• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Aura viewing: Need help negotiating a protocol

To successfully design a protocol that protects against bias, one needs to know something about the phenomenon in question.

Since I don't know what an "aura" is, or what its properties are, it would be useful to ask the person who detects them to define it. For instance, do auras penetrate walls? If a person is standing right next to a thin wall, will the aura be visible on the other side? Clearly, there is some extension (as in your "over the wall" protocol.

That would certainly make the design of a protocol easier (multiple predetermined positions against a thin wall, applicant picks the one behind which a subject is standing.)

Are auras different for different people? Adds another level that can be incorporated into a protocol.

Get a list of aura properties from your applicant ... then an effective protocol can be determined.

- Timothy
 
teck49 said:
Very true, but can you eliminate all variables associated with a person entering a room & walking up behind a barrier vs. no one entering a room at all?
Click to expand...
Sure, easy. Go to any university with a psych department that does research and I'll bet they have a setup where two rooms are connected with a sound proof, one way glass window. The "wall" is set up in the observed room, the claimant uses the observing room. Procedure:

1. Claimant leaves observing room accompanied by proctor A.
2. Proctor B flips a coin to determine if the readee (the person whose aura is being observed) enters the observed room and stands behind the "wall"
3. Proctor B notifies Proctor A to re-enter the observing room.
4.Claimant indicates whether she sees an aura or not.

Repeat as necessary. Keep all notes per detailed protocol.

Easy.
 
teck49 said:
If I were you I'd ask this claimant if they can indeed tell the difference between auras. If they can, Saizai's proposal seems to be good. I'd only add that the 2 test subjects should be of similar weight & walk with no shoes on.
If they can't tell the difference, then have a long partition setup in a room basically dividing it in half & have the floor on both sides marked off into 1 foot segments. Have the claimant on one side, ear protection in place, and have participants walk along the other side. Roll a pair of dice to see how far the subject should walk before they stop behind the barrier. Wait a few seconds to allow for time to walk to the far end of the barrier in every trial, then ask the claimant where the subject has stopped.
A score of 9/10 with a +/- range of one foot could be considered a success.
Click to expand...

Again, I appreciate all the input. But I don't want to make it any more complicated than necessary.

All we need to know is this: can you see an aura? Very simple. Let's not gum up the works.
 
How about a hallway with 2 or 3 rooms with doors that close. Detector observes person in hallway, leaves, person directed into one of the rooms (stands right behind door) or some area "far" away from all rooms. Detector picks room person is in, or none if not in any rooms.

Far would be dictated by detector as far enough away to not cause mis-readings.

Doors should be solid with no light coming around edges and little sound transmission (none for a quiet person standing right behind the door.)

How long does detector need to observe the person to be confident in detecting aura later on?

Is it typical in protocols to define how long detector gets to make a detection? 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes?

Does detector want to run test with multiple detectee's or one person (i.e. multiple auras hard, single aura easier over time?) Does sex of detectee matter?

Assigning person to room randomly would require (for 3 rooms plus none option) something like a 4 sideded dice (I knew I kept my old D&D dice for something!) or a computer program (how boring).

Obviously the person who assigns the detectee to a room would retreat to the "far" away room before detector returns to the scene.
 
I've taken your suggestions, and come up with something that might work. There may be some kinks, but that's what I'm hoping you folks will help me out with.

PLEASE, GIVE ME COMMENTS AND CRITIQUES OF THE FOLLOWING PROTOCOL. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN TESTING ANYTHING OTHER THAN "CAN THIS PERSON SEE AN AURA?" LET'S STAY AWAY FROM IDEAS THAT ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THIS PROPOSAL.

For the purposes of this description, the term "Subject" will refer to a volunteer whose supposed aura is being viewed.

Rough Draft of protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicant and subject are brought into a room together. Applicant confirms that the subject has an aura and that it's visible to her. Subject is then placed behind some sort of barrier that is only slightly taller than the subject (the reason being that the applicant states that she can only see auras a few inches around a person's body). Applicant confirms that she can see an aura emanating from behind the barrier. It is also confirmed by impartial observers that the subject can not be seen at all.

