Assistance required for telepathy proof

golfy said:
RemieV has said that polygraphs are not allowed - if you think that this is based on some kind of truth then you are easily led. RemieV is not the JREF
Click to expand...


You might want to do a little research on that assumption, golfy.

As for your test with your doctor:
  • You would not have posted it if it had been a failure. We have no way of knowing how many failed tests you had before or since this one, but it is quite possible you would have rationalized such failures and only counted the successes. That makes the test meaningless.
  • As I interpret the recording, you were hounding the doctor by the time you got to the second question. That may well explain the difference in galvanic skin response as measured by your meter. That makes the test meaningless.
  • She gave the same basic answer ("I don't know what you wrote") to both questions, so if she were lying for one question, she must have been lying for both. However, since your meter indicated a stark difference between the two, your meter isn't measuring what you claim. That makes the test meaningless.
  • It was only a single trial. There are many, many random effects possible that would influence the outcome. That makes the test meaningless.
Need more reasons?
 
golfy, the endearing term "DAO" is reserved for the exclusive use of my friends on this forum, a position you do not hold. In future, you will kindly address me as Dumb All Over or you will be reported.

When RemieV made that post oh so many years ago, RemieV was acting in an official capacity as a representative of the JREF.
 
golfy said:
Hi Forum,

I am obviously conversing with people who are just critics with no basis to their criticism.

RemieV has said that polygraphs are not allowed - if you think that this is based on some kind of truth then you are easily led. RemieV is not the JREF - DOA does obviously not understand the polygraph nor does Sean84. How do you manipulate the poly to give the right answer or wrong answer if you do not know what the answer is? Have you questioned the statement that RemieV made. You have already told me that the JREF will not allow a GSR when there is a JREF experiment using a GSR on You Tube. If you do not know actual facts that you can justify then please refrain from making waste of time comments that are simply your opinion.

My original cat ship protocol used a GSR DOA which as I have shown James Randi allowed in an experiment - a poly is different how? Why would I change my protocol DOA when I have shown factually that it is allowed (not subjective guessing) in a JREF test? I was told on this forum it was not allowed - what was that information based on as it was totally wrong - was if from the same source that told me I could not use a poly i.e. a uninformed critic who does not know what he/she is talking about?

You ask me to accept your statements of “fact” without question but refuse to accept my statements of fact that I can back up with actual objective evidence.

Please think before replying a person quoting a fool is little else but a fool himself.

golfy
Click to expand...

Golfy,

Maybe you should take a different route. I've got a way that you can win TWO million dollars.

First, the method you have been using to determine that others can hear your thoughts is to interpret their visual cues and other indirect and unintended communication.

This means that YOU are a better polygraph than any polygraph machine. All you have to do is prove that you can tell whether someone is lying by looking at these cues.

This may or may not be acceptable as a paranormal ability...there are people who are really good at reading microexpressions, but I doubt they can achieve near 100% accuracy. At any rate, even if you demonstrate this ability and are denied the prize because it is not paranormal, you have still demonstrated that you, yourself are infallible when it comes to identifying liars. You can now use this ability in the place of a polygraph machine.

So what's to keep YOU from lying? Double-blinding. It would be a little complex, but as long as it can be established that you are really capable of identifying liars with significant accuracy, it will be well worth the time and effort to set it up.

How does that sound?
 
To jsfisher,

When a test works as expected than it is not meaningless - it has meaning and that meaning should be explored further to see what it was - a simple lucky try or actual reality. I do agree that more tests should be done - to say the results are meaningless would imply that 100 meaningless results still has no value. A meaningless result x 100 is still meaningless. If 100 tests were done the same way (a cat ship test repeated 100 times) which then gave consistent results that she can hear my thoughts would then still me meaningless according to yourself - this is obviously not true to even a fool.

To others,

I do know who RemieV was but that is not the opinion of James Randi, it was the opinion of RemieV.

If I addressed you as DAO – what would the JREF do for me using an acronym of your name?

I will continue with my experiments untill conclusive proof has been obtained.

golfy
 
Last edited:
golfy said:
When a test works as expected than it is not meaningless - it has meaning and that meaning should be explored further to see what it was - a simple lucky try or actual reality.
Click to expand...


Anita, is that you?
 
golfy said:
When a test works as expected than it is not meaningless - it has meaning and that meaning should be explored further to see what it was - a simple lucky try or actual reality. I do agree that more tests should be done - to say the results are meaningless would imply that 100 meaningless results still has no value. A meaningless result x 100 is still meaningless. If 100 tests were done the same way (a cat ship test repeated 100 times) which then gave consistent results that she can hear my thoughts would then still me meaningless according to yourself - this is obviously not true to even a fool.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand the point.

A single test result by itself can't tell you much at all (especially one with such a loose protocol as yours had, but we don't have to get into that).

Do a large enough series of properly controlled tests and then all the results taken together, have meaning.

You made the point--well, why was there such a difference in the number of LEDs that lit up? I don't know, and not knowing the details of the equipment, it could have been anything, from a spike in the electrical current to your doctor feeling as if you were hounding her--which I can believe from listening to the recording. Again, that difference in lit LEDs by itself doesn't tell you very much at all, unless you can repeat it consistently.

See the difference?

golfy said:
I will continue with my experiments untill conclusive proof has been obtained.

golfy
Click to expand...


Good idea, and good luck.
 
golfy said:
If I addressed you as DAO – what would the JREF do for me using an acronym of your name?
Click to expand...
That is an excellent question, golfy; probably the best question you've ever asked since posting to the forums! Without a doubt, I fully admit I don't know the answer to your question. But, being a man of my word, we will both know the answer in short order.
 
Seems a little petty DAO, perhaps you reported me as you can't win the discussion on the cat ship test? Referring to you as DAO to save typing time is hardly crime of the century.
 
A single test result by itself can't tell you much at all
Click to expand...

It therefore has some meaning even if it is small. Meaningless is different.

The cat ship protocol as a telepathy test is tight - the way it was done with the Doctor was not ideal and would never be usable as literal evidence. It is still good enought to warrant further investigation into whether it was a true indication of telepathy.

As I interpret the recording, you were hounding the doctor by the time you got to the second question.
Click to expand...


The actual test was between 1M51.5s to 2M06.5s - minutes and seconds - I did not hound the Doctor during this period and the GSR was stable as she was not moving her hand around any more. The only indications I used to determine what word she had written down were the GSR results.

golfy
 
Last edited:
golfy, your time would be better spent working on testing your claim rather than quibbling over the meanings of words in casual conversation.
 
golfy said:
It therefore has some meaning even if it is small.
Click to expand...


The only thing that result tells you is that you got one "hit." That's it. Such a result is meaningless in the sense that you cannot reach any meaningful conclusion about your supposed abilities beyond that. Even by pure chance you would expect half of the results to be hits--you know that.

(And you haven't answered the point that if your doctor did in fact hear your thoughts, she was lying in both cases because she basically answered "I don't know" both times.)
 
(And you haven't answered the point that if your doctor did in fact hear your thoughts, she was lying in both cases because she basically answered "I don't know" both times.)
Click to expand...


The GSR responds to her attempt to conceal her knowledge that she had a different word to me. Her answer of "I don't know" are the words coming from her mouth - her fear of the GSR responding to the second question and therefore indicating which card she has is the basis of how a poly works.

golfy
 
golfy said:
Hi Lard2010,

Closest in my opinion is option B but not proven or perhaps not even accurate. What matters is I am telepathic whether others are or not. I am not trying to prove others ability or judge them, I am trying to prove my ability. People that I meet can hear me thinking and that is what I know about myself.
Click to expand...


I've heard this dozens of times. None of the people claiming to have this ability have been able to demonstrate it in scientific tests. Is there any reason to think you will be able to do so?
 
[Referring to golfy's post]

...and you don't see that as any form of rationalization, either, do you?
 
I've heard this dozens of times. None of the people claiming to have this ability have been able to demonstrate it in scientific tests. Is there any reason to think you will be able to do so?
Click to expand...


Yes, the fact the 1st test at the University showed that I was telepathic and taught me what people responded to. The second test was very indicative of my ability by a large factor compared to the first one when I added what I had learnt. The tests were done under close scrutiny by University staff in sound proof rooms 40 yards apart.

I have a lot of recorded evidence of people responding to me over large distances (100 plus yards) when I talk in a normal voice from home with closed windows - the other person shouts very loudly from where they are.

Then I have done small test which also gave good indications but I needed better tests. I then tried the cat ship test protocol on my Doctor as you know.

I have years of experience in my memory which is 100% proof of my ability but this does not count to anyone if I mention it as I would expect. People require unequivocal proof of telepathy so I will do more cat ship type tests and determine the tests repeatability which is obviously what is needed. I have no doubt whatsoever that the correct test done the correct way will always produce results that I am telepathic.

My laptop arrived today and I have just tried it with the polygraph equipment and the poly is functioning as far as the GSR channel is concerned. I will test the other channels when I have time as I am quite busy at the moment. When I am satisfied that the poly is all OK I will then have to construct a test scheme on the poly machine and start testing. This may be quite a while in the future but the sooner I get it done the better.

I can still try the easy cat ship test again on someone else and see what happens. I’ll let you know.

golfy
 
golfy, if twenty years from now you have not oobtained conclusive proof, will you still continue your experiments?
Click to expand...


Unlikely but maybe. If I start getting consistent results in the near future then there will be no need to. Whenever I try new and better designed tests they give better more accurate results that I am telepathic.

golfy
 
golfy said:
Hi Forum,

I am obviously conversing with people who are just critics with no basis to their criticism.
[...]

golfy
Click to expand...



There is plenty of basis. You make extraordinary claims.

Let's see some extraordinary evidence.

You know the drill.
 
golfy said:
Yes, the fact the 1st test at the University showed that I was telepathic and taught me what people responded to. The second test was very indicative of my ability by a large factor compared to the first one when I added what I had learnt. The tests were done under close scrutiny by University staff in sound proof rooms 40 yards apart.

I....golfy
Click to expand...


Links to credible evidence? Getcha some!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom