• 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.

challenge history

Peter Morris said:
:hb:
You've looked and looked, but didn't read earlier in this thread where I posted it. Of course If you'd used the searh feature to check the archives you could have found those words easily enough.
Click to expand...
Okay, Peter, let me give you an example. Suppose Dalton claimed that his rock changed the carbon-12 isotope ratio of the water when it was put in its proximity. In this case, competent scientists would be needed to evaluate whether or not the carbon-12 had in fact changed. These scientists would also have to be consulted before the experiment to determine what a significant change would be. That is the purpose for the statement:
We do say that we stay within scientific boundaries when designing the protocol and implementing any tests. To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests.
Click to expand...

But since Dalton's claim is not that there will be "high energies" present, his request is mere evasion.

Now perhaps Dalton could rewrite his application to say that his rock emits anomalous high energies that have no observable effect on ice. That would be a claim that would require some scientists present to verify it. However, Dalton would have to be specific as to what these energies were and how anomalous they would be. I'm guessing he is not well versed enough in various types of energy to be able to construct such a claim. Perhaps you could help him with that. Be careful though, his rock could make you sterile.
 
Peter Morris said:
P

Randi fans, I know you are a strange bunch, but do I really have to keep posting the same quote, only to have you lot deny that you've seen it, then expect me to post it all over again?How many times does it take?
Click to expand...

Well, considering it does not say what you think it says, apparently the answer for you is: "infinity".
 
Peter Morris said:
Fine. Read whatever meaning you want to into Randi's words.
Click to expand...
Projection. Read it again and this time try to understand what it says.

Anyway, the requirement for a "high energy" scientist is an excuse for Dalton to refuse the test. I mean come on, anyone with one good eye can tell whether the ice is melting or not. Do you disagree?
 
Peter Morris said:
Fine. Read whatever meaning you want to into Randi's words.
Click to expand...

Its not "what I want" it is what he actually wrote. What you claim he says is not what is said.
 
kookbreaker said:
Its not "what I want" it is what he actually wrote. What you claim he says is not what is said.
Click to expand...

Sure Kook, I claim he said :

We do say that we stay within scientific boundaries when designing the protocol and implementing any tests. To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests.
Click to expand...

Now, you claim that's NOT what he said.

Go on then, what DID he say?:confused: Really I want to know.
 
No who's being obtuse?

Peter, no-one is denying the little quote you keep referring to.
If you had bothered to completely read my post earlier, you would see that I had indeed read those words.

But it is my (and other peoples) contention that it does not mean what you seem to think it means.

To put it bluntly. (And to repeat myself)
"To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

The AND/OR tells us that there is no promise to have any scientific expert actually conduct the test. Only that the JREF reserves the right to do so.

Repeatedly claiming that this is a promise to call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to conduct the tests is wrong.
 
No point in repeating what JohnF_73 said. Peter has been beating up a strawman.
 
Peter Morris,

DALTON claims to have a rock that prevents ice from melting. The experiment ought to be easy enough - either the ice melts or it doesn't melt. Demanding that a 'high energy physicist' be present is completely unjustified and unreasonable in the same way that

1) Requiring a molecular geneticist to be present to ascertain whether a claimant has been able to change a hamster into a chicken would be unjustified and unreasonable, or

2) Requiring an aeronautical engineer to be present to ascertain whether a claimant is able to fly would be unjustified and unreasonable, or

3) Requiring a opthamologist to be present to ascertain whether a claimant has X-ray vision would be unjustified and unreasonable.

A 'high energy physicist' is NOT RELEVANT to this experiment in any way whatsoever and is just a means used by DALTON to wiggle out of the challenge. The test could, in its fair and just entirety, be performed without a 'high-energy physicist' present and nothing would prevent DALTON form walking away with the million dollars if his rock actually did the thing he claims.

If you cannot understand something this simple then your obtuseness astonishes me.
 
From the thread title and the number of posts, this looks like an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I won't be able to post any responses as I can't find an individual with a doctorate in English Language willing to check the thread through to make sure it's readable first. :(
 
kookbreaker said:
Sorry, but I'll need a fully qualified psychiatrist to be certain that is actually the sad emoticon.
Click to expand...
If only were an expert on computer engineering and programming so that I could use the internet...
 
Peter Morris said:
Randi promises "scientific expertise to conduct t the test" - why not give him this in the form of a high energy scientist?
Click to expand...

If he had made a high-energy claim, it would be relevant. But he only claimed to be able to prevent ice from melting. This can be tested by anyone versed in scientific testing. The expertise needed seems to be the expertise that Randi provided.
 
Sindai said:
If only were an expert on computer engineering and programming so that I could use the internet...
Click to expand...

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! Geting ahead of ourselves aren't we? You need one of those experts just to see if the computer is actually on.
 
Originally posted by KRAMER
To date, thousand of people have inquired about the Challenge and presented claims, promising to send applications. Only about 250 people have actually officially applied.

Nearly 190 applications were closed. Only a small handful of those were closed as a result of being "rejected". The great majority of claim files were closed due to the applicant's refusal to agree to a scientific test protocol.

At this moment, 77 applications remain open, although most of these are "inactive", meaning that applications were submitted, but then the applicants vanished after realizing that their claim will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. We hold all application open for 12 months before closing them due to inactivity.
Click to expand...
Just a thing I'm curious about now that I've read Dalton's excuse for weaseling out of the test. Of all the applicants who didn't just fall silent / disappear, and who didn't actually go on to the testing phase, what are the most common excuses used by applicants to weasel out of the test and give up their shot at the million?
Something like a top 10 list?

At best, it will give future applicants a challenge trying to come up with new <strike>excuses</strike> reasons to quit the challenge.
 
So the "chap" is Dalton Walker, eh? OK. Now I understand.

Here's the answer to your question: Randi is NOT "resistant" to having Dalton's claim tested by a scientist. He simply agrees with most reasonable forum members that it is entirely unnecessary to do so in order to verify this particular claim.

There is but one sole issue here: once again, the applicant has backed out of the test. JREF did NOT back out. The email from the applicant makes this abundantly clear. He knows his claim won't hold water, or keep ice from melting, or kill insects.

This happens all the time. 99% of our time is wasted on applicants who never agree to a protocol. Dalton is just one of hundreds.

Sorry this reply didn't come sooner but we're just getting back to work after Hurricane Frances.
 
"...what are the most common excuses used by applicants to weasel out of the test and give up their shot at the million?
Something like a top 10 list?"

OK, I'll give that a shot...
==================

10- I don't need your money.
9- I don't need to have my power validated by people like you.
8- If you can't see the possibility of the existence of an unseen world, I can't see the point in trying to prove it to you.
7- I'm suddenly going through some personal problems and will get back to you once they are resolved, hopefully with a year.
6- JREF is scum and I wouldn't touch your million dollars with a ten foot pole.
5- I'm working on a new claim which I will submit as soon as I can devise the best protocol with which to validate it.
4- I'm having a baby soon and want to give it my full attention, and I will re-apply next year when I have more free time.
3- JREF doesn't want to test my claim. You just want to see me fail so you can make me look like a fool.
2- I just heard that the JREF Challenge is a sham and the million dollars doesn't even exist, so there's no way I'll show you my power.

And the #1 excuse used by applicants when backing out of preliminary testing...

1- Sylvia Browne and John Edward say that Randi knows full well that paranormal phenomenon exists, but that he's dedicated his life to making people who actually have psychic powers look bad, and he'll do anything he needs to do in order to further that agenda, so I won't be a pawn in his little game. You guys can go to hell before I show you what I can do.
 
--It's not built yet. It will be ready in about three months.

--I'm still looking for investors.

--Why should I have to travel to Florida? As soon as you come here to see it, you will be totally amazed and your trip money will be well-spent.

--It's a quantum leap that will cause a paradigm shift, and you're just afraid that you will be proved wrong.

--I ALREADY DID IT ONEC ON THE VIDEO YOU HAVE ALLTHE PROOF YOU NEED

--I meant next Thursday.
 
And here is one I just got today:
===========================================
Hi Kramer,

I just wanted to know I will get back to you guys in a few weeks.. The company that is paying for my patenting does not want me showing any internal designs until they have all the paper work sent in and secured.. Then no problems with that.. So, after they do all that I will send a email letting you know I'm ready for testing.. I will say plan for about the the first week of Oct.

So, just put me on the side for now, and I will get back with you..

Thanks,

Kirk G
=============================================

Right. Sure. Whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom