as in, if he knows that the pyrmaid and the apple are in the same set, and that the set is set number one), then the choice is binary - exactly like a coin toss - and 65% accuracy is not impressive unless it is repeated. A lot. Because the odds are excellent that I'll get at least fifty. That means that he would have to redo the entire group of 100 more than once in order to prove consistency.

We'll need to print the photos ourselves in order to ensure they are not in any way marked.

If we ran a test wherein Pavel knew that two photos would appear in the same set together, but did not know what number set it was, then it would not be possible to show the results afterward because it would eliminate them later. For instance, if Pavel knows that apple and pyramid are in the same set, but not which one it is, showing him after set 5 that he had gotten the pyramid/apple set would mean that the identity of the photos in set 100 would be obvious by elimination alone. If he needed to see results afterward, then we would have to have the potential to reuse the sets in the same group of 100, so that pyramid/apple could be both set 5 and set 88, or whatever.

All this means there are two options:

Either Pavel knows the identity of the two photographs in each set, and therefore would need to repeat the experiment many times in order to prove consistency,

OR

Pavel knows that the two photographs are together, but does not know which set they are in, thereby making it so he would need to get a much smaller number correct.

Let me put it another way...

I do a hundred coin tosses. For every single one, I say "Heads". I get 65 right. Would it really be all that surprising?

Now let's say I have two dice that each have fifty sides. They are connected in such a way that when I roll a 25 on one, I know I have rolled a 25 on the other. But every time I throw the dice, it could be 1-50. For each throw of the dice, I guess a number. If I got 10 right, it would be incredible.

It kind of depends on the reason Pavel needs to have the two photographs in the same set together. I mean, my recommendation on this protocol would be to just hand Pavel 25 photos in envelopes (photos that he had chosen in advance) and have him write down on a sheet of lined paper which photo he thought was in which envelope. That is a simple protocol, and if his ability really exists, there's no reason why that shouldn't work.

Now, as to why he wants the two photographs in the same set - is it because of the possibility that in one hundred photographs, two photographs are too similar to tell apart if you're only getting a psychic vibe? For instance, if the set of 100 contained both a photo of a dog and a photo of a cat, it is possible that a psychic might only see "domestic animal" and therefore get it wrong, I guess. So I can see the need for splitting the photos into smaller groups. An apple and a pyramid are nothing alike.

However, if we agree that the above is the reason for splitting the photos into sets of two, what is the reason that the set must be identified as THOSE two? Why must he know that set 5 contains apple and pyramid, if the purpose is only to know that the two photos in the set are not alike? Again, it greatly increases the chances of getting sets right simply by guessing.

There was a recent test of this ability that used the protocol I suggested, wherein all the photos were a single group. Try checking the Challenge Applicants section for Mike Maggio.

Those are the reasons And I'm sure during the negotiations, we'll be discussing all of them.

Hope that helps,

~Remie

Thank you very much for explanation as I would appreciate to know why something the JREF see as impossible and it is explained as in my tern I do explain every time, why I need one or the other thing..
I will try to explain in general why something that I proposed are important as they would helo me to show best results…
You are an absolutely right with this..

” Now, as to why he wants the two photographs in the same set - is it because of the possibility that in one hundred photographs, two photographs are too similar to tell apart if you're only getting a psychic vibe? For instance, if the set of 100 contained both a photo of a dog and a photo of a cat, it is possible that a psychic might only see "domestic animal" and therefore get it wrong, I guess. So I can see the need for splitting the photos into smaller groups. An apple and a pyramid are nothing alike.
However, if we agree that the above is the reason for splitting the photos into sets of two, what is the reason that the set must be identified as THOSE two? Why must he know that set 5 contains apple and pyramid, if the purpose is only to know that the two photos in the set are not alike? Again, it greatly increases the chances of getting sets right simply by guessing.”


It is easy to say like.. if you see than just see… I will try to explain the way I see and if that would be taken to consideration that would help us both, as saying if you see than just see why you need this or that…
So here the main and important things about the way I see and the things that affect it..
First of all.

I don’t see things in exact way and the same as we all see with our eyes, I told that many times, what I do see it is shapes, colors, sometimes exact things but all of it related in some way to the photo that I hold. It is all the time different, I cant order my self to see a color or let say what shape it is.. I see what I see. For that reason it is really hard to make big set with different pictures as most of them in some way have similar shapes texture colors etc.. I tried and worked on it that how I know it.. So if we take en example with Pyramid and an Apple pair.. If I hold the pair and I see let say something ROUND or no shapes but RAD color etc..
So when I told that the pair contains Pyramid and the Apple, so I know there it the apple that I held in my hands.. be cause pyramids has no red color on photo and it is not in a round shape.. etc.. and as I sayd every time I see different thing.. like with let say Statue of liberty and let say dogs.. many times I sew a SHIP or the Ocean when I held statue of liberty. So I know the photo I hold is related to the water, so out of two Liberty facing ships and surrounded by water so that is the photo.. THAT HOW I SEE MAYNLY. Recent example.. I held photo (random) and I sew a BOW (weapon) with the arrow in side… the pair from the list was Clock black and white and the African elephant, so I know it was CLOCK as it is in a round shape and the BOW with Arrow look like in some way like a half of the clock wit let say showing 3 o’clock. And it was a clock! Or like I hold envelope and I see MOUNTAINS.. I know there is no mountains on the photos. So when the pair was announced one of two photo was Pyramids so I know it is Pyramids as the shape I sew resembles Pyramids and I was right.. and I just would like you to understand how I see instead of just jumping on me saying.. if u can see than see… Can u see at least as I see? Than show it… I hope it is clear in some way, if you have any question I am happy to reply..
Another things…
Why cant it be let say only 2 photos say APPLE and CROSS… say 25 each that would make 50 in all.. seem easy I need to separate them in each pile… Yes that is not a problem.. BUT in this case though I am psychic but I am a human same time and the brain and mind still work in normal way.. and it is not always help.. example.. say I hold first two photos and sew round thing.. OK great that the Apple.. and I am right.. when I hold 3dh or forth envelope and If I will still keep seeing round thing that would signify apple.. my brain will get involved in doubting me.. like saying.. it CANT BE an apple 4 time s in row it just mix up.. u sew it last time.. etc.. Though I know it can be possible that all 25 in row will happen to be APPLES.. but I cant switch off brain.. and that the case.. for that reason It does not that simple as it seem from first look.. for the same reason I dropped ZENNER card practicing.

So if you looked at the list of the pairs each pair had different photo in different colors and shapes and structure… It is almost impossible have all completely different photos.. If I would see always exact colors when I hold it that would be easy I would make 40 different colors photos and would see them all exact.. But as I said… I see all the time different, sometimes shapes sometimes colors some time exact thing…

Again from my last practice I realize that I can perform better IF I don’t know current pair that I hold, so I hold first the photo I see what I see, I can describe what I see and make drawings.. than when I know what are the 2 options I can make my answer based ON WHAT I SAW… that helps, to remove some destructions like.. I don’t know what I hold (as pairs will be mixed and will be handled to me in any order) So I am more relax and my brain not interferes in a sense like, If say it is run number 2 I have to hold 4th pair and it is say Cross and the Elephant.. Last time I held it was Cross and this time I will see cross sign or something in shape of cross or even just black and white lines… so that would all resemble the cross photo.. ( there is one where it is white cross on black background) so again I will be doubting if it is a cross again or just “memory game” and doubts never helps as I said before…
Same thing with the shapes and colors… so by holding the pair in any order and describing it first helps to be more “independent” from mind games.. and even if you see what I describe is related and match to the photo of 2 that I held and I didn’t know what I possible hold first that will be evident that I do see something and it is not just a guess game, for guess game I don’t need hold envelope I could just name random things… But that is not the case I really see thing just in a different way from the other and It can be showed and proved, as long as my reason considered.
So I would be comfortable with the test where say, I have a list of pairs say 10 that make 20 DIFFERENT photos or in case with 20 pairs ( 40 photos in all)
So the pairs was done placed in envelopes, shuffled than some one independent pull any 1 of two from each pair and than the pulled ones will be again reshuffled and in any order passed to me by one..
So first I hold it and describe what I see than I look at the number of the pair and out of 2 options I chose the one that match to my description. It is evident and obvious that It can be seen if say I hold pair and name water so when pair is revealed there is Pirate flag and say House, I pirate flag related to water so I will chouse Flag and there shell be flag.. so even though it is 50/50 chance but at first place I describe what I see and my description is fit to the photo that I don’t know what it is from the beginning and that is not 1:1 that is say 1:20 if there is 10 pairs.

Again I don’t want any photos near me that I can see or sense as that would affect my answer. As shape or color can imprint and then appear in my vision.
Same I don’t know what But I am not always see first a few photos, some times from the first some time I need to hold a few..
Any ways, all that I proposed in a test based on my experiments with pairs, zenner cards, 3 out of 10 or 20 and many others and paying attentions to the results and what can affect in in one or the other way.

