Beth Clarkson's application

[Ashles]

Extremely good points by Marian.

What is the exact claim? The movement of flame? Or the movement of air currents?

It sounds very much like it is the movement of air currents in which case the entire protocol could be changed and not involve flames at all.

Also, (asuming the claim is still centring around a flame) would it be possible to have the flame burning in a smoky environment/container first of all so we could actually observe the airpatterns around it?

Any thoughts on whether we could create a smoky environment around the flame, or whether we could make the air currents visible somehow? (Are IR cameras sensitive enough for this?)

I am assuming that the general feeling is that Beth is manipulating the flame by some kind of draught (consciously or unconsciously).

 

[IXP]

Here is her original claim:

The applicant will demonstrate control of a candle flame by directing the heat of the flame towards a specific target.

She does not claim to move the flame or air current's, but to direct the "heat" of the flame. Since heat is not a physical object itself, I assume she means the combustion gasses and heated air. What is a flame? I think it is the incandescant combustion gasses, so there is really no distinction between directing the flame and directing the "heat" of the flame.

Her "ability" should be tested on the basis of the effect she claims she can demonstrate, i.e. the non-uniform melting of wax. Changing the experiment to see if she can move air currents is not testing her claim. If I were her I would reject such a protocol.

 

[Ashles]

Changing the experiment to see if she can move air currents is not testing her claim. If I were her I would reject such a protocol.

I'm not suggesting we change the protocol without her agreement, merely asking her if the flame is what she is moving or the air. For clarity of protocol. If she said it was the air currents (unlikely I agree) then it would be easier to form a protocol. But it's her claim to define as she wishes.

If it is definitely the flame, or specifically the heat of the flame then we have to stick with something similar to the protocols suggested above.

And I think it would be useful, if possible, to have some kind of smoke or visible particles in the air to detect if any draughts are being used by the claimant.

Maybe we could hang threads down to detect draughts - as in my Ashles' Candle Interference Detection Device (ACIDDâ„¢):

 

[IXP]

Nice illustration! I hereby nominate you for official JREF experimental design illustrator.

I agree that she should clarify the claim. The statement "directing the heat" is more of a mechanism than a claim of what will be demonstrated. I doubt that she is knowlegable enough to know how the non-uniform melting is caused. Personally, I think she is actually jiggling the molecules in the wax via telekenesis and the candle is only a prop.

In all seriousness, I really wish we could see a demonstration so we could see if she is really getting the claimed effect, and if so (which I doubt) speculate further on how she is actually achieving it.

 

[KRAMER]

two threads

There is another thread on this application entitled BETH CLARKSON COMPLEX PROTOCOL on which I have posted JREF's official position on whether or not this a truly a paranormal claim.

Please go there for reference, and please do not post more on this thread. Let's pick it up from here on the COMPLEX PROTOCOL thread, which is more current.

 

[WaterD]

i disagree

I agree that the claim cannot be accepted under the contest rules, but if the porpouse of randy is instead look for some paranormal event, then i would give some attention to the matter. The point is that i did hear and read several times that people minds, focusing on affect a random event bring a difference of 1% or 2% in favor of the result the people where thinking about, and this after numeros test. I'm very sceptikal, still i'm open that something could exist in that matter. I mean if one wants to know if that claim is true, it requieres a hard work, but what if it's true?