Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

Toke said:
It is also consistent with people gradually figuring out a con.
Click to expand...

Were I on the review panel for some of the journals in which Dr. Ross publishes his works, I would be very interested in this thread. Such consistent evasiveness when asked simple questions says to me that a person is anything but open about their work. It says they're hiding something.
 
blobru said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is in no way an "eye beam". It is a measurement of brain activity being detected by a sensor placed in front of the eye. Because such signals radiate in all directions the sensor could be moved to another part of a subject's head and a similar signal would be detected when she opened and closed her eyes.

Hey Colin, perhaps aliens use the "parietal beam" to keep tabs on the women they've impregnated.
 
daSkeptic said:
Were I on the review panel for some of the journals in which Dr. Ross publishes his works, I would be very interested in this thread. Such consistent evasiveness when asked simple questions says to me that a person is anything but open about their work. It says they're hiding something.
Click to expand...

Do the reviewers on pay to publish journals actually read the articles?
 
Goggles and Equipment

Yes, inspection of the goggles and the electrode is also part of the deal.
I agree that the body as a whole emits EM radiation - but discrete signals can be captured by remote electrodes, such as a normal EKG pattern.
I agree that the "beam" must follow the direction of gaze. To have a distinct signaling function, the "gaze signal" must in some way be differentiated from the general field emitted from the body, and from the general brain field - I agree with that.
The possible ecological function of ocular extramission is a separate consideration from my JREF Challenge, and I didn't say anything about it in my Challenge.
Since the pupil is part of the eye, I don't see why I should have specified the pupils as opposed to the eye in general in my Challenge. Down the road that might be a necessary modification of the model, depending on the data. But the pupil question is, from my perspective, a good example of reasonable questions and discussion - though it is not relevant to my JREF Challenge.
 
Interesting Link

Thanks for that very interesting link. Could you explain why you think this work in Germany kills my application?
 
Colin Ross said:
Yes, inspection of the goggles and the electrode is also part of the deal.
I agree that the body as a whole emits EM radiation - but discrete signals can be captured by remote electrodes, such as a normal EKG pattern.
I agree that the "beam" must follow the direction of gaze. To have a distinct signaling function, the "gaze signal" must in some way be differentiated from the general field emitted from the body, and from the general brain field - I agree with that.
The possible ecological function of ocular extramission is a separate consideration from my JREF Challenge, and I didn't say anything about it in my Challenge.
Since the pupil is part of the eye, I don't see why I should have specified the pupils as opposed to the eye in general in my Challenge. Down the road that might be a necessary modification of the model, depending on the data. But the pupil question is, from my perspective, a good example of reasonable questions and discussion - though it is not relevant to my JREF Challenge.
Click to expand...

The "gaze signal" is a potential mechanism for the paranormal effect (the "sense of being stared at") you're extrapolating; an "eye beam" that doesn't follow one's gaze, doesn't "sweep the horizon" as Toulmin puts it in the quote you have often cited, is not.

The goggle test, as it is set up, only tests for brain waves coming straight out the front of the skull through the eyes. Brain waves coming out of the skull, even at different amplitudes due to different impedances in the makeup of the skull, is an ordinary scientific phenomenon. So the goggle test, as it is set up, is not testing for any paranormal phenomenon, without the inclusion of a "gaze signal" test.

As the JREF Challenge must be limited to claims of paranormal phenomena, this is wholly relevant to your JREF Challenge. With all due respect, your JREF Challenge falls flat on its great gaping skullface without it, sir.

Ivor the Engineer said:
Exactly. This is in no way an "eye beam". It is a measurement of brain activity being detected by a sensor placed in front of the eye. Because such signals radiate in all directions the sensor could be moved to another part of a subject's head and a similar signal would be detected when she opened and closed her eyes.

Hey Colin, perhaps aliens use the "parietal beam" to keep tabs on the women they've impregnated.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. Impregnating aliens who want to see when host moms are due at the hospital, use the "occipital beam". Sheesh. :alien008:
 
Last edited:
Colin Ross said:
Cell phones may be "mundane" now but they were "woo" two hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
By this line of reasoning, EVERY invention ever made has been a demonstration of the paranormal. That is not the case. Devices that work by normal means know to science are not considered paranormal, even if nobody has figure out how to create such a device yet. Devices that have been created but that would work by means other than those known by science (dowsing rods, crystal balls, magic amulets, etc) are considered paranormal—they work in a way that is “beyond normal” understanding of science.
 
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.
Click to expand...
This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Most ordinary scientific inquiry follows the step 1) observe phenomenon, 2) postulate hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, 3) test the hypothesis.

The FIRST step is demonstrating that the phenomenon of people being able to detect when they are being start at does, in fact, exist. Some people, quite likely even JREF, might consider such a phenomenon to be paranormal.

AFTER the existence of the phenomenon has been established, then we can begin investigating the phenomenon and postulating hypotheses. Does it occur only when someone is started at directly, or even when the subject is only in the viewer’s line of sight? Does it work when the viewer turns away from the subject but stares at them through the corner of their eye? Does the distance between the viewer and subject vary the frequency of the occurrence of the phenomenon?

THEN we can start looking at the hypothesis that the phenomenon occurs because of EEG emissions from the eye sockets and test that hypothesis. Of course that would involve understanding the exact nature of EEG emissions from the eye sockets, which may involve creating some “mundane” (non-paranormal) instruments to measure those emissions.

Exploring hypotheses about phenomenon that have not been demonstrated to exist can be very bad and potentially dangerous science.
 
Colin Ross;4) see if this device can triggle "nervous" or startle reactions in zoo animals that are looking away from or cannot see the device. [/QUOTE said:
relevence to the movie
"The Men Who Stare at Goats" a supposed CIA experiment,
perhaps what Ross was basing his eye energy theory on
since he is very interested in all things CIA conspiracy related.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Sequence in Science

In this instance the observation is the sense of being stared at - the phenomenon under study is a subjective experience. The hypothesis is that EM ocular extramission is the physiological basis of the sense of being stared at. The testing phase is trying to detect the signal at short range, then increasing the range of detection, then building a device that mimics extramission, then using the device to determine detection thresholds in a variety of species. Let's assume that the device could be turned up high enough so that everyone could feel it. This would be like shining a bright enough light, making a loud enough sound etc behind a person that everyone with normal vision and hearing could detect it. When the volume/intensity is turned down eventually no one will be able to detect the signal. I predict that the threshold for detection in most people most of the time is set higher than the level of extramission - this must be so otherwise everyone would sense being stared at all the time. Various questions follow about whether extramission can be detected subliminally as a sense of danger, what variables affect the threshold, whether people can be trained to lower their threshold and what the distribution of thresholds is in the general population. If the gap between signal and threshold is too big, then EM extramission will not be a viable candidate for the mechanism underlying the sense of being stared at.
So, the main difference here is that the sequence starts with a common subjective experience that is not accepted by western science. This whole line of investigation is currently "woo" from the perspective of western science, and no mention of it is found in physiology or opthamology texts. It is an open question (for me) whether there is any back-signal from an observed object that plays a role in visual perception. I don't require that for my hypothesis about the sense of being stared, however.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Shouldn't that be 'the men who stare at tinfoil covered goggles'?

A
Click to expand...
Actually, goggles would be a stupid way of testing the claim that a weak EM field is emitted from the eyes. First of all it would react strongly to any blinking or eye movement. Secondly, any observers would not see this eye movement.

As a research tool it would also have disadvantages. The eye movements would now be noise in your signal, and you would be unable to move the sensor to map the field around the head under different conditions.

What you want is a setup holding the head in a defined position (like at the optometrist) and a sensor that can move around the head on a jig of some sort.

Tinfoil covered goggles? Silly. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom