Anyone heard about this dude? (pavelprorok on youtube)

[pavel_do]

20 trials with two possible pictures: A depicting a black circle, B being blank.
No one from the test team knows if either A or B is in the envelope.

Up to six minutes per trial. Break after ten if needed.

16 or more correct mean success.

You mean they all mixed up like in case with Carine Lindle test?
If it is.. well I need to try it to be sure.. but without trying it.. as I have explained before I think it would be more complicated for me to perform it.. due to mind involvements as i have explained etc..
or.. I have separate pairs and have to name them correct?
Can we use two photos instead of “Circle” and “Blank”?
Am I allowed to see photo right after I named it?
Can we make it 30 pairs per trial?
Do I hold both photos out of two to identify the pair.. or I am given by one photo?
If it is so as I wrote to Dick, it could work out I think.. though still I would need to print same pairs to try it and be sure of it.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

You mean they all mixed up like in case with Carine Lindle test?
If it is.. well I need to try it to be sure.. but without trying it.. as I have explained before I think it would be more complicated for me to perform it.. due to mind involvements as i have explained etc..
or.. I have separate pairs and have to name them correct?
Can we use two photos instead of “Circle” and “Blank”?
Am I allowed to see photo right after I named it?
Can we make it 30 pairs per trial?
Do I hold both photos out of two to identify the pair.. or I am given by one photo?
If it is so as I wrote to Dick, it could work out I think.. though still I would need to print same pairs to try it and be sure of it.

Yes to all except you can't see a photo right after you named it. Do you understand this basic requirement for a DBT?

Remember you will need the test to be simple and effective. No more trials than necessary.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Am I allowed to open envelopes immediately after I offered my answer?
...

No.

Do you understand this basic requirement for a DBT: "No one knows the results until the entire test is completed."?

 

[Startz]

On possibility is to have only two photographs. If you could identify the photo you choose 20 times or more out of 24 attempts that would be a success.

This would reduce the number of photos you needed to handle from 300 to 48--an enormous time saver and simplification.

Am I allowed to open envelopes immediately after I offered my answer?

The issue of whether you can open the envelopes immediately is entirely separate from how many photos there are and how many trials.

Can I have 2 trials?

Probably, the suggestion gives a 1.5 per 1000 chance of success by random guessing if you are allowed two trials. I expect JREF would stretch that far, but of course it's up to them.

When there is two photos only, so it is test with pairs when I have to name one of two ( as it was proposed from the beginning?)
And am I allowed to choose one I am most sure of? Or I will be handled 1 of two photos to name?

Just like before. You get to choose which photo to identify.

Can we make 30 pairs per trial.. how many do I need to name correct?

For 30 pairs per trial, two trials allowed, success would be to get 24 or 25 of the 30 sets correct. (depending on how rigid JREF is).
-Dick

 

[RemieV]

The application has been received and reviewed. We have contacted consultants to advise on statistical significance, and negotiations are in progress.

~Remie

 

[Akhenaten]

Well done Pavel.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Good job JREF and Pavel, looking forward to the test

 

[steenkh]

This does neither qualify as a double blind test nor does it meet the request for simplicity. Try again keeping said requirements in mind.

I think you (and others) are confusing this with a triple blind test where the results are analysed by a person who does not know the criteria for success. There should be no problem with getting the result immediately for a double blind test.

The JREF might insist on a triple blind test, though.

 

[Startz]

The application has been received and reviewed. We have contacted consultants to advise on statistical significance, and negotiations are in progress.

~Remie

Congratulations Pavel!

 

[pavel_do]

Congratulations Pavel!

