Assistance required for telepathy proof

[Cuddles]

Cant you see the progression I made in just two tests with the University?

Actually, no. Just look at the graphs The Atheist posted. In the first, there is an overall downward trend with 3 noticable jumps up. Only one of them occurs during an active period, and it is not the largest. Of the other two, one is more or less during a calming period and the other is in dead time. In the second graph there are 7 jumps up, two of which are in active periods. Again, the two largest are not in active periods. In fact, in the closeup you have labeled 3 points, two of which are outside the active periods and so do not support your claim at all. You have plenty of excuses for why the jumps are in the wrong places, but the fact is that these graphs simply do not support your claim. It's also very noticeable that although you were supposed to calm the recipient during certain periods, there is not a single part of either graph that suggests you had any calming effect.

In addition, there are obvious problems with this test. By far the most easily noticed problem is that the times are completely regular. Even assuming perfect blinding, if a recipient was allowed to participate in more than one test they could easily get a feel for the timing and anticipate what they were supposed to be feeling, conciously or subconciously. And speaking of blinding, you have not said anything to suggest that the tests were actually blind.

A final point that you would do well to consider is your problem with trust. You say that you don't trust anyone to tell the truth about you, even when they stand to gain $100k from doing so. However, you also say that you will give anyone who can tell you your name $200k. Bearing in mind that you had to give out your name when you joined the forum and that several people have access to that information, why do you trust us not to cheat here on an anonymous internet site, but you don't trust anyone to take part in an offical scientific test?

 

[chillzero]

To expand on what a ferw people have tried to point out...

I totally believe that I am telepathic beyond any kind of doubt whatsoever.

That's fair enough, however ...

Starting from there, I then devised a test which did not work.

When devising tests you need to prepare for the possibility that failure means you are mistaken. You need clear pass/fail criteria, not any that can be re-interpreted to suit.

My conclusion was that as I am telepathic the test was not accurate enough to show stress in the receiver or that I was not doing what was required to stress the receiver subject wise.

This is exactly why I mention the above. You need to leave room for the possibility that you are mistaken.

I got better equipment and then started getting results which tended to coincide as you would expect on some but not may tests and was not really reliable enough to prove telepathy was present scientifically. I did show however that as the equipment and technique got better, the results got better but with others nothing happened, confirming that I could achieve results that others could not but could not get it reliable enough to be totally conclusive.

...or that your results indicate that telepathy is not as reliable as you claim... with the potential of being non-existant.

I then did the University test and only got one blip on the GSR plot when I thought something I would expect to cause a rise in GSR. The receivers mother had just gone into hospital the day before and was quite ill. During the activation period I thought of her and got the blip on the first plot straight away. I tried other thoughts that may cause stress but nothing happened.

On mentioning to the receiver after the test what I had thought of to get the blip, he said “I know, I wasn’t ready for that.” I said “So you heard it then?” and he just clammed up and would not elaborate at all and kept on blanking me every time I asked him about it.

This is a wonderful example of confirmation bias. Firstly - don't you think that the man's mother would be on his mind anyway - regardless of what he agreed to do for you? What you should have done was ensure that your test subjects are not already under a period of undue stess, so as not to skew your results. This person should not have been included in your sample, as he was not in a calm state of mind, and likely to have his mind wander to his own personal situation.

Instead of thinking obscene, insulting or threatening things to the receiver which I was doing with the first test (apart from the hospital thing) to stress them out, the only blip came from me having some knowledge about them personally such as “I know you had an affair with Janet” type stuff seems to cause stress best.

But - is this stuff you know? I would have thought that such reveleations would have been secrets beforehand, and you are making guesses. Additionally, you don't clarify how you tie what you think to the exact time marked on the equipment. Do you let them know you are about to send something? Do you work to a set list? Do you wait until an exact time before 'sending' and mark that on the equipment readout? How long do you wait until you consider any reaction related to your thoughts?

It is not the equipment, receiver, transmitter or protocol which was at fault, but not knowing what things to think which causes stress in the receiver which was the problem. I then asked the second receivers girlfriend for some personal bits of info on her boyfriend to be written down on some cards which should cause him to get stressed when he hears me think them. I used these in the second telepathy experiment and got the results shown in the second graph. Again thinking insult etc did not work but the personal (some very personal) info worked a treat when I read the cards fro the first time during the activation period.

If you do not intertwine the questions, then you leave the possibility that the person becomes more agitated as more time passes - particularly if they feel nothing is happening. You take no precautions to address normal human reactions to the passage of time, or an unusual situation.

Whilst setting up on the second experiment I did a quick test to see if I could get a GSR increase. I asked the experiment organiser to pick a name from 6 I had written down and then whilst watching the GSR graph thought to the receiver “Is the name Paul” – nothing happened on the GSR, “Is the name Mark” – nothing happened on the GSR, “Is the name Nicolas?” (the name the receiver had on a piece of paper), nothing happened on the GSR, “Is the name Jonathan?”, nothing happened on the GSR, “Is the name Richard?”, the GSR plot immediately rose and then slowly came down again, “Is the name Carl?”, nothing happened on the GSR.

After the test the receiver asked me “Did you get a blip on the right name” – I said I didn’t but I did get one on the name Richard – the receiver said “I think I know why, I had a ***** big argument with my best friend this morning. His name is Richard.”

This shows that the person had a reaction to a name you read from a list. He reacted due to his personal situation not your thoughts. You admit yourself that he reacted to the wrong name, and yet you still chalk this up as a success. You should also have an independant person monitoring, recording and assessing your results. You are leaning too heavily on what you want the results to be, and ignoring what is proving you wrong.

I did a similar experiment with a girl who responded to nothing at all when I read to myself what was written on a set of card whilst she meditated untill the question “Do you want to have sex with me” came up on the next card. The GSR went up straight away (it was a tone GSR – it makes a sound tone which goes up and down with your stress) and she asked me “What question was that?” when she heard the tone suddenly rise

So... she did not hear the question but rather had some kind of reaction, perhaps to something she was mulling over herself.

So to answer your question if the test were to fail I would question the way the test was being carried out as not being done in a way which would actually cause stress in the receiver and try to find a more reliable way of stressing the receiver by thinking the correct thoughts which have the desired effect.

That's incredibly unscientific, and will never yeild you reliable results. You do not make any part of your test a binary decision. You must find a way of doing this so that there is an absolute response that requires no judgement - it is either right or wrong. Surely that would be more to your satisfaction also - to have reliable, scientific proof that this works the way you think it does, rather than leaving yourself open to having all your time and efforts dismissed as unreliable because there is too much room for interpretation?

 

[golfy]

Hi All,

On a test with a GSR, a female receiver, the transmitter is a man sitting 4 foot from the woman and the protocol is verbal communication is used by the transmitter to see if she can hear you – the receiver says nothing.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking tea” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking coffee” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking wine” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Can she hear you based on the GSR response? No, but you know full well she can as you had a conversation with her about 5 minutes before.

According to you lot there she never heard a thing – the transmitter is paranoid and needs to stop claiming she can hear him. Please learn how to interpret the results when you have prior knowledge that she can hear you.

The results indicate that the experiment is wrong on some count, not that she can’t hear you as we already know she can. The transmitter is working (verbal communication from 4 foot away), the receiver can hear you, the GSR works and the protocol is fine. The key as explained before is to get the stimulus correct as that is probably the most important aspect of the experiment – you guys seem intellectually blind to it. You have to be able to think at a higher level than you are doing, criticizing is easy – any 5 year old who cannot think very well can easily say “That’s rubbish Mister” without even understanding what he is criticizing.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking tea” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking coffee” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating bananas” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

You ask 7 other questions.

Conclusion from you guys – she cannot hear you – you only got one out of 10 so that is not relevant and proves nothing. It proves as before in my experiments, transmitter OK, receiver is receiving, GSR is working but the stimulus part of the experiment is not as good as it could be or should be. You guys would conclude that she is deaf. Not very bright boys!

You realise that it is the stimulus that is at fault, everything else is OK.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating bananas” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating sausages” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating meat and two veg” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

Conclusion from you guys – miraculously she can now hear when she could not hear before. Dumb conclusion. Conclusion is she could hear you all the time it is that you have now worked out what stimulus causes a response in the receiver and used them to prove that she can indeed hear you.

Hearing you does not cause stress just because she can hear word being spoken otherwise she would get stressed just by saying “Do you like tea?” or “I think I’ll cut the grass.”

The GSR works, the receiver can hear me, I am telepathic, the protocol is fine – it is just the stimulus part which has not been perfected yet.

I am not going to be led down the wrong path by people of little understanding who can simply criticise. Experiments take time to perfect and the errors ironed out. Edison’s bulb did not work the first time but he learnt from each previous failure as to why it was not working and progression was made until a working bulb was finally made. I would be batter off perfecting my experiments outside of the JREF and then coming back when I have done so. This forum is not the place to get results or to add knowledge to my experiments as you don’t seem to have the intellect to add to or understand what is clearly been shown in the results obtained so far.

I see little reason to make any more posts but to just come back when I have a reliable way of demonstrating my claim.

golfy

 

[chillzero]

Good grief. That's just so wrong in so many ways.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Hi All,

On a test with a GSR, a female receiver, the transmitter is a man sitting 4 foot from the woman and the protocol is verbal communication is used by the transmitter to see if she can hear you – the receiver says nothing.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking tea” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking coffee” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking wine” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Can she hear you based on the GSR response? No, but you know full well she can as you had a conversation with her about 5 minutes before.

According to you lot there she never heard a thing – the transmitter is paranoid and needs to stop claiming she can hear him. Please learn how to interpret the results when you have prior knowledge that she can hear you.

The results indicate that the experiment is wrong on some count, not that she can’t hear you as we already know she can. The transmitter is working (verbal communication from 4 foot away), the receiver can hear you, the GSR works and the protocol is fine. The key as explained before is to get the stimulus correct as that is probably the most important aspect of the experiment – you guys seem intellectually blind to it. You have to be able to think at a higher level than you are doing, criticizing is easy – any 5 year old who cannot think very well can easily say “That’s rubbish Mister” without even understanding what he is criticizing.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking tea” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like drinking coffee” – she answers “yes” in her head – no GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating bananas” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

You ask 7 other questions.

Conclusion from you guys – she cannot hear you – you only got one out of 10 so that is not relevant and proves nothing. It proves as before in my experiments, transmitter OK, receiver is receiving, GSR is working but the stimulus part of the experiment is not as good as it could be or should be. You guys would conclude that she is deaf. Not very bright boys!

You realise that it is the stimulus that is at fault, everything else is OK.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating bananas” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating sausages” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

Verbally you ask her “Do you like eating meat and two veg” – she answers “yes” in her head and also thinks of some sexual connotation – this causes a large GSR deflection.

Conclusion from you guys – miraculously she can now hear when she could not hear before. Dumb conclusion. Conclusion is she could hear you all the time it is that you have now worked out what stimulus causes a response in the receiver and used them to prove that she can indeed hear you.

Hearing you does not cause stress just because she can hear word being spoken otherwise she would get stressed just by saying “Do you like tea?” or “I think I’ll cut the grass.”

The GSR works, the receiver can hear me, I am telepathic, the protocol is fine – it is just the stimulus part which has not been perfected yet.

I am not going to be led down the wrong path by people of little understanding who can simply criticise. Experiments take time to perfect and the errors ironed out. Edison’s bulb did not work the first time but he learnt from each previous failure as to why it was not working and progression was made until a working bulb was finally made. I would be batter off perfecting my experiments outside of the JREF and then coming back when I have done so. This forum is not the place to get results or to add knowledge to my experiments as you don’t seem to have the intellect to add to or understand what is clearly been shown in the results obtained so far.

I see little reason to make any more posts but to just come back when I have a reliable way of demonstrating my claim.

golfy

The JREF will never accept this. Are you sure you have read and understood the rules, golfy? (You do not have to answer this.)

I seriously recommend looking up the definition for the following terms:

1. Data mining
2. Confirmation bias
3. Falsifiable/falsifiability



I also see little reason for you to make any more posts before you have a media presence, academic support and a proper application submitted and accepted.

 

[Cuddles]

I see little reason to make any more posts but to just come back when I have a reliable way of demonstrating my claim.

That's what we've been telling you to do for the last four pages. Some people were even kind enough to offer help with finding a reliable way of demstrating your claim. I submit that the only lack of understanding here is on your part.

 

[fls]

I see little reason to make any more posts but to just come back when I have a reliable way of demonstrating my claim.

golfy

I think you're right about that. You seem to have a reasonable idea of what you need to do - identify the nature of the stimulus that will get you a reliable response (the work of Radin suggests that sexual stimuli get more of a response in men than in women and that violent stimuli get a response in both), then work on whether that response can be generated telepathically. I think it is reasonable to work on this part without blinding until you are satisfied that it is working properly. Then try it blinded and randomized - i.e. you don't look at the read-outs while you are transmitting and you transmit at randomly generated intervals. You then look over the readouts afterwards (preferably presented in a random order), select out those points where you think a stimulus was received, and then break the blinding and see how well they matched up with the actual points of transmission (I can help you with the statistical analysis if you need advice). The protocol that Pup suggested is also useful, but I get the impression that you are not confident that lying about whether a word was received will act as a sufficient stimulus (and I suspect you are right). Thinking of the GSR as a stimulus-detector, rather than a lie-detector, is probably the way to go.

Linda

 

[golfy]

Gzuzkzyrt

You seem to have missed the point again!

What I just wrote was to demonstrate that you cannot simply conclude that there is no form of communication (when you know full well she can hear you verbally) if the GSR does not respond when you say something to her.

It was done to get you guys to think which it seems you can’t do at all.

I have been in situations with people on GSRs many time and just because you say something that they hear does not mean that the GSR will register it. Transfer that to telepathic communication – if they hear it, it does not mean there will be a deflection on the GSR just like there is no deflection on the GSR when they hear you verbally.

To get deflection on the GSR with verbal communication, the right stimulus has to be used to get them stressed such as “I know you wife is having an affair” may cause a response. If it does not respond you would conclude that he did not hear you, I would conclude a number of things. He may not even have a wife, he already knows about the affair and is happy that she is about to leave him for someone else etc.

If you get the stimulus right then there will be a GSR response but finding the right stimulus is very difficult.

I had not intension of forwarding that to the JREF – you people never get to most obvious examples of waht I am trying get you to understand.

No point in trying to get ideas across to you - just don’t seem to comprehend – I understand my ability and as long as I come up with a test that the JREF acknowledge then that it all that counts.

You guys seem to me to be either not bright or deliberately awkward time wasters. I really see even less point on being on this forum as it is an intellectual desert IMHO.

golfy

 

[wahrheit]

Good grief. That's just so wrong in so many ways.

Seconded. Especially the women-stimulus-banana-meat-sexual connotation part is outright creepy. Let alone that someone looking for assistance would repeatedly insult his readers, I just don't get it.

 

[Don At Work]

1) There will be no test. Period.

2) Golfy will never,ever, EVER be convinced that he does not have telepathy. Ever, in any way, shape, or form.

3) The word "Quantum" will be used

Dang. #3 already happened. However, I got 2 out of 3. Where is my prize?

 

[Rasmus]

No point in trying to get ideas across to you - just don’t seem to comprehend – I understand my ability and as long as I come up with a test that the JREF acknowledge then that it all that counts.

What on earth makes you think that the JREF will be having expectations that would be drastically different from ours?

Yes, we can't prove or reliable conclude that a failed polygraph reaction is indicative of no telepathy going on. But who cares?

You will have to demonstrate that there clearly, undeniable and without a doubt is something going on.

And as long as the results *might* indicate that nothing is going on you will simply fail the test.

It doesn't matter if there is is an actual transmission and the polygraph fails or if there simply is no transmission. The end result is the same, and hence: A fail.

 

[fls]

Golfy,

I think what you are looking for is the telepathic equivalent of the Auditory Evoked Potential.

Linda

 

[golfy]

Hi FLS,

Many thanks for your input - I am really glad someone has understood where I was coming from and where I am trying to get to. A refreshing change from the relentless 10 a penny critics who then complain when I criticize them back for having little understanding of a very clear problem.

You insight into the problem is spot on and well described. The stress caused by asking the receiver if they lied about hearing the answer may be insufficient to cause an obvious deflection on the polygraph and make the test more difficult to achieve accurate, repeatable results.

The use of a polygraph does seem to confuse people on the forum as it has a reputation as being unreliable as a lie detector. In this case if a GSR were to work satisfactorily then a polygraph would also be just as good as all polygraphs have a GSR channel on them. If I can get it to work correctly with a GSR then that would be best as it gets the word polygraph out of the experiment which some people have a problem with and a GSR is far easier to use and set up and costs around £100 for a good one which can be used on almost any PC or laptop.

I’ll continue with the GSR type testing on a verbal level to see what people tend to respond to generally and then try to replicate those responses using the same type of wording but thought telepathically to see if I get similar results.

Thanks again FLS, you have been a great help.

Golfy

P.S. If my surname is easily found on the forum then I will change the $200,000 offer to the manufacture and model of the car I drive.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
You guys seem to me to be either not bright or deliberately awkward time wasters. I really see even less point on being on this forum as it is an intellectual desert IMHO.

golfy

I consider it a possibility that I - as others - have not understood you yet. I can live with that.

Can you live with the possibility that you may be mistaken about the nature of your claimed ability?



How many more posts before you accomplish the necessary things - media presence, academic support, application accepted - can we expect from you, then? Shall I put it at 100.5 and take the over?

 

[golfy]

I am quite happy to stop posting and continue with my experiment untill they are honed to the point where proof of thelepathy can be scientifically shown.

The posts have changed from me asking for assistance in my experiemnts to critics tearing down my the evidence I have accumulated so far through a lack of understanding of what the results have been indicating.

I am quite happy to stop posting and come back in the future with a claim the MDC.

golfy

 

[chillzero]

People have tried to give you assistance, and advise you on matters related, but you have ignored what you don't want to hear, and fallen back on sarcasm instead of dialogue.

If you aren't going to take on board what people try to discuss with you, then maybe the decision to stop posting is appropriate, until you are willing to consider some changes to your approach to experimentation.

 

[Loss Leader]

According to you lot there she never heard a thing – the transmitter is paranoid and needs to stop claiming she can hear him.

Actually, Golfy, that's not what we've been saying.

Assuming the GSR shows no changes, our next step is to ask why it showed no changes. There are many reasons: 1) the sender has somehow failed to transmit sound; 2) the receiver is deaf; 3) the receiver cannot understand the language; 4) nothing about the questions caused the receiver's stress level to change; 5) the machine is not an accurate guage; 6) anything else one can think of.

We have no idea which of the above is true. So we would have to design experiments where one of those hypotheses is tested while the others are kept constant. We could, for instance, rig up a small diaphragm in the corner of the room to see if a person speaking causes it to vibrate. Then we know that the sound is at least making it across the room.

Please learn how to interpret the results when you have prior knowledge that she can hear you.

But we don't have prior knowledge that she can hear us. We'd have to test for that to rule it out as a problem.

To translate this to your situation, you want us to learn how to interpret the results when we have prior knowledge that people can hear your thoughts. But we don't have that knowledge. That is the proposition the test is trying to establish. If we assume people can hear your thoughts, we've assumed the results of the test. We've crossed out a possible reason the test didn't work without any evidence allowing us to do so. And if we do that, the results of the test don't matter (because we already have assumed the answer). The test becomes meaningless.

The key as explained before is to get the stimulus correct as that is probably the most important aspect of the experiment – you guys seem intellectually blind to it.

You are wrong. We don't know the key. Assuming that the receiver can hear the sender when he speaks from four feet away is very different from assuming that the receiver can hear the sender when he thinks from four feet away. For one thing, we can test for sound waves. We can detect sound waves, record them, create them and even cancel them out. We have very good reason to suspect that sound waves exist.

We cannot detect thought waves. No instrument ever devised can pick up thought waves in the air. We cannot capture them, create them or dampen them.

So why should we focus on getting the stimulus correct to the exclusion of everything else. We haven't ruled out that the thing we're trying to measure does not, in fact, exist.

Conclusion from you guys – she cannot hear you – you only got one out of 10 so that is not relevant and proves nothing. It proves as before in my experiments, transmitter OK, receiver is receiving, GSR is working but the stimulus part of the experiment is not as good as it could be or should be. You guys would conclude that she is deaf. Not very bright boys!

We might conclude that a lie detector is a very poor way of measuring whether someone can hear us. If we know that the sound is getting across, we might find a more reliable measuring device. Perhaps the receiver could answer the questions we're asking out loud or at least raise her hand to indicate she heard a sound. Suddenly, our results would jump to 10 out of 10. We don't need to make the GSR work better, we need to throw it out and find a better measuring device.

As far as telepathy goes, having the receiver just say what word she's receiving seems to be a much more accurate measure than galvanic skin response. I still see no strong reason for a friend or family member to lie under those circumstances.

You realise that it is the stimulus that is at fault, everything else is OK.

This does not logically follow.

Conclusion from you guys – miraculously she can now hear when she could not hear before.

That would not be my conclusion. Since the results differ so far from my expectations about the results, my conclusion would be that there is a problem with the design of the experiment. I would first sit down and list all of the possible reasons for the data I received and start ruling them out one by one. And I would quickly be drawn to the possibility that a GSR is a poor way to measure whether someone heard me.

Conclusion is she could hear you all the time it is that you have now worked out what stimulus causes a response in the receiver and used them to prove that she can indeed hear you.

Incorrect. That is the conclusion only if we assume that: 1) she could hear us the whole time (which was the point of the experiment); and 2) a GSR is a reliable way of measuring if someone can hear.

I am telepathic

Well, here's your big problem. You're assuming the conclusion. You are stating as fact the very proposition that your experiment is supposed to test.

Why is that? Why is it so important to you that you are telepathic? Why do you think that you are different from all the rest of us?

This forum is not the place to get results or to add knowledge to my experiments as you don’t seem to have the intellect to add to or understand what is clearly been shown in the results obtained so far.

So long as you refuse to consider the possibility that you are not telepathic, discussion on this forum will be very frustrating for you.

 

[Marcus]

Does this thread remind anyone of the Dowsing by Edge thread? Golfy does have a better command of the English language, but I get that same nagging feeling that the information presented is not being assimilated. A serious applicant would have already gathered from the Rules that results requiring interpetation are not permitted, and would not have bothered to suggest such protocools in the first place, much less ignoring numerous posts containing this information.

 

[Czarcasm]

Can you think of a test that would convince you that you do not have the ability you are claiming, golfy? You see, that is the only kind of test that will be acceptable for the MDC.

 

[golfy]

Czarcasm,

The kind of test the JREF will accept is one that shows communication of a paranormal kind as it eliminates all other forms of communication that we currently understand exists today such as mobile phones, verbal communication, sign language etc. The protocol would be such that if communication is shown to be present that it would be of the paranormal kind and would therefore prove that I am telepathic as I would be doing nothing else but thinking to the receiver from a remote location and the receiver would be shown to be reacting to my thoughts by some means such as measurement by GSR. There of course has to be some kind of correlation between me transmitting and the GSR response on the receiver.

If you don’t understand what the MDC is all about, please refrain from posting.

golfy