Anyone heard about this dude? (pavelprorok on youtube)

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I will copy 2 answers for my letter, about academic witnessing..

I'm sorry but we cannot provide that type of service, Also, I do not want to have any involvement at all in James Randi's challenge as it has such a bad reputation among the serious scientists in our field, and we don't want to have our name attached for fear of how they might misuse this. You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.
I wish you well with your efforts. Sorry we cannot be of any further help,

The JREF offer that you mention has not been found to be at all reliable by all accounts in the decades that it has been offered, and you will not find any one in the parapsychological research world who gives any credence to this James Randi's offer, sorry to say.
I wish you well in your efforts, however
...

Pavel_do, could you please provide the contact information from both institutions which sent you the above quotes? (Along with date, sender, occupation of sender, etc.)

And, if you like, the inquiries (remember to delete you personal info) you sent to them which prompted said responses?



By the way, lurkers, guests, anyone: A One Million Dollar offer for evidence in two controlled tests against the word of "parapsycological researchers" that said offer is unreliable - to which there is beaucoup evidence to the contrary.

This is the 21st century AD, right?

 

[pavel_do]

Pavel_do, could you please provide the contact information from both institutions which sent you the above quotes? (Along with date, sender, occupation of sender, etc.)

And, if you like, the inquiries (remember to delete you personal info) you sent to them which prompted said responses?



By the way, lurkers, guests, anyone: A One Million Dollar offer for evidence in two controlled tests against the word of "parapsycological researchers" that said offer is unreliable - to which there is beaucoup evidence to the contrary.

This is the 21st century AD, right?

Sorry but I can’t not do that, because I think it is unfair to do so, as I myself wouldn’t like any one to publish my letters… A specially as you can read from first reply, they don’t want to be mentioned anywhere with JREF in fear that it might be misused. So in respect to them and same to the other who has there opinion, like most of people here don’t believe in my claim but it there right.
I appreciate that thay at least answered to my letter, cause most of them just ignored.

The second reply was from parapsychology society, I thought they can do witnessing as in there group, there is some people with degrees. But they don’t as you can read…

Still, in respect to them I can not provide there details. Sorry about that.
I am lucky enough 2 people agreed to see me, and I hope they will find time when May will come. Cause some people I tried to get in touch was short, like, I don’t have time for such nonsense…

So the time will kindly show us.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Sorry but I can’t not do that, because I think it is unfair to do so, as I myself wouldn’t like any one to publish my letters… A specially as you can read from first reply, they don’t want to be mentioned anywhere with JREF in fear that it might be misused. So in respect to them and same to the other who has there opinion, like most of people here don’t believe in my claim but it there right.
I appreciate that thay at least answered to my letter, cause most of them just ignored.

The second reply was from parapsychology society, I thought they can do witnessing as in there group, there is some people with degrees. But they don’t as you can read…

Still, in respect to them I can not provide there details. Sorry about that.
I am lucky enough 2 people agreed to see me, and I hope they will find time when May will come. Cause some people I tried to get in touch was short, like, I don’t have time for such nonsense…

So the time will kindly show us.

Which serious scientist - who has to submit their process to public scrutiny because that's (in short) how it works - would refuse to have their name attached to the JREF? That's a laugher.
If you can't provide the details about the authors of said quotes, I will have to assume you made them up.

Do you realise those people would have cost you your shot at the Million?

 

[pavel_do]

Which serious scientist - who has to submit their process to public scrutiny because that's (in short) how it works - would refuse to have their name attached to the JREF? That's a laugher.
If you can't provide the details about the authors of said quotes, I will have to assume you made them up.

Do you realise those people would have cost you your shot at the Million?

I did not made up those letters, I can not disclose names and I explained the reason. You can think I made them up, it is your right. I could make a print screen and black out names and email address so from the letter contents and the dates when it was received you can see it is not mad up. But still don’t see point in it as you will say I made that up in photo shop as well. Same time, if I would copy the letter, for what? So you or some body elts would contact those people to ask them if they say so or that they are wrong with there opinion? You can think that I made them up or something but I am not, I been honest here in every my post. I am respecting every opinion, and as I said, I am grateful at least that they answered at all.
Regards,
Pavel

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I did not made up those letters, I can not disclose names and I explained the reason. You can think I made them up, it is your right. I could make a print screen and black out names and email address so from the letter contents and the dates when it was received you can see it is not mad up. But still don’t see point in it as you will say I made that up in photo shop as well. Same time, if I would copy the letter, for what? So you or some body elts would contact those people to ask them if they say so or that they are wrong with there opinion? You can think that I made them up or something but I am not, I been honest here in every my post. I am respecting every opinion, and as I said, I am grateful at least that they answered at all.
Regards,
Pavel

I respect your decision to not post the letters as requested.

You do know that you still have not provided a shred of evidence for any of your claims, right? You do realise that we only have your word(s), right? That's not the way to convince people around here, pavel_do.

You choose to protect the identity of people who hinder your project with obviously bogus excuses? Fine.

After receiving their contact information, I would not have subjected them to letters full of f-bombs. I would have made a simple inquiry concerning your matter and would have asked for clarification.

And it is not that I do not believe you per se. Perhaps you did make those inquiries and got said responses. We just don't have the evidence for it - when it would be very simple to provide it.

 

[steenkh]

Pavel,

In the reply from the JREF, it was specifically stated that "The affidavit from an academic should be someone with a background in logic and critical thinking who is not previously known to you."

I think that with a few exceptions, the JREF will not find that parapsychologists have a background in logic and critical thinking, and as you see, they also will have nothing to do with James Randi.

You should probably try for another kind of academic, such as a physicist.

 

[pavel_do]

I know I need to find two academics from organizations that have nothing to do with the paranormal.

 

[devnull]

i thought the responses sounded a bit odd..... cant imagine any of my university lecturers ever speaking (or typing) like that.

 

[Lilith]

i thought the responses sounded a bit odd..... cant imagine any of my university lecturers ever speaking (or typing) like that.

I've met a few that do. Obviously they are not in English Dept.

 

[devnull]

I've met a few that do. Obviously they are not in English Dept.

I meant more the:

Also, I do not want to have any involvement at all in James Randi's challenge as it has such a bad reputation among the serious scientists in our field

If you know who James Randi is, you are aware of the JREF and the $1M challenge, you think this of him, and you claim to be a "scientist", then I submit that you are more likely to have a degree in the science of "furniture placement to aid the fulfillment of one's chakra-based, sub-vibrational destiny".

 

[pavel_do]

Video

I made a video where I am performing clairvoyants test with prediction of the photos that is in closed envelopes just by holding them in my hands. Usually the photos are in the envelopes already and I don’t look at them extra time ( As it is disturbing for me and pictures that I sow in some way get stuck in my mind for a bit and then appear in inner visions, and by that can affect the results), instead of it I am concentrating for 10-15 minutes in silents, then I pick random envelopes and hold them one by one in my hands for 3-5 minutes. While I am holding them, I am starting to see, symbols and signs that helps me to “see” understand what photo is in side. I do not see actual photo as it is, I see some kind of reflection of it. I understand that my video will be criticized that it is all set up and fake. Still I tried to make it as open and as easy as possible so you would be able to see that it is all genuine and not set up, I’ve mixed all the envelopes and photos before placing them as you could see. If you have any questions, comments and suggestions, I will glad to hear it.

P.S.

It is in 2 parts I separated them as video can be not longer then 10 min each, I tried to be as fast as I could ( even though it is not the best thing to do for such things), still video came to 15 min. Here is part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slxejpN_W_Y
and part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEcUxyARjXE

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I understand that my video will be criticized that it is all set up and fake.
...

If you did understand that what was the point in making it?
I would not dismiss it per se, I simply say it is not a controlled test and hence useless for evaluating your claim.

Did you make some progress on finding academic support for your application?

 

[GimmePepsi]

He knew what the 20 photos were in advance! Yet he acts all vague and predicts a "woman wearing a dress holding a candle". If he sensed the statue of liberty, and knew that the statue of liberty was one of the photos, why didn't he say "statue of liberty"? And he already knew there was no photo of a woman in a white dress holding a candle (well, I'm guessing that because I couldn't make them all out). It makes no sense unless he was trying to mathematically maximize his possible hits. I couldn't make out all the photos but I noticed one of them was a burning candle. How much you want to bet he would have counted that as a hit? And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a photo of a woman in a white dress (sans candle) in there as well.

And what was with the "round object that is a telephone"? Maybe one of those hamburger telephones. But no ordinary telephone I know of is round. Was there a "round telephone" in the batch of photos? If not, why on earth would he make that particular guess? So probably any round object would have been a hit, and any telephone would have been a hit. (I bet there were several of each in the original batch of photos.) Unlucky for him he picked the pyramid, which even he couldn't twist to become something round or telephonicular.

Plus, even his hits were out of sequential order. Someone should do the math, but purely from a statistical point of view this seems very stacked in his favor.

 

[rjh01]

What you are saying is that the video fails to show any paranormal ability. It looks like your conclusions are the same as mine.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Pavel_do, do you understand that this (or any) video is not a controlled test and worthless as evidence?

 

[pavel_do]

What you are saying is that the video fails to show any paranormal ability. It looks like your conclusions are the same as mine.

Pavel_do, do you understand that this (or any) video is not a controlled test and worthless as evidence?

Yes I do understand, same as I understand that it was a mistake to place it, i just wanted to show basically how I see things. RE to academic on Thursday I have a meeting with one of them to arrange day and time when I can perform it. I will let you know.

Re. to other questions... What do you expect me to fly?? that would be paranormal?? ( by the way I am not claiming that it is paranormal what I can do, that is something that in our nature just not every one can do that and that not really known) Still, any of the results would be criticized and you know it.. another thing.. I know what photos are. I give you all of them, so you learn them by heart.. does it help to name it by just holding it...? Even if that would be Zenner cards, I will know them any way isn't it?? I showed what I will be performing, to give you an idea, I know I have to be more precise and I will be,i explained how i usually do that, i need time to relax etc.

Another thing I DESCRIBED WHAT I SEE, i sow woman in wight with the candle.. so i said so..still no point i guess to explain.. I will perform this thing, and will be as precise as possible and will name exactly what is on photo. I will need 10-15 min to relax and then 3-5 min to hold each envelope, beside that not seeing photos extra time before test will help me not to "feel up" my mind with images. I am seeing sort of same photo but not exact one i explained that. Any way it is all useless to explain. I just gona show it on the test and that it. I am not finding funny to say that I am something that I am not at all, and than to be a ridicule in front of everyone when I have to perform it actually I see no fun in doing it, same as waist my time and time of the others.It would be fine If that would be just a game on line, to show it make video and that it never perform to real people but that is not the case as you all know. What ever, it is all pointless to explain I going to show it one day soon. For now I will get the academic witnessing that still will be considered as fake I guess and not to be trusted.. any way. Have a nice week guys.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Yes I do understand, same as I understand that it was a mistake to place it, i just wanted to show basically how I see things. RE to academic on Thursday I have a meeting with one of them to arrange day and time when I can perform it. I will let you know.

Re. to other questions... What do you expect me to fly?? that would be paranormal?? ( by the way I am not claiming that it is paranormal what I can do, that is something that in our nature just not every one can do that and that not really known) Still, any of the results would be criticized and you know it.. another thing.. I know what photos are. I give you all of them, so you learn them by heart.. does it help to name it by just holding it...? Even if that would be Zenner cards, I will know them any way isn't it?? I showed what I will be performing, to give you an idea, I know I have to be more precise and I will be,i explained how i usually do that, i need time to relax etc.

Another thing I DESCRIBED WHAT I SEE, i sow woman in wight with the candle.. so i said so..still no point i guess to explain.. I will perform this thing, and will be as precise as possible and will name exactly what is on photo. I will need 10-15 min to relax and then 3-5 min to hold each envelope, beside that not seeing photos extra time before test will help me not to "feel up" my mind with images. I am seeing sort of same photo but not exact one i explained that. Any way it is all useless to explain. I just gona show it on the test and that it. I am not finding funny to say that I am something that I am not at all, and than to be a ridicule in front of everyone when I have to perform it actually I see no fun in doing it, same as waist my time and time of the others.It would be fine If that would be just a game on line, to show it make video and that it never perform to real people but that is not the case as you all know. What ever, it is all pointless to explain I going to show it one day soon. For now I will get the academic witnessing that still will be considered as fake I guess and not to be trusted.. any way. Have a nice week guys.

Pavel_do, one main reason why I suggested using the Achau Nguyen protocol was that it used words printed on paper. There is hardly much confusion about the "transmission" or "reception" of a word printed on paper. Either you get it right or you do not.

You should not expect the JREF to agree to a protocol using photographs which lend room to interpretation. As you have been told before: The results have to be self-evident. No interpretation, no judging, no wiggle-room whatsoever.

However, if you would pre-define the used photos in definte terms, that would probably be ok. I.e.: A photo of a japanese woman wearing a white dress holding a red ball in front of a tree with the sky in the background is defined as: "Woman with ball" and not as "I see something round shaped with something blue and green". There would of course be no other ball or woman allowed in the other pictures. Remember, it is a controlled test.

Do you see what I am getting at?

By the way: No one expects you to fly. Painting yourself in the corner is getting boring and repetitive.

I stand by my statement that you will not do a controlled test for the JREF Prize.

 

[pavel_do]

Pavel_do, one main reason why I suggested using the Achau Nguyen protocol was that it used words printed on paper. There is hardly much confusion about the "transmission" or "reception" of a word printed on paper. Either you get it right or you do not.

You should not expect the JREF to agree to a protocol using photographs which lend room to interpretation. As you have been told before: The results have to be self-evident. No interpretation, no judging, no wiggle-room whatsoever.

However, if you would pre-define the used photos in definte terms, that would probably be ok. I.e.: A photo of a japanese woman wearing a white dress holding a red ball in front of a tree with the sky in the background is defined as: "Woman with ball" and not as "I see something round shaped with something blue and green". There would of course be no other ball or woman allowed in the other pictures. Remember, it is a controlled test.

Do you see what I am getting at?

By the way: No one expects you to fly. Painting yourself in the corner is getting boring and repetitive.

I stand by my statement that you will not do a controlled test for the JREF Prize.

I would like to ask you to call me Pavel, as that is my name.

As I said I am finding Achau protocol fair and good. But I don’t see words beside that I decided to make it without my friend as it was planed before due to different reasons, still want him to be there when test will be going.

Regarding the photographs, fair enough what you saying about “room to interpret” what I will do, I will make a new set of photos, will illuminate any that is some kind repeat the other, such as candle will be removed, not to confuse it with statue of liberty light that will be for my own better…

Although I will add photos in Photoshop, I will remove any extra objects on photos beside the actual image, like for example Egypt also has sky and sun etc… all photos will be just with a single picture (like a Gun that you saw on video) again that will be better for me and will illuminate any disputes about the results.

Thank you.

P.s.
I understand that the guy seating in the corner is boring, well I could put flowers on the table and wear wig … just joking.

 

[Czarcasm]

Although I will add photos in Photoshop, I will remove any extra objects on photos beside the actual image, like for example Egypt also has sky and sun etc… all photos will be just with a single picture (like a Gun that you saw on video) again that will be better for me and will illuminate any disputes about the results.

So you are going to Photoshop the picture to help us out, pavel_do?

Mods, don't you think it's about time to move this joke of a thread out of the MDC forum?

 

[pavel_do]

There was a video response to my test, the guy made some points like.
I didn’t named each envelope, and although that would be better If I can pull out one, guess it and than place it back. I will answer it and explain my point about it ( if any one interested).
Here is a copy of my answer to him.
Regarding putting back photo in the pack. The thing is I get affected when I see photos. It in some way it gets imprinted in my mind vision and can appear when I close my eyes for test. So if let say I chosen random envelope, than held it in my hands and named it, than it has to be opened to verify whether I was right or wrong, so I will see the photo, and when it will be placed back to the pack I will think about it whether I like it or not. Another thing about it is that, let say we pulled out another envelope, and when I will hold it I will see same image, than my mind-continence will get involved in a way I will be doubting my self, if it is same image again or it just imprint of the one I sew before, and I will doubt that it is possible (thought it is possible to pick 3 times same image) my mind will be telling me like common it cant be same.

Re to the not naming each envelope, wall if you could calculate how does it affect the odds. As actually when I hold envelope in my hands and trying to see what is in side I am sort of asking my self and trying to see what will I see when it will be opened, so although when I in the end hold all of them I am thinking about as if thay already opened and revealed, if you getting my point.. I mean when I hold first envelope it is not necessarily I see image of it and not the image of the next one that I will hold. I noticed it because it happened a few times when I held envelope was wrong with it, than pulled random one more from pack and it usually the one I named but was wrong. Though some times when I open envelope there is exact the image I saw when held it.

P.S.

I have asked hem to help me out a bit with calculations if he dont mind.