Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[pavel_do]

well I know this thread is not about me.. so sorry in advance.. but I will reply.. ( though before just commented about JREF approach..

Evidence, please.

Well ok..

1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed ability.

3. From James Randi's response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a 20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about costs.

The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation to James Randi.

The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being unreasonable and unacceptable.

SO.. where DID I breached rules and requirements?? and IF I DID.. they why JREF would not point it out.. where I was wrong.. what is the reason for THEM REFUSING TO TEST ME ON FAIR CONDITIONS.. ALL OF A SUDDEN where I had NOTHING against latest protocol and I could be tested any time THEY ready! All of a sudden. I was offered test that guaranties my faller.. YOU expect me to accept it ?? Would you accept it?? I doubt it!

First, this is not support for your first statement. And as for your complaint, that was you complaining that the JREF closed your file after you told them to close your file, and that was after you jerking the JREF staff around for a year or two instead of converging on a claim and a protocol.

you throwing words with no grounds.. I jerked JREF for over a year?? THEY took sometimes 8 month for reply to bloody EMAIL..for a start..

Connie Sonne, on the other hand, did make a definite testable claim. Connie Sonne did negotiate in good faith to reach an acceptable protocol. Connie Soone did allow the test to be conducted before an audience of skeptics. Although she did later rationalize her failure under test at the expense of the JREF, I don't see from any of that how you establish a basis for the bogus claims you made in your post I quoted.

well let me tell you..

I negotiated in good faith! I am willing to be tested! But with fair test! The protocol that we negotiated for almost 1 YEAR was suitable for testing.. and JREF NEVER wrote anything against it beside forbidding me have my representatives and water on table ( that we managed to come to agreement later about). They never explained their reasons about WHY i could not be tested by the protocol that we negotiated before.. any way.. who followed the story, knows what I am talking about...

 

[jsfisher]

well I know this thread is not about me..

No, it's not, and your self-serving objections are addressed in a thread what was all about you.

 

[weirdl]

@weirdl

The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.

Guess that wasn't very clear!
I should have said:

The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, the JREF says she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, the JREF says she's sad.

check it out:

The audience attending both the test and the press conference applauded her courage in appearing before so many people.
-Alison Smith

I find Connie Sonne's accusation both amusing and sad.
-Banachek

 

[arthwollipot]

The JREF failed to post the relevant documents.
Here's what I would like to see posted:

1. Connie Sonne's MDC application
2. the subsequent agreement JREF had her sign
3. the affidavit from the academic or a least that academic's name
4. links to the news stories about her powers

I'm sure thaw absence of these documents is simple negligence. However, I suspect they contain information that contradicts the JREF's narrative

Those of us who attended the test received a package with this documentation. It made for interesting reading.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This thread certainly is weirdl.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wait, the voices in her head told “her to trust the JREF implicitly”, then told her “the JREF cheated”? I surmise these were the same voices telling her that she (or they) had the ability to find things with her “pendulum”. I also surmise that these same voices should have been guiding her during the test and yet were so easily fooled by those contemptibly mere mortal JREF charlatans’ chicanery. Obviously, the ones she really can’t trust are those dang voices in her head.

They're also the voices that told her where Madeline McCann was being held in Portugal, and the same voices which both encouraged her to take the test, and caused her to fail.

Interestingly, she stated at the press conference that she would go public with who and what these voices are in August or September 2009. I've had a Google Alert set up since I returned from TAM, and there's been nothing. I guess the world still "isn't ready".

 

[weirdl]

JREF' encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

The test of Connie Sonne was honest, straightforward, open, and witnessed all over the world as it took place. Ms. Sonne has disappointed us all by reneging on her very positive statement that the test was properly designed and conducted.
-Alison Smith

I find Connie Sonne's accusation both amusing and sad. On the same note, I take it very seriously as well. Connie, or anyone else, should think very carefully prior to making such libelous and slanderous statements. I take defamation of my character quite seriously. [...] Also, there were steps put in place by the JREF to make sure there was no way I could have cheated Connie at all. For this to have happened both myself, the JREF, and anyone else involved would have had to be involved in the entire crime - and yes, it would be a crime. So once again, be very careful prior to making libelous or slanderous statements.
-Banachek[/QUOTE]
The JREF never mentioned Project Alpha or the voices in Connie Sonne's head. These omissions might have colored some people's view of the test.

After that you will find many comments and blog posts scolding MS. Sonne.

 

[arthwollipot]

How does this constitute the JREF encouraging members to attack?

 

[arthwollipot]

Project Alpha is known to anyone who has an interest in the JREF, and the voices were quite adequately described in the information package that was given to those of us who attended.

Actually, now I think about it, it may have just been in the press package, in which case only those of us who attended the post-test press conference received it.

By the way - in the press conference, she reiterated her statement that the test was fair. The entire press conference was broadcast on the Skeptic Zone podcast.