Thank you Dick,

well.. she replied that this protocol ( yours) more clear.. but still too many photos.. and asked me if I can identify 1 out of 5.. and all five…
I am going to try the test with pairs that we spoke about yesterday.. though it is same as I proposed before but with 100 sets.. and u remember reaction every one jumped at me that it is a coin toss and I am just wasting time.. so I don’t know how they would like it.. I don’t know if we understand each other correct.. cause in my case.. I will ave arranged pairs.. and I have pairs.. not 30 photos mixed up.. but arranged by pairs.. and I have to identify one of two..?? Or you mean as GzuzKryzt that they mixed up like in test of Carine Lindl..? As I don’t see the way where they mixed up.. as the suitable way and I habe explained my reasons before.
Will try to identify 1 out of 5 and 5 out of 5 and pairs. To see what would be suitable.. though I think pairs is easy in a way.. as I proposed it from day one.. but u remember there reaction.. that the last kind of test that I had with academics who wrote an affidavits for me.

 

[Startz]

Thank you Dick,

well.. she replied that this protocol ( yours) more clear.. but still too many photos.. and asked me if I can identify 1 out of 5.. and all five…
I am going to try the test with pairs that we spoke about yesterday.. though it is same as I proposed before but with 100 sets.. and u remember reaction every one jumped at me that it is a coin toss and I am just wasting time.. so I don’t know how they would like it.. I don’t know if we understand each other correct.. cause in my case.. I will ave arranged pairs.. and I have pairs.. not 30 photos mixed up.. but arranged by pairs.. and I have to identify one of two..?? Or you mean as GzuzKryzt that they mixed up like in test of Carine Lindl..? As I don’t see the way where they mixed up.. as the suitable way and I habe explained my reasons before.
Will try to identify 1 out of 5 and 5 out of 5 and pairs. To see what would be suitable.. though I think pairs is easy in a way.. as I proposed it from day one.. but u remember there reaction.. that the last kind of test that I had with academics who wrote an affidavits for me.

Pavel:

There is nothing at all wrong with doing the test in pairs.

Alternatively, you could stick with your pick 2 out of 5 if you are able to identify both photos correctly. Getting five out of ten sets is all you would need! (Counting only one photo right as a success is what really runs up the number of photos needed.)

-Dick

 

[pavel_do]

Pavel:

There is nothing at all wrong with doing the test in pairs.

Alternatively, you could stick with your pick 2 out of 5 if you are able to identify both photos correctly. Getting five out of ten sets is all you would need! (Counting only one photo right as a success is what really runs up the number of photos needed.)

-Dick

I have done 30 pairs just now.. where I had to identify one of 2.. my results is 23 correct out of 30.
Doing it now on “fresh had” as it was long time since I did this type of test.. Now I would say.. it would work even better.. if we change pairs every 10.. or even 5 sets. so every ten ( or maybe even better 5) sets pairs would be different say.. first 10 is.. Planet earth and Titanic, the second 10 is Cross and Pyramids and the next 10 is Planet earth and Cross. That would help not to get mixed up when my brain would be involved… like I would get let say first 10th.. 7 times planet earth correct.. the more I would name it.. the more brain would say hay.. it was last time.. it cant be so many times in row.. etc.
Even I see nothing wrong with test with pair.. but you remember the reaction when I proposed it..
Though even if we have two trial it is only 60 photos in all and each trial would take abiut 1 hour or so..
still I would need small brakes let say 3 min every 5 or every 10 photos..depands..

Re to 2 out of 5 exactly named.. I have to try it.. really concentrate one two out of 5 only.. as u say 5 out of 10 would do it.. But.. does it allow me 2-3 trials?

 

[Startz]

I have done 30 pairs just now.. where I had to identify one of 2.. my results is 23 correct out of 30.
Doing it now on “fresh had” as it was long time since I did this type of test.. Now I would say.. it would work even better.. if we change pairs every 10.. or even 5 sets. so every ten ( or maybe even better 5) sets pairs would be different say.. first 10 is.. Planet earth and Titanic, the second 10 is Cross and Pyramids and the next 10 is Planet earth and Cross. That would help not to get mixed up when my brain would be involved… like I would get let say first 10th.. 7 times planet earth correct.. the more I would name it.. the more brain would say hay.. it was last time.. it cant be so many times in row.. etc.
Even I see nothing wrong with test with pair.. but you remember the reaction when I proposed it..
Though even if we have two trial it is only 60 photos in all and each trial would take abiut 1 hour or so..
still I would need small brakes let say 3 min every 5 or every 10 photos..depands..

Re to 2 out of 5 exactly named.. I have to try it.. really concentrate one two out of 5 only.. as u say 5 out of 10 would do it.. But.. does it allow me 2-3 trials?

Yes, getting 2 out of 5 exactly right in 5 out of 10 would allow for three trials. Instead of 300 photos 2 trials would require 100 photos and 3 trials would require 150.

 

[pavel_do]

Yes, getting 2 out of 5 exactly right in 5 out of 10 would allow for three trials. Instead of 300 photos 2 trials would require 100 photos and 3 trials would require 150.

I just sent an email to JREF.. asking them if the test with 2 pairs would be considered as less complicated.. and possible for testing.. I would go for 2 trial with 30 sets per trial… that would be only 60 photos per trial and 120 in all.. each trial would take a maximum of one and a half hour, so maximum 4 hours in all including brakes.. In the test I would have to identify 24 pairs correct out of 30. I think it is reasonable. And the other options where.. I still would have to identify 2 out of 5.. but would still to a claim with getting only exact pair. One trial with 30 sets.. ( 150 photos in all) where I would need to get if I am not mistaken 7 pair correct in order to beat 1.000 odds. The test would take not more than 3 hours as well including brakes.

Regards,

Pavel

 

[Marcus]

I am not one of them.. I either will be able to perform it or not to as simple as that.. no excuses.. unless I don’t know some force major situations..

If you stick to this, it will put you a step above all previous challengers. There are always excuses when a challenge fails. You seem to have left yoursekf an out in the last sentence, though, although I'm not sure what the sentence means.

 

[pavel_do]

If you stick to this, it will put you a step above all previous challengers. There are always excuses when a challenge fails. You seem to have left yoursekf an out in the last sentence, though, although I'm not sure what the sentence means.

It means.. like a thunder storm in the middle of test.. that will cause allot of noise and a headache for me. Some other thing that would not allow me to concentrate and perform it my best… I don’t know some one on purpose will come in t-shirt with all possible and brightest colors.. or with allot of pictures on it..etc.. and constantly will be walking infront of me.. any thing that beond control of JREF and MY and conditions that was agreed.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

It means.. like a thunder storm in the middle of test.. that will cause allot of noise and a headache for me. Some other thing that would not allow me to concentrate and perform it my best… I don’t know some one on purpose will come in t-shirt with all possible and brightest colors.. or with allot of pictures on it..etc.. and constantly will be walking infront of me.. any thing that beond control of JREF and MY and conditions that was agreed.

Yep, you don't know. Beforehand.

Afterwards, failed challengers are usually very creative.

I'll even tell you one reason why: They can't accept that their mighty powers have not been detected in a proper test and they have to save face and rationalize the thousands of hours they invested in their undetectable powers. They need to believe. And rationalizing their belief is the top priority.

We'll see how you fare, Pavel.

 

[pavel_do]

Yep, you don't know. Beforehand.

Afterwards, failed challengers are usually very creative.

I'll even tell you one reason why: They can't accept that their mighty powers have not been detected in a proper test and they have to save face and rationalize the thousands of hours they invested in their undetectable powers. They need to believe. And rationalizing their belief is the top priority.

We'll see how you fare, Pavel.

I don’t know why they are like that.. You need to learn to WIN and learn how to lose.. In the and of the day.. If you know you are real reapply.. JREF let you do so in a year if I am not mistaken.. get together all mistakes reasons etc and produce better test.. as simple as that

 

[Moochie]

I don’t know why they are like that.. You need to learn to WIN and learn how to lose.. In the and of the day.. If you know you are real reapply.. JREF let you do so in a year if I am not mistaken.. get together all mistakes reasons etc and produce better test.. as simple as that

Might be simpler to devise a better paranormal ability.


M.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
get together all mistakes reasons etc and produce better test.. as simple as that

Ah, the cockiness of a testee. I will remind you of this, Pavel.