I don’t need 100 pairs run, it was just as example maybe 5
Guys I just want you and JREF to understand me a bit more by 10 pairs or say 3 by 20 or what ever, but I want have a proper chance with all possible things that can affect result to be eliminated and if there is something that can help me to show best result so that it is considered when the protocol done. I see no point in wasting my time and time of JREF or any body elts if the challenge take 15 minutes and 1 run only, and for 15 result I will be judged… that us ridicules. and the way I see and make reasonable test where my thing taken to consideration.

I am willing and ready to work and negotiate and I am sure we can and will work out the best and most suitable protocol that will satisfy both sides. As long as both side willing and ready to listen each other and explain to each other why one or the other thing can or cant be in protocol.

 

[pavel_do]

Just out of curiosity, Pavel, why would you need one hundred images if we do the test the way you have outlined? I mean... It could be fifty sets of apples and pyramids. Ya know?

I have explained it in my previous post.

 

[pavel_do]

Earlier in the thread u claimed 70% accuracy now its 65%

Going down anyone?

Pavel quote...
"That is obvious I know that I will provided just a digital files to be printed, but I need a photo inside the envelope not Xerox copy. As the photo has the energy but not photo copy of it"

Previously u said u could do this with zener cards do they have energy as well like a photo? how interesting...so cards and photos have energy but not copies...

Remie is saying you would need to get 65/100 twice and u wanted to examine each pic for 3 mins thats 20 hrs+ its gonna be a marathon effort and u got tired and messed up one run from 5 with the professors, oh dear...

65 that is minimum and based on if 100 pairs have to be used than 65% correct would beat 1.000 odds though it would be 50/50 chance…
YES the Xerox copies and actual photo is different I “see” them different.. I don’t know why maybe cause photos have more information or what ever but I am finding it easier… for me it is make deferens. I don’t know why maybe cause of the photograph structure and elements that it contains such as silver and some ”crystal bases” that is capable to hold information.. I don’t know but it DOES make differents.

I dont need 100 runs I need NORMAL test that would give me chance to show my abilities, not 1 run for 15 minutes as I said before…
Any ways as I said many times before and will repeat again if you can do same thing and finding them easy than DO IT!

 

[pavel_do]

Can someone from jref go to egypt for that shot ? we will need fresh energy for this??

HA – ha –ha… you think that funny?

 

[pavel_do]

Again, Pavel: Keep your protocol proposal much simpler. If you claim a 65% success you will need to find a way to have the test done in an absolute maximum of eight hours.

How long did the demonstration take you did for Dr. Eric D. Heggestad and Dr. Linda Shanock? How many trials and what success rate did you achieve? What controls were used?

Pavel, I want to see you tested as much as you do. Hence, I repeat: Please keep it simple and short.

I am doing my best just there is certain things that I would like JREF to take in consideration for the protocol as they do matter and make different for me and can affect the results. Again, I claimed 65% as a minimum I am not claiming that that the most I can do, what ever I claim the JREF want 1.000 odds covered.. so 65% was just a number in the end of the day, I would not even write it just that they want it any way in the claim.

I will be glad to answer and explain everything about my gift and the ways it work as it would help JREF to understand me better and design best protocol as I said before. For that reasons I explained Remie details of how I see when she asked why I need this or that…

Re to Professors, we had a few meetings during a month and after the last one they wrote Affidavits letter, the testing use to be between 1.5 to 3 hours the most ( as they made an effort to squeeze time for me). We had different tests and the last one that was with pairs, was designed by them, they took to there consideration all that I explained them, such as that I see shapes and colors and it is always different and that it is hard to get all different photos as in one or the other way they resemble shapes colors structure etc… that if I see same things in row that make me doubt my self as brain get involved etc.. So that was the best options..
What controls?? They placed photos them self, inspected every time envelopes photos etc, placing wasn’t in separate room (I was preparing while they were doing pairs) as I said before it wasn’t just one test and that it. they ran protocols of the results every time.

Will do my best to make it simple same as JREF but my things have to be taken to concidiration and not only refer to the others as we all diferent and see thing sin diferent way.. like for example
The protocol with the Swedish psychic Carina Landin , it is great and simple but as I explained to Remiev I cant do that same way, like if there would be say 25 apples and 25 Stars ( she had 20 books 10 writen by man and 10 by women) as then the results will not be good due to the subconscious brain involvement, if it make sense for you.

 

[Marcus]

You may be right, but in the example you give the chance of success is only 2 out of 1,000...which would still be pretty impressive.

Acording the Laws of Chance Tables I linked earlier, you would need to hit 64 out of 100 just to beat 100 to 1 odds. Perhaps someone who knows the math could chime in, I don't claim to know myself.

 

[pavel_do]

Acording the Laws of Chance Tables I linked earlier, you would need to hit 64 out of 100 just to beat 100 to 1 odds. Perhaps someone who knows the math could chime in, I don't claim to know myself.

I showed your table to the friend who is good with math and he said it is a bit weard but GOOD, and in the tables there there is no 1.000 odds, there is 100 and 10.000 and 1.000.000 so the friend of my look at the table there and said that according it 65 out of 100 with 50/50 chance would beat 1.000

 

[Marcus]

I showed your table to the friend who is good with math and he said it is a bit weard but GOOD, and in the tables there there is no 1.000 odds, there is 100 and 10.000 and 1.000.000 so the friend of my look at the table there and said that according it 65 out of 100 with 50/50 chance would beat 1.000

I'm afraid he was looking at the 100 to 1 table, I just checked again to make sure, and according to it, 64 hits out of 100 are required to beat 100 to 1 odds. I don't know what would be required to beat 1000 to 1 odds, since as you say there is no 1000 to 1 table there. Check it out, there is an explanation on how to use it at the top. it isn't hard.

 

[Startz]

I'm afraid he was looking at the 100 to 1 table, I just checked again to make sure, and according to it, 64 hits out of 100 are required to beat 100 to 1 odds. I don't know what would be required to beat 1000 to 1 odds, since as you say there is no 1000 to 1 table there. Check it out, there is an explanation on how to use it at the top. it isn't hard.

Unless I've done something wrong (which is entirely possible), the probability of getting 65 or more right out of 100 tries is 0.0018, which is approximately 2 out of 1,000. I calculated this two different ways. First I did 1,000,000 simulations. Second, I directly computed the probability using the incomplete beta function.

But like I said, I've sometimes been wrong.

I would be happy to post the Matlab program if anyone cares to see it.

-Dick Startz

 

[rjh01]

My calculations suggest that getting 65 / 100 coin tosses right (or better) is 0.0017588. So I agree with Startz.

To predict 66 / 100 coin tosses is 0.0008950.

I used a combination of Pascals triangle and an Excel spreadsheet to do my calculations.

 

[rjh01]

This should contain a zip file which when opened contains my spreadsheet that I used. It is not very user friendly.

Look at rows 1 and 103.

Row 103 is the probability of guessing the correct answer <the number in row 1 times> out of 100.

Rows 1 - 100 are the triangle.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11047&stc=1&d=1212904046

Edit. Forgot to say, certain rows are hidden. They can be unhidden by
1. Highlight the spreadsheet
2. Format / Row / unhide

 

[Marcus]

Unless I've done something wrong (which is entirely possible), the probability of getting 65 or more right out of 100 tries is 0.0018, which is approximately 2 out of 1,000. I calculated this two different ways. First I did 1,000,000 simulations. Second, I directly computed the probability using the incomplete beta function.

But like I said, I've sometimes been wrong.

I would be happy to post the Matlab program if anyone cares to see it.

-Dick Startz

My calculations suggest that getting 65 / 100 coin tosses right (or better) is 0.0017588. So I agree with Startz.

To predict 66 / 100 coin tosses is 0.0008950.

I used a combination of Pascals triangle and an Excel spreadsheet to do my calculations.

Okay, you guys both agree , it must be that 66 does beat the 1000 to 1 odds, so that will be the number required. We'll see what JREF says, RemieV didn't seem prepared to accept the 50/50 protocol.

One question, do your calculations show that 63 yields a probability less .01? Just curious as to whether I should trust those tables. That huge spread between 63 and 66 is counterintuitive.

 

[rjh01]

Here are my numbers. Compare them to your link (which I have not looked at).
66 = 0.0008950
65 = 0.0017588
64 = 0.0033186
63 = 0.0060165
62 = 0.0104894
61 = 0.0176001
60 = 0.0284440

Edit. I have not done this level of maths for a long time, so someone needs to check what I have done.

 

[Crundy]

Pavel, could you do it three pictures at a time instead of two? This would greatly change the odds and therefore the time taken to perform the test.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

1,808 words

Pavel, let me reiterate: You will need to focus on the protocol. The JREF - and most forum members - do not care at all for theories or explanations. Save that for interviews in the months after you won.

Your verbosity paired with your (understandable) difficulties with english grammar lead to an exponantial increase of possible misunderstandings. Often, people have to assume what you mean, instead of clearly understanding what you mean.

To avoid pre-protocol negotiation fatigue (PPNF), I suggest you postpone protocol discussion until after TAM and discuss it solely with a JREF Representative.

I still stand at: "No test will happen."