 

[weirdl]

@realpaladin

Thank you for addresses the substance of my comments.
I agree almost everything you say.
Yes, calling the JREF sad is 100% the subjective opinion of this troll. Everyone should ignore it and make up their own minds.
Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can. It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair. This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim. Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.
The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous. Read her website. She's never convinced anyone she had powers. The only witnesses she names are her parents in the old peeps home. Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her. It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater. Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

 

[weirdl]

the JREF didn't cheat

Connie Sonne doesn't have magic powers.
That's not my point.

I just think they were careless of their reputation and needlessly mean to a vulnerable person.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I just think they were careless of their reputation and needlessly mean to a vulnerable person.

In case you were wondering, that "vulnerable person" started any meanness that may have gone on.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Weirdl, I think you're ignoring the significance of what it means to agree. Implicit in any agreement is an unexploited opportunity to disagree. One is given a chance to say no but instead they say yes. Anytime someone voluntarily rejects an opportunity, any consequences that result from that rejection are on them. They could have avoided the situation but chose not to, and so any complaints raised after the fact are just whining.

In order for Connie Sonne to perform that test, she had to agree to many things. She was not forced into these agreements but rather she executed them of her own free will. She had many chances to say no and back out but she chose to keep going. Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that the agreements were violated in some way, Connie and all those who defend her are just being petulant.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In order for Connie Sonne to perform that test, she had to agree to many things. She was not forced into these agreements but rather she executed them of her own free will. She had many chances to say no and back out but she chose to keep going. Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that the agreements were violated in some way, Connie and all those who defend her are just being petulant.

I think you need to re-read the OP. The premise is:

"Sad to say I found the Connie Sonne Million Dollar Challenge flawed. I'm sure the JREF didn't cheat. However this test was so sloppy, I'm embarrassed I ever cited the MDC in an argument."

While the arguments are not well presented, it doesn't seem that anyone here is actually taking them in the context they were intended. For example, Weirdl already stipulated to what you said. His/her point was that the way the JREF presented the information is misleading. I actually agree with that assessment. Here's the SWIFT quote:

"Connie Sonne had designed the parameters for her own test. She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek."

It would be far more accurate to say something like:

"Connie Sonne originally submitted some ideas for test protocols that we found were not practical. After some negotiation we agreed upon a protocol where she would dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage. We later arranged for skeptic and mentalist, Banachek, to supervise the on-stage test, and Miss Sonne agreed."

That's a much better reflection of what actually happened. The JREF didn't need to "spin" it the way they did.

As for some of the other points, I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits. As skeptics we wouldn't tolerate that from a "woo" group doing some sort of similar challenge.

How do we know that the JREF just didn't pick some gullible and mentally ill woman willing to pay her own way for some public humiliation? How do we know it wasn't all a publicity stunt? After all, the JREF had a profit motive for this particular test (they promoted it as part of TAM). I'm not saying they did anything unethical, but if Connie Sonne had press coverage for her abilities, show us. If she had an academic affidavit, show us.

If you think about it, it's actually kind of sad that we have to ask for this kind of information. Personally, I think it's kind of sad that I just accepted the JREF's assertions without evidence. That's not very skeptical.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits.

UncaYimmy, meet arthwollipot.

Those of us who attended the test received a package with this documentation. It made for interesting reading.

 

[Gilmar]

Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

Some of the changes had that goal, others were probably to simplify the test.

It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair.

No, it has to be weighted in nobody's favor to make it be fair.

This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim.

It didn't show if she could repeat her agreed-upon claim that she could accurately determine what the cards were?

Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.

Well, then, Superman would have to stipulate that ahead of time. Even a cursory reading of the comics clearly shows he knows the limits of his own powers. Also, relevance?

The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous.

Good. Then it shouldn't matter at all if the testers made themselves look ridiculous by putting in safeguards against cheating.

She's never convinced anyone she had powers.

That is certainly consistent with not having any.

Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her.

Then she does not learn from her experiences.

It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater.

Trust but verify. She was treated as a potential cheater (there are a lot out there), and as potentially the real thing. If she was the real thing, then all the precautions against cheating wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

No it isn't. Why can't they also root out cheating in the initial test? It would certainly save on the time & expense of setting up the final test if cheating were blocked in the initial test.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

So it was all pointless anyway?

 

[realpaladin]

Thank you for addresses the substance of my comments.
I agree almost everything you say.

That's nice to hear.

Yes, calling the JREF sad is 100% the subjective opinion of this troll. Everyone should ignore it and make up their own minds.
Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

They had that goal.

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can. It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair.

Why? I would say they ideally would not have to be weighted in any way; either for or against. Just as neutral as possible.

This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim.

What does make you say that.

Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.

As I read from Connie's own site, there were no problems in having specific types of envelopes, so in the fictive Superman case I think he could have the protocol stipulate that no walls be made of lead.

The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous. Read her website. She's never convinced anyone she had powers. The only witnesses she names are her parents in the old peeps home. Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her. It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater.

Scepticism is all about NOT having faith at all. It is about neutral proof.

Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

No, that is what the preliminary tests are for. The final test is for proving the claim without any shadow of a doubt.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

That would involve a medical affidavit and legal procedure. Nobody is stopping Connie Sonne, or her guardians, from going that road.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair.

No, it doesn't need to "seem" fair it has to "be" fair...

Remember the point the test is carried out:
1)To find out if there is something supernatural
2)To discredit frauds and charlatns
3)To rationalize and educate those who are deluded or mentaly ill

None of this would be served by what you suggest.

This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim. Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.

Again, this is beyond silly...
Any stage performer knows the value of a good rehersal. Seriously, she could have just asked a friend of hers to do the exact same thing suggested by the protocol and make a dry run at home. It always amazes me how many of those people don't bother to do it before the test.

Let's go to your Superman analogy. If he knows he can't see through lead, then he should add it to the protocol. If he doesn't know that, then he should go "HUH?!?" after the test, see any difference between something he does every single day of his life and the test. Find out the cause of his failure and (AGAIN, I tell you) take the test again. He can reapply 1 year
later with the JREF or he can contact any other skeptic group or news media.

Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

You don't get how it works.
The first test is done to screen cheaters and delusioned people.

However, there is always a possibility that someone would cheat in a way the JREF isn't aware of. The JREF should get an opprotunity to see a reasonable controled demonstration of the applicant and if he passed (which no one has so far) then try and keep a closer eye on possibilities of cheating and lowering the odds to prevent pure and dumb luck.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

I would say the same on many people I know, but alas, the court system says otherwise.

As for some of the other points, I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits. As skeptics we wouldn't tolerate that from a "woo" group doing some sort of similar challenge.

I can only take a guess as I don't know Randi personally or anyone else who was involved in the test.

In another video on Swift, Randi mentioned how Uri Geller has ruined the people he fooled for years. So it's likely that if any applicant brings support from an academic person, that person could very well recieve the treatment that Connie herself reveals now. It is some form of damage control.

It also gives out an outing for the frauds:
"I wanted to apply for the challenge, but I couldn't get any acadmeic to sign up for me after all the mocking the JREF and co did to 'that guy'".

 

[MRC_Hans]

Connie Sonne doesn't have magic powers.
That's not my point.

I just think they were careless of their reputation and needlessly mean to a vulnerable person.

That is not the purpose of the JREF: To treat a non-sane person (you did yourself, repeatedly, mention 'voices in her head') as that person might need, medically.

Until such time as Ms Sonne (and any other applicant) has been officially declared unable to take care of herself, we must all treat her as as any other person. She applied for the challenge, negotiated, signed, and followed through with a protocol. To stop her at any point in that process and tell her she was not sane would be the real wrong-doing.

She was ensured a perfectly dignified trial. The only undignified part is her backing away from the protocol, once she failed the test. Even that has only been mentioned by the JREF as 'sad', which is a very restrained reaction.

You might be of the opinion that all claim of supernatural comes from insane people, and therefore the MDC is unethical, however, that would be your opinion. The opinion of the JREF (as I understand it, I do not represent them) is that most claimants are sane, if deluded, and others are deliberate frauds.

Hans

 

[pavel_do]

the JREF presented the information is misleading.

Well..Now I will be accused again mentioning my case.. but they done the same with me on applicant's log in their statement..

How do we know that the JREF just didn't pick some gullible and mentally ill woman willing to pay her own way for some public humiliation? How do we know it wasn't all a publicity stunt? After all, the JREF had a profit motive for this particular test (they promoted it as part of TAM). I'm not saying they did anything unethical, but if Connie Sonne had press coverage for her abilities, show us. If she had an academic affidavit, show us.

great point, explains allot from "their" behavior.. same was mentioned before in thread discussing my case..

I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits. As skeptics we wouldn't tolerate that from a "woo" group doing some sort of similar challenge.

If you think about it, it's actually kind of sad that we have to ask for this kind of information. Personally, I think it's kind of sad that I just accepted the JREF's assertions without evidence. That's not very skeptical.

The thing with Affidavit letters.. and all papers they ask for when you make an application.. (I have no problems with posting all of them ) Why JREF does not make it public? ( yes.. they kind of gave it to all who been present at testing.. well than theree should be no problems in publishing it on JREF site.. Applicants log for example.. from the day of application accepted... or even now after test. if they gave it to all people attending test..? or they took every copy back after test was finished.. causethis classified info? ) They have no problem publishing video of the test on youtube showing faller of the applicant.. what not to do the same with Affidavit and other papers that they require for application to be submitted??

And the idea that they 'wave" the affidavit and media presence requirement's on their discretion..make it a bit unfair.. in a way SOME applicant dont have media presence.. or chance to obtain Affidavit not cause they fake.. just cause some of them cant aproach any Phd professors or some one. cause they would not be taken seriously.. so they cant participate in MDC cause JREF says You cant apply without it.. So same time. JREF has one more way to protect them selves from possible threat of a claim that could drow public attention...