• 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.

Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

Colin Ross said:
...In any case, my theory may turn out to be incorrect - it certainly isn't endorsed by Winer, Toulmin or Schrodinger. ...
Click to expand...


Your theory of extramission as a mechanism for "the sense of being stared at", no.

But until you can produce a quote where such as these state that brain waves which pass through the skull don't also pass through the eyes, you have no basis whatsoever for claiming your goggles test for a paranormal phenomenon.
 
Colin Ross said:
In any case, my theory may turn out to be incorrect - it certainly isn't endorsed by Winer, Toulmin or Schrodinger.
Click to expand...
It is neither endorsed nor denied by them. Slight EEG emissions from the area in front of the eye have nothing to do with what they are talking about.

You have not provided any evidence that anyone, anywhere, ever has denied that there can be or actually are electromagnetic emissions that can be detected in front of an eye. None. In fact, from someone who doesn’t know anything about this stuff, it seems quite obvious that science says that there ARE some emissions from the eyes. I don’t see anyone denying that. Winer, Toulmin or Schrodinger are not denying that.

The Million Dollar Challenge comes down to a bet. Someone says they can do something, JREF bets that they can’t. But the devil is in the details—and the details are in the protocol.

I can claim to dowse for hidden metal—but then insist on using a metal detector. I can claim to capture human auras—but I do it with an infrared camera and call the result an “aura”.

Do you really think that Winer would deny that there are no emissions from eyes—not even heat or reflected light? Wouldn’t that be a bit ridiculous?
 
My character, theories and motives are irrelevant to a JREF Challenge by JREF rules. Just because I have a theory that may turn out to be correct doesn't invalidate my claim. In any case, my theory may turn out to be incorrect - it certainly isn't endorsed by Winer, Toulmin or Schrodinger.
Click to expand...
Ooo please those guys weren't idiots. They were referring to the act of seeing not the act of emitting light. It was long known before those guys were alive that hot things emit light. Your eye is hot. It emits light. Also, is this the first time in the history of the million dollar challenge where we have been debating as to the fact that the claim isn't paranormal?
 
Last edited:
JREF Rules

We are going around in circles now. The JREF rules are the JREF rules, not my rules. The JREF rules state that theories are irrelevant and applicants are instructed not to submit them. The definition of the paranormal for the JREF Challenge is the JREF definition - my definitions and opinions are not relevant.
The JREF never asked me to change or clarify my Challenge wording prior to moving into the phase of negotiating a protocol, which is where things are now.
 
Colin Ross said:
We are going around in circles now. The JREF rules are the JREF rules, not my rules. The JREF rules state that theories are irrelevant and applicants are instructed not to submit them. The definition of the paranormal for the JREF Challenge is the JREF definition - my definitions and opinions are not relevant.
The JREF never asked me to change or clarify my Challenge wording prior to moving into the phase of negotiating a protocol, which is where things are now.
Click to expand...

I know you're talking about the JREF rules and whatnot, and I'm perfectly content to allow you and others here to hash out that particular point. But I'm a physicist, and I am very curious about the technical nature of your claim, so if you'll indulge me...

Will you please address my question I asked of you earlier?

MattusMaximus said:
Mr. Ross, would you be willing to allow someone to examine & analyze your goggles and any other equipment relevant to your claims?
Click to expand...

It is a simple enough question to answer. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice, Mr. Ross. This question is, in my opinion, at the very heart of your claim, and if you do not answer it I do not see how you can help but lose credibility here.

Thank you in advance for your response.
 
Last edited:
Colin Ross said:
The JREF never asked me to change or clarify my Challenge wording prior to moving into the phase of negotiating a protocol, which is where things are now.
Click to expand...


And where they have been for a year. And where they'll stay forever. Because nobody is ever going to give you a million dollars on wordplay and a technicality.
 
Examining Equipment

I told the JREF in 2008 that they could examine the equipment and watch the computer screen throughout the demonstration, and I told the JREF the name of the manufacturer of the EEG equipment, which also supplies the software. I specified the details of the procedure in the protocol that is on my web page. I don't see how there could be greater transparency or disclosure in terms of equipment and protocol. I am ready to go forward with a preliminary test but am waiting for any request for a modification of the protocol from the JREF.
I plan to submit additional papers to peer-reviewed journals and have one in press. I will let you know when it is published, which should be within a month or two. My patent application is posted on the US Patent Office web page with a link on my web page.
 
Colin Ross said:
I am willing to continue discussing the challenge or the protocol, but I will not respond to ad hominem attacks, character attacks etc.
Overall, it appears that we are approaching or have reached an impasse, and that further discussion is unlikely to be productive.
Click to expand...
Well, y'see, it ain't really an ad hominem attack if what is happening is people are pointing out actual flaws in your claim or reasoning. Sure, If I were to reject your present claims based on your extensive history of lunatic claims, like the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse kerfuffel that damaged so many lives while having no reality whatsoever, THAT would be an ad hominem attack. But the worst anybody has said here is that they suspect you are a cheap grifter trying to bilk the JREF out of a million bucks, and that is not based on any of your actions outside of your claim here. One can seem like a conman and also seem like a criminally irresponsible clinician with neither perception causing the other.
 
Last edited:
How is an EEG or EOG, or whatever, detecting electromagnetic radiation from normal brain activity the same as detecting an 'energy beam' 'shooting' out of the eyes? :confused:
 
Shooting Versus Emitting

I never used the verb "shooting" in my application. I said I could "send" an energy beam out of my eyes.
EM radiation is clearly a form of energy.
The reason I postulate that it is a "beam" is because the brainwaves do not have to pass through the skull when they emerge through the eye, plus the optic nerve terminal is at the back of the retina, plus the geometry of the skull could contribute, plus there could be an effect from conscious focusing and intention, all of which would make the amplitude of the emission through the eyes greater than the general field emerging through the skull.
I am measuring EM radiation because that's what EEG equipment detects and because any heat emission through the eyes would be disipated quickly in the atmosphere and could not provide a postulated mechanism for the sense of being stared at. ELF has a very low attenuation and therefore could potentially be detected at ecologically relevant distances.
 
Colin Ross said:
I never used the verb "shooting" in my application. I said I could "send" an energy beam out of my eyes.
EM radiation is clearly a form of energy.
The reason I postulate that it is a "beam" is because the brainwaves do not have to pass through the skull when they emerge through the eye, plus the optic nerve terminal is at the back of the retina, plus the geometry of the skull could contribute, plus there could be an effect from conscious focusing and intention, all of which would make the amplitude of the emission through the eyes greater than the general field emerging through the skull.
I am measuring EM radiation because that's what EEG equipment detects and because any heat emission through the eyes would be disipated quickly in the atmosphere and could not provide a postulated mechanism for the sense of being stared at. ELF has a very low attenuation and therefore could potentially be detected at ecologically relevant distances.
Click to expand...

Problem is, apart from the unusual choice of location to place a sensor to pick up an EEG signal, this is mundane.
 
Extramission and Visual Perception

I disagree that this is "mundane." Toulmin, Winer and Schrodinger did not rule out (or rule in) EM emission through the eyes, it seems to me, because they never thought about it - nor did they think about the possibility of recording an EKG remotely with electrodes three feet away from the body. These things become "mundane" once they are thought of. Prior to that, no one comments on them one way or the other, or adds a qualifier that EM extramission is allowed. Toulmin was explicit that all questions about the eye's "brooms" are scientifically empty and dead. He didn't add a qualifier.
Actually, I don't rule out the possibility that ocular extramission plays a role in visual perception, I just don't require it - for the JREF Challenge or for the theory that human EM emissions play a biologically relevant signaling role between organisms. The role of ocular extramission in predator-prey interactions is one example of a general theory. You won't find this theory in mainstream science, I don't think, and you won't find it formulated in a testable fashion in other sources.
I have read textbooks of neurology and opthamology and I went to medical school - no one ever mentioned anything about brainwaves coming out of the eye or detecting brainwaves without contact electrodes. I doubt that you can find any mention of any such thing in any neurology or opthamology text published to date. Nor can you find patents for remote detection of the EEG.
In twenty years, medical students may be incredulous that anyone ever used contact electrodes to take an EKG or EEG. But remote detection of the EEG and EKG is not "mundane" in 2010.
If we can listen to radio communications from an astronaut on the moon, and if plants can capture photons to drive photosynthesis, I don't see why it is implausible that EM emissions from mammals (or birds) could have an ecologically relevant signaling function. This seems to me like a field of study that isn't in mainstream science yet.
There is a series of steps - 1) demonstrate that EM emission through the eyes can be detected by an electrode that makes no physical contact with the body 2) replicate and firm this up 3) investigate the ability of test volunteers to detect an EM signal from behind using a device that mimics human ocular extramission - determine the thresholds and signal characteristics etc 4) see if this device can triggle "nervous" or startle reactions in zoo animals that are looking away from or cannot see the device. Somewhere in this series of steps, there must be a point at which the demonstration is no longer "mundane." I'm not aware of anything along these lines in the scientific literature to date.
Cell phones may be "mundane" now but they were "woo" two hundred years ago. A micro-version of this process is evident on the JREF site as a whole concerning my Challenge. It started off 100% woo and is now getting dismissed as mundane. In parallel with this process, the account of my character, with respect to my Challenge, is shifting from fool to con artist. This shift is entirely consistent with the social psychology literature on attribution theory.
 
In parallel with this process, the account of my character, with respect to my Challenge, is shifting from fool to con artist. This shift is entirely consistent with the social psychology literature on attribution theory.
Click to expand...

It is also consistent with people gradually figuring out a con.
 
Colin Ross said:
There is a series of steps - 1) demonstrate that EM emission through the eyes can be detected by an electrode that makes no physical contact with the body 2) replicate and firm this up 3) investigate the ability of test volunteers to detect an EM signal from behind using a device that mimics human ocular extramission - determine the thresholds and signal characteristics etc 4) see if this device can triggle "nervous" or startle reactions in zoo animals that are looking away from or cannot see the device. Somewhere in this series of steps, there must be a point at which the demonstration is no longer "mundane."
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that after step 3) is the point at which you apply for the MDC, since that is the point at which you are making a paranormal claim.
 
Colin Ross said:
I told the JREF in 2008 that they could examine the equipment and watch the computer screen throughout the demonstration, and I told the JREF the name of the manufacturer of the EEG equipment, which also supplies the software. I specified the details of the procedure in the protocol that is on my web page. I don't see how there could be greater transparency or disclosure in terms of equipment and protocol. I am ready to go forward with a preliminary test but am waiting for any request for a modification of the protocol from the JREF.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response, Mr. Ross. Would this analysis of equipment extend beyond the "EEG equipment" to include these goggles which you have mentioned before?

Btw, just so we're clear here, I am not a representative of the JREF in this matter.

I plan to submit additional papers to peer-reviewed journals and have one in press. I will let you know when it is published, which should be within a month or two. My patent application is posted on the US Patent Office web page with a link on my web page.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Please do let us know when that peer-reviewed paper gets published.
 
Last edited:
Colin Ross said:
I never used the verb "shooting" in my application. I said I could "send" an energy beam out of my eyes.
EM radiation is clearly a form of energy.
The reason I postulate that it is a "beam" is because the brainwaves do not have to pass through the skull when they emerge through the eye, plus the optic nerve terminal is at the back of the retina, plus the geometry of the skull could contribute, plus there could be an effect from conscious focusing and intention, all of which would make the amplitude of the emission through the eyes greater than the general field emerging through the skull.
I am measuring EM radiation because that's what EEG equipment detects and because any heat emission through the eyes would be disipated quickly in the atmosphere and could not provide a postulated mechanism for the sense of being stared at. ELF has a very low attenuation and therefore could potentially be detected at ecologically relevant distances.
Click to expand...


If this is "a postulated mechanism for the sense of being stared at", then the beam should be directed by the pupil, not simply be emitted from the eye. The head can turn almost 180 degrees side to side, nod up and down, diagonally and so forth, while the eyes swivel in the socket to stare at the same spot. You can be facing someone, but not staring at her; or facing sideways, but staring out of the corner of your eye.

So the beam that causes the sense of being stared at, if it exists, would follow one's gaze: it is not really an "eye-beam", it is more a "pupil-beam" that is being proposed. A fair test then of this proposed mechanism should at a minimum verify that the energy beam only registers when the pupil is pointing at the detector, and doesn't register otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I had always in mind that if the JREF challenge was to be won, it would be by a cheater, or somebody sucessfully bambaloozing JREF into accepting a perfectly normal naturally occuring phenomenon as paranormal.

Mr Ross, your refusal to admit what the proper definition of extramission, and your refusal to admit the fact that all sort of EM is emitted constantly from the human body (visible, IR, far IR, and even lower) has NOTHING to do with extramission, can have only one explanation in my humble opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom