CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[Cleon]

This is wrong. Taking a test is not something you congratulate someone on when they fail it. Failure to act hysterical is not something you congratulate someone on. Encouraging people to take the test is fine, because they will all fail, but when they fail and still believe they have paranormal powers they have not done anything respectable. Being nice does not equal coddling people.

I don't know if "congratulations" is exactly the right word, but I think it's important to respect those who show up, take the test, and conduct themselves honorably.

Sonne's accusations notwithstanding, we don't do this because they're "the enemy." The MDC isn't an excuse for us to ridicule people we disagree with. JREF has this challenge for a reason - to promote critical thinking and scientific evaluation of supernatural claims.

Those who take the test, by and large, are not the Sylvia Brownes of the world. The people who go through with the process genuinely believe they have the powers they claim. They're not bad people, they're not frauds, and they don't rape puppies. They're just folks with some weird ideas and (at worst) delusions of grandeur.

If we disrespect those who take the challenge, we underscore every negative stereotype about skeptics. At that point, the MDC stops being about inquiry and investigation, and becomes an excuse for us to point, laugh, and say "look at this clown." That doesn't do anyone any good--not us, not the "psychic," not the JREF, not Randi, and not society as a whole.

There's a reason why the JREF was able to keep 1,000 witnesses absolutely silent during the entire test. That reason is that, whatever Sonne might say afterward, we respect the process. A number of people worked very hard to design and construct an experiment to test the claim, and we owed it to them not to introduce any foreign elements (such as noise or flashing lights) into the equation.

The moment we start sneering and mocking, not only will we show that we no longer respect the process, but the process will no longer be worthy of respect. At that point it's nothing more than a sideshow, a stunt, a way for us to "expose" people for being on the "wrong side."

Perhaps congratulations are not in order, but respect certainly is*. Not for her sake, but for ours.


* Well, respect was in order, up until the claim of cheating.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have to say, as a first-time observer, that I was a little surprised by what seemed to me to be poor camera angles. I would have expected an overhead shot or at least a clear close-up of the table and everything on it, and at least one uninterrupted shot with no cutaways or wipes, so that there could be no accusations of anything happening out of shot. Perhaps such a shot was taken and recorded but not shown to the viewing audience.

As has already been pointed out to me, this was only a preliminary test, but I would have expected more precautions to avoid even the suggestion that everything wasn't on the up-and-up.

Why should the JREF be overly concerned about proving that they did not cheat? After all, they negotiated a protocol extremely weighted in their favor. She had a 1/1000 chance at the start because the protocol effectively disallows all known methods of passing the test.

Looking at the protocol as written, the only way I can see for the JREF to cheat is if the tester knew which card was in which envelope before placing them in front of Connie. If the tester saw that Connie picked the right envelope, he would have to use sleight of hand to swap the chosen envelope with one of the remaining envelopes.

The tester wouldn't do that on the first trial if she got it right - too much risk and no benefit. Remember, she needs three right. If she got the second one right, the tester would have to make a judgment call about cheating on that trial. If she got all three right, he would be forced to cheat on the final trial if he didn't cheat on the second.

It's not just a matter of swapping envelopes either. The tester would have to remove the writing from the selected envelope or only pretend to write on it, all without anyone noticing. The tester, after swapping envelopes, would then need to write the answer on the new envelope he pulled from the stack. Again, without anybody seeing him pick up the pen.

According to the protocol, the selected envelope was put aside and not handled again until being cut open. The unselected envelopes were returned to the larger container envelope and not handled again until being removed. The selected and unselected envelopes were never near each other after the selection was made.

So, in order to pull off cheating there needs to be collusion between the tester and the person(s) putting the cards in the envelopes. This opens them up to personal liability if caught and jeapordizes the $1M as well as the reputation of the JREF. The tester would then need to perform some of the most incredible sleight of hand the world has ever (not) seen. That's a lot of effort to better odds already stacked heavily in your favor.

I see no reason to have a variety of camera angles put in place to ensure this didn't happen. Even if they did that, somebody would still argue that yet another camera angle was needed.

As for inducing Connie to pick the wrong card, in each trial she had a 90% chance of picking the wrong card anyway. The tester was not allowed to talk. Again, in order to do this, there would have to be collusion and some pretty clever trickery on his part.

 

[amicus]

Denver:
I saw a couple deviations during the live test:

1) Mr Banachek forgot to write the number rolled on the little folded white card (not the dowsed packet), during (I think) the second suit, until after the test. For the other suits, he wrote it as soon as the number was rolled. I don't think the protocol for this little folded white card was specified, so I don't know if this variation is relevant.

2) Mr Banachek opened the final suit (I think) before he had collected up the cards from the previously dowsed suit. The protocol seems to say he should have collected the dowsed cards first, before opening the next set.

As far as I can tell, these are trivial, unimportant variations that could not have any effect on Connie's performance. BUT, if someone were to be picky, could the deviations nullify the test?[/QUOTE]


I agree their were a couple of breaches in the protocol. From my perspective (memory) the most serious being, that Banachek didn’t seem to understand the “open” part of the test. After she successful found the face up card, he put the card in the envelope, and then moved them under the table to change the order. I thought the whole point of the open portion was to confirm her powers were working and she could find the card – when she knew where it was. When he placed the cards back on the table and asked her to identify the King, she said responded with “nothing.” I feared the test would end right then, because she was saying she couldn’t identify the card.

I was sure she would use her inability to find the card in the envelope as her excuse to invalidate the entire test – even though she agreed to continue with formal testing. I must admit I was a little surprised she went for the, “I was cheated” angle.

 

[BillyJoe]

The clearly observable evidence suggests you have no paranormal/supernatural/psychic abilities.

This is not a correct statement of the conclusion of the MDC test of Connie's claimed abilities, but I will leave it to the author to correct it.

BillyJoe

 

[jetkins]

Why should the JREF be overly concerned about proving that they did not cheat?

Because, to paraphrase the old legal adage, "the test must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair," and any chink in the armor can be exploited.

Watching the webcast, it seemed that everyone within reasonable viewing distance was seated below the level of the desk, and the only view from above the desk was from cameras or seats located a good distance away. Thus only Connie and Banachek had a close-up view of the entire proceedings unless there were other observers or camera angle which have not been revealed to us. It just seems to me that this leaves the door open for a potential claim of cheating or slight-of-hand. Just a crack, but that's all it takes to sow the seed of reasonable doubt in some folks' minds.

Likewise, although the constant cutting from one camera to another helped keep the audience's attention, it too leaves a crack open. There's a reason why legal interviews and depositions are shot in a single take with a single locked-down camera.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how Connie claims to have been cheated, and to see her evidence. I stand ready to be amazed all over again.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Because, to paraphrase the old legal adage, "the test must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair," and any chink in the armor can be exploited.

What exacty is the chink? In order for there to be a valid accusation of cheating, you (the generic you, not you specifically) need to describe the method of cheating. Once you've established that, then you have to establish two more things: 1) none of the views available could possibly show the cheating and 2) another view could have possibly allowed the cheating to be seen.

Anything else is just pure speculation. You can never put a stop to people making vague accusations of cheating. Notice that Connie didn't describe how she was cheated or how nobody else saw it. She just made the claim, and now you're giving it credence by pointing out that the JREF didn't use a top-down camera view.

Any knucklehead can always say, "Well, you didn't use [high speed cameras, the right lighting, a view from under/over/on the table, an x-ray machine, a metal detector, a Faraday cage, a sweep for electronic devices, fingerprint equipment, talcum powder, or whatever], so maybe they cheated in some unknown manner. That's not pointing out a chink.

This is why the protocol is so important. If you can describe a method of cheating that would be detected from a top-down view and not seen from any other view, then I will agree that there's a chink in the armor. The point is the protocol was designed so that no such view was necessary. If you can explain otherwise, please do so.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Heh. Here am I a paranormal claimant who seems to be the only one to detect - not one - but two important things regarding the MDC test with Connie Sonne that seems to have eluded all of you Skeptics. First of all, unless others alerted the JREF as well, I was the one who detected this error in this Latest JREF News and e-mailed Jeff Wagg about it after which he changed it,

Asked to dowse for cards 3 7 1, Connie Sonne has dowsed 2 1 2, and has failed the JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. More details to follow.

(Note: there was a typo in this article earlier with the asked for cards listed as 3 1 7. The correct sequence was 3 7 1, as verified by the video.)

1) Mr Banachek forgot to write the number rolled on the little folded white card (not the dowsed packet), during (I think) the second suit, until after the test. For the other suits, he wrote it as soon as the number was rolled. I don't think the protocol for this little folded white card was specified, so I don't know if this variation is relevant.

I also seem to be the only one who remembers that before commencing with the third trial Banachek said to Connie that in the second trial he chose to not write the number on the card because Connie had already begun dowsing and Banachek had to look at her and couldn't divert his attention to look at the card and write yet he didn't want to interrupt her by speaking. So he caught up with the task and wrote the number after the second trial. That is also why for the set-up of the third trial Banachek says to Connie to wait until he has written the card before she begins dowsing. Connie agrees to do that, but then was about to begin dowsing anyway and Banachek reminded her again to let him write the card first and so Connie waited.

I have been watching carefully.

 

[Olowkow]

Reminds me of putting out cookies for Santa. You have to follow the rules of the kiddies, which are difficult to envision let alone adhere to.

 

[jetkins]

What exacty is the chink? In order for there to be a valid accusation of cheating, you (the generic you, not you specifically) need to describe the method of cheating. Once you've established that, then you have to establish two more things: 1) none of the views available could possibly show the cheating and 2) another view could have possibly allowed the cheating to be seen.

I think we're basically in agreement here - I'm not saying that there was anything wrong, merely that I was surprised that there wasn't a camera angle which gave the audience a better view of the whole process so that anyone outside of Connie and Banachek could actually verify it. Connie saw the cards, Banachek saw the cards, but did anyone else actually see each and every one? I sure as heck couldn't make them out from the webcast.

Anyway, 'nuff said for now; I'm gonna sit back and wait for Connie to flesh out her claim.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think we're basically in agreement here - I'm not saying that there was anything wrong, merely that I was surprised that there wasn't a camera angle which gave the audience a better view of the whole process so that anyone outside of Connie and Banachek could actually verify it.

I'm not surprised they didn't do that. I don't speak for the JREF, but if I were in their shoes, I would not be taking steps to prove anything to the audience. They were merely observers, not witnesses or judges. Even now with just doing a live webcast, you, an audience member, are questioning the camera angles and level of detail. If they offered clips with multiple angles of view, that would just open the door to more requests for other angles and other steps to ensure there wasn't cheating. Take at look in the Conspiracy Theory forum here to see how far some people will go. No way should they attempt to "prove" anything to the masses.

What they should do is remind people that what the protocol requires for success is not possible by any known means except for extremely good luck. The only party with an interest in cheating is the claimant. Remember, the JREF is not obligated to put the $1M at risk with any test. They could just refuse to sign the agreement. So, why would they agree to it, set up extremely good odds in their favor, and then cheat? That's the message along with, "if you still think we cheated, explain how."

 

[Uncayimmy]

Heh. Here am I a paranormal claimant who seems to be the only one to detect

You are not a paranormal claimant. Had you actually made a real claim, you would have taken a test by now. You just tell a lot of stories about your alleged paranormal experiences. Connie was a true paranormal claimant. She said what she could do. She followed the rules. She worked to develop a protocol that was satisfactory to her and the JREF. She took a test.

You could learn a lot from her.

that seems to have eluded all of you Skeptics.

You have repeatedly referred to yourself as a skeptic in the past. I do wish you'd pick a label and stick with it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Connie was a true paranormal claimant. She said what she thought she could do. She followed the rules. She worked to develop a protocol that was satisfactory to her and the JREF. She took a test.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You have repeatedly referred to yourself as a skeptic in the past. I do wish you'd pick a label and stick with it.

She is skeptical of anything like skeptics and critical thinking. She is not skeptical of paranormal claims.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

WHERE IS THE VIDEO?

It has been several days. It was broadcast live. Can't anyone post the video so that we can all see it?

 

[phyz]

This is not a correct statement of the conclusion of the MDC test of Connie's claimed abilities, but I will leave it to the author to correct it.

BillyJoe

I was waxing prosaic (and general) in immediate response to Connie's sudden accusation. If I misrepresented anything, I apologize.

At this point, my ignorance is so vast I don't know where I went wrong. If you assumed I knew the error of my ways when I posted, we have both now made errors.

Please shine a light.

 

[phyz]

Heh. Here am I a paranormal claimant who seems to be the only one to detect - not one - but two important things regarding the MDC test with Connie Sonne that seems to have eluded all of you Skeptics.

Congratulations! Please come to the lobby and claim your reward.

I have been watching carefully.

...and...

***Pops corn and waits for the point of the quoted post***

 

[Audible Click]

The point of the post is I,I,I,I,.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The point of the post is I,I,I,I,.

...I'm not your stepping stone.

Come to think of it, she does walk around like she's front page news, but she won't find my name in her book of who's who. I also think she's trying to make her mark in society using all the tricks she's used on me.

 

[Pixel42]

Heh. Here am I a paranormal claimant who seems to be the only one to detect - not one - but two important things regarding the MDC test with Connie Sonne that seems to have eluded all of you Skeptics. First of all, unless others alerted the JREF as well, I was the one who detected this error in this Latest JREF News and e-mailed Jeff Wagg about it after which he changed it

I did notice that typo actually, but I assumed it was just the result of a hurried update whilst everyone was leaving TAM which would be noticed and fixed as soon as someone got back to the office, so I didn't hassle them about it.

 

[pakeha]

Connie Sonne

Gosh.
This is the first time around the 'tests' for me and I'm pretty amazed at the tremendous difficulty in setting up a bug-free protocol.
Hats off to jref for even attempting it.
Obviously, I'm intrigued by all the after-math:
the accusations of cheating, according to forum posts made by or not the claimant and awaiting to see how jref will deal with this case.