After this, the applicant is taken out of the room and an earmuff-type device is placed on her head in order to avoid hearing any inadvertant noises the subject may make. A coinflip determines whether the subject stays behind the barrier or exits the room. A third party (the same person who flipped the coin) notes whether the subject is present or not.

Once the room is ready, the applicant is brought back in (accompanied by another experimenter) and will be given a pre-determined amount of time to try and detect whether or not the subject is present behind the wall. Applicant will note whether the subject is present or not, and her choice will be recorded by a yet to be determined method.

In order to preserve the double-blind aspect of the study, I propose that the person who is escorting the applicant in and out of the room have no knowledge of whether the subject is present, and the person doing the coin flipping should have no knowledge of what the applicant chooses for each trial.

A succesful preliminary test will consist of 2 runs of 20 guesses each. Each run will need a score of 19/20 to be considered a success.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I've come up with so far. What do you think?
 
While I appreciate your desire to keep the protocol simple, I think you might be missing the reason others are recommending more complicated protocols. That is that the question ``can this person see auras?'' can only be answered if the question ``is there any possible non-paranormal mechanism that could explain the results?'' can be answered convincingly in the negative. It seems to me (and to others, though they may not be spelling it out), presence/ absence of another person may be relatively easy to perceive through normal senses (sound, smell?), whereas their exact location, for instance, may be more challenging. I think this is why people are uncertain about the two cases being ``person present'' and ``person absent''. While ear muffs may help, they don't filter all frequencies evenly, so without knowing what sounds might be giving the game away, it's hard to know whether the muffs would prevent the problem.

How about simplifying teck49's protocol to have two marks on the floor, several feet apart? Then your response would still be binary (left or right), and your stimuli would both share the presence of the subject in the room?
 
rudar said:
How about simplifying teck49's protocol to have two marks on the floor, several feet apart? Then your response would still be binary (left or right), and your stimuli would both share the presence of the subject in the room?
Click to expand...

That's an EXCELLENT idea. Thank you :)
 
jlam, I just had an even better idea.
This way your friend won't have to try to see around a barrier.
But it depends on if your friend can see animal auras such as rats.

Can (s)he?

Sorry for the tangent, but this design is in their favor.
 
jlam4911, it seems to me that you are at the point where you need to poop or get off the pot. Your design is sufficiently refined, although not perfect, to submit it to Kramer. It is time to get serious.
 
SezMe said:
jlam4911, it seems to me that you are at the point where you need to poop or get off the pot. Your design is sufficiently refined, although not perfect, to submit it to Kramer. It is time to get serious.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm serious. Remember, I'm not the one claiming to see auras.

One of the things Randi suggests is to have the applicant test his/her ideas informally before submitting the application. That's what's going on right now. I just want to have something concrete for her to submit should her test be succesful.

I've seen the crap that Kramer has to deal with, and I don't want him to have to wade through endless emails back and forth.

But yes, I agree, things are looking good as far as a protocol goes. Thanks to everyone for their help.

-John
 
If the barrier is only a few inches taller than the subject then have the subject wear a wig. If the subject is not in the room the wig will be. The applicant then may see the top of the wig and think that the subject is in the room, when only the wig is.

If you keep this part secret then you will confuse any fake person. Not a person who can detect auras.

Otherwise the applicant can just move their head up until they can see the subject above the wall.
 
rjh01 said:
If the barrier is only a few inches taller than the subject then have the subject wear a wig. If the subject is not in the room the wig will be. The applicant then may see the top of the wig and think that the subject is in the room, when only the wig is.

If you keep this part secret then you will confuse any fake person. Not a person who can detect auras.

Otherwise the applicant can just move their head up until they can see the subject above the wall.
Click to expand...
This introduces far too much complexity into what is a very simple situation. The protocol will specify the height of the barrier, the heigth of the subject, and the location of the applicant. The geometry can be controlled to avoid the "detection" problem without the ruse of using a wig.
 
Be aware that if there's any light in the room, you have to be very aware of any possible shadows (even very weak ones) casted by the subject behind the barrier. If auras can be seen in full darkness then it may be a good idea to conduct the test in darkness if possible to avoid this issue.

Smell from the subject has also been mentioned, please be aware that some people have sensitive noses, so any smell may give the subject away.

Regards
-Øyvind
 
Jup, I would agree, ther is just too many other ways to detect if a person is in the room, other than seeing it, it would present a risk.
What happened with viewing trough walls?
That would make it all a lot easier.
 
I am a bit uncertain about something:

This woman claims that she can see an aura being emitted by a person even when the person is standing behind a wall.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to be the case; what she seems to be able to see is an aura that shines up behind a screen.

From that I would assume an aura to work like a light bulp - you cannot see it through a wall, but could well detect it around the edges of a screen of sorts that doesn't create a separate room.

Here's a way that would possibly make it more difficult to pick up on the subjects presence, though.

In each individual test, an assistant wheels a table into the area behind the screen. On the table lies either a real person that would emit an aura, or a display dummy or something similar. (preferably dressed in the subjects clothes) Both the dummy and the subject could be strapped to the table to minimize movement and to prevent either falling off the table)

that way, the setup of each test would be accompanied by identical side effects (people shuffling in and out, light conditions and shadows, even smell) and not add much that would make it difficult to detect an aura. In fact, since the subject would by lying there should be more of the aura visible behind the screen.

Comments?

Rasmus.
 
Another suggestion to minimize the chance of the aura reader to hear the subject is to play some music in the room. Unless sound distorts the aura or makes it invisible, that is. The same idea may be applied to the scent problem. A good perfume spray in the room before the aura reader enters will probably camouflage any possible odour from the subject.

I don't think the idea of display dummies is a good one, though. It complicates more that it does good, I think.
 
can the "seeer" differentiate the aura between people?

that the "seeer" can differentiate?

if so. why not have the challanger see 10 to 20 different subjects. (can they see animals or plants auras as well?) we can have the subjects all dressed in same clothes and in a body suit which makes them all the same size. also have them wear the same masks as well.

if the the person seeing the aura can correctly identify the person he/she originally named or tagged. then it is succesful!.

i found that staring at an object or person or anything for a short or long time creates an what people might call an aura around it. and yes! they are all different in colours. could this be what they think an aura is? well then.. anyone can do it!. it isnt a real aura( maybe it is?? who knows?) it is just a impression of light left on the (i have just forgotten the word for the thing that detacts light in our eyes... :( ) ah! retna or something...

not only that! if you look directly into the sun when it is close to evening. at first it might make your eye squint a bit but the second time you look into the sun after turning away from it. you will be able to see it more comfortably. and actually see an aura around it. i know cuz i did it. kkk dont try it in the noon, the sun is too strong. and even in the evening it could hurt your eye. so do it at your own risk.

personally, if the person can see things moving in the shadows. that person might be saying something .
 
All the problems about detecting the person in the room can be solved by using two screens. The target person stands between one of them, randomly chosen, and the aura seer must determine which. Since the target person is always in the room, small sounds etc. won't help the aura seer. Shadows must be taken care of, but that is not too big a problem. Just illuminate the entire room from one source, right over the aura seer.

Of course, any sessions where the target coughs, sneezes, or makes some other distinct noise must be taken out of the scoring.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
All the problems about detecting the person in the room can be solved by using two screens. The target person stands between one of them, randomly chosen, and the aura seer must determine which. Since the target person is always in the room, small sounds etc. won't help the aura seer. Shadows must be taken care of, but that is not too big a problem. Just illuminate the entire room from one source, right over the aura seer.

Of course, any sessions where the target coughs, sneezes, or makes some other distinct noise must be taken out of the scoring.

Hans
Click to expand...

A time limit might be helpful to prevent the applicant from just waiting until the subject gives it away with an inadvertant movement or noise. Say 20-30 seconds per trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom