• 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.

GERALD EPLING - Shimmering Leaf Inventor

bassett said:
You have stated that you do not write in any official capacity for the JREF. Where is the leadership on this issue? I understand that it is their way to hold any official incoming communication concerning the challenge until they have a response that ensures a superior position for the JREF. Why have they waited to publish my response from July 11th, 2006? Why do they continue in failing to published my response that is over 8 months old?

There are many great people in Germany today, as there have been in historical eras. I suppose that in the narrow context of my response to the challenge, you have somehow lost focus of the important issues here. Boiling water, dropping an egg in water, these are indications of boiling an egg.

There is clear and outstanding evidence in my initial application that I submitted an egg-boiling response to the challenge. I can understand how the JREF may have subsequently researched the effect and become speechless. So, again I ask. Why did I have to publish my response from July 11th, 2006 here, rather than Mr. Wagg publishing it in the Challenge Response forum?

Entering negotiations concerning how the process will proceed can include a variety of topics. It has been my experience that negotiations may include discussions of the weather, cloud formations or various beverages. Similarly, there was a discussion concerning egg smashing with Mr. Wagg. To me this was a spurious conversation. However, Mr. Wagg indicated a sincere interest in the matter. So, just as I would have entertained a mention of how cold or warm it was outside, I entertained his discussion of smashing eggs. My response to the Challenge was and is about egg boiling. My response to the JREF Challenge was accepted by the JREF. Trying to go back and change that aspect of the process would be like "moving the goal posts" in a soccer match. This is not a good thing. It leads one to seriously doubt the credibility of the JREF in these matters.
Click to expand...

I just quoted this post in PM to Jeff Wagg and asked him to respond in this thread.

Bassett, if you have an interest in an official response from JREF, you can reach Mr. Wagg here: challenge@randi.org
 
bassett said:
You have stated that you do not write in any official capacity for the JREF. Where is the leadership on this issue? I understand that it is their way to hold any official incoming communication concerning the challenge until they have a response that ensures a superior position for the JREF. Why have they waited to publish my response from July 11th, 2006? Why do they continue in failing to published my response that is over 8 months old?

There are many great people in Germany today, as there have been in historical eras. I suppose that in the narrow context of my response to the challenge, you have somehow lost focus of the important issues here. Boiling water, dropping an egg in water, these are indications of boiling an egg.

There is clear and outstanding evidence in my initial application that I submitted an egg-boiling response to the challenge. I can understand how the JREF may have subsequently researched the effect and become speechless. So, again I ask. Why did I have to publish my response from July 11th, 2006 here, rather than Mr. Wagg publishing it in the Challenge Response forum?

Entering negotiations concerning how the process will proceed can include a variety of topics. It has been my experience that negotiations may include discussions of the weather, cloud formations or various beverages. Similarly, there was a discussion concerning egg smashing with Mr. Wagg. To me this was a spurious conversation. However, Mr. Wagg indicated a sincere interest in the matter. So, just as I would have entertained a mention of how cold or warm it was outside, I entertained his discussion of smashing eggs. My response to the Challenge was and is about egg boiling. My response to the JREF Challenge was accepted by the JREF. Trying to go back and change that aspect of the process would be like "moving the goal posts" in a soccer match. This is not a good thing. It leads one to seriously doubt the credibility of the JREF in these matters.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, bassett, that I do not always understand the JREF's behaviour, most likely because I do not have enough information about what goes on behind the scenes. Over-worked, under-staffed, who knows?

However, I do not at all agree with your current approach of insinuations and misrepresentations.

Let's see if Mr. Wagg's response can clear matters up. We can take any meaningful discussion from there.
 
bassett said:
Why have they waited to publish my response from July 11th, 2006? Why do they continue in failing to published my response that is over 8 months old?
Click to expand...
When Jeff took over from Kramer, he did not follow Kramer's policy of publishing the correspondence because there was too much work involved, and Jeff has other tasks, and he is not physically based at the JREF HQ.
 
bassett, what is it exactly that you propose to demonstrate that shows a paranormal phenomenon? My understanding is that you want to boil an egg in water, look at an instrument connected to another egg and tell us that the first egg was boiled. This does not prove anything as I could do the same thing and I don't even need the second egg or the instrument.

I presented a test protocol a few posts back that should eliminate all other variables and determine if your instrument is actually recording a communication between the two eggs or just picking up some other signal such as from the boiling pot or the researcher. Have you conducted any blind test such as this?
 
Bassett, I do NOT have a copy of this e-mail. Could you please e-mail me a jeff@randi.org?

Thank you.

bassett said:
This is a good time to catch up on what is new. Since it has been so long, I will briefly recap the discussion to date. I am Gerald Epling, a fellow who responded to the JREF Paranormal Challenge.

In the winter or early spring of 2006, I decided to respond to the JREF challenge. At the time, I was apprehensive concerning the possibility that a response based on phenomenal biocommunication to the challenge would be denied, because it was an example of a natural event. The realization that the scientific investigation of life could move ahead more quickly with a large infusion of cash prompted me to move forward with the application.

Kramer acknowledged the response.

Months later Jeff Wagg took over the discussions with challenge respondents.

Here, at the 57372 thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57372), we all had a good time with puns. One fellow demonstrated the specificity of microwave shielding by placing his cell phone in a microwave oven and then calling his cell or mobile with another phone. The phone rang in the microwave. It was a really good demonstration of the use of active imagination in the investigation of a theory.

Another forum poster made the cogent observation, that I may not understand what the underlying mechanism of information transmission in the demonstrated phenomenon. This was a bright comment. I do not yet have a complete explanation of the physical basis of phenomenal biocommunication. This may be, in part, due to the nature of the Creator. The mind of the Creator is greater than my mind and I am only able to explore these things in a scientific manner with the mind of a man. Life is God-given and the study of phenomenal biocommunication is a study of life.

Some light-hearted posts were made along with some posts that were less light-hearted. (See the stop-Kaz, Sylvia, soup-of-the-day or whatever-else-is-popular-at-the-moment posts.)

Here is what has been going on behind the scenes,

On July 11th, 2006, I responded to Mr. Wagg. This response has not received the favor of a reply, nor has it been posted in the 57370 thread. Apparently, only JREF officers are allowed to post to this thread.

Here is my reply to Mr. Wagg from July of 2006:

“From: Future Mind
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:30 PM
To: challenge@randi.org
Subject: Egg Sense

July 11, 2006

Dear Mr. Wagg,

Smashing an egg can be accomplished in a number of more or less
controlled ways. Smashing an egg with a hammer would make quite a mess.
So, I am disinclined to use an actual hammer. May I suggest an
alternative to a literal hammer.

Since our last discussion, I have been investigating ways to smash an
egg without spreading pieces of the egg around in an uncontrolled
manner. So far, I have constructed a small chamber that accepts a
gravity-powered projectile that is capable of smashing an egg. The
chamber can be cleaned between uses, although it does not disassemble
easily. I will need to do some more work with the smashing chamber to
make it easier to use.

I see no problem with monitoring one egg while smashing another some
distance away. I am willing to do this as a part of the experiment.
However, my research shows that boiling an egg produces reliable
results. On November 11, 2004 I recorded the response of one egg to
another egg being selected for boiling and then dropped into boiling
water. We could do an experiment similar to this one, involving a
physiological amplifier. (See
http://www.arthurepling.com/aec/aec1b_1.html. There have been some
improvements made to the instrumentation that I used in November of
2004. The current model has a USB interface and will work with the
Windows XP Operating System. With the newer system, samples of the
physiological signal are taken several thousand times per second.

Perhaps we could smash some eggs and boil some others?

If you would like, I could provide the JREF with one of the BioPulse™
physiological amplifiers, USB interface and software for use with a
computer of your choice. Alternatively, I could provide you with the
amplifier settings and sample rates if you should choose to find an
alternative source of physiological amplifier and recording method.


Gerald A. Epling“


In November of 2006, I presented a poster on phenomenal biocommunication at a meeting of scientists in Houston, Texas. I chose an example of a plant being satisfied with water for the presentation. Also, included was an example of an egg responding to the selection and boiling of another egg – at a distance of about 30 feet. This poster presentation is available at http://www.mindjava.com. Look for the link to “Research” in the left-hand, navigation column.

Look for new information at http://www.arthurepling.com.

As you know, the web is a rapidly changing thing. The link in the July 2006 letter is somewhat outdated. The basic research is available at the MindJava® website. A video of the first observation of an egg responding to the selection and boiling of another egg is available at the ArthurEpling™ website – look for the “Sensing Intention” link in the left, navigation column. We are putting the finishing touches on a white paper and data disc which will provide a more in-depth description of certain aspects of phenomenal biocommunication.
Click to expand...
 
bassett said:
...Clearly, the JREF accepted an egg-boiling experiment.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this just goes to show me that you do not understand the process, which I have boiled down to as simple as I can make it:

- Step 1: the claimant submits an application
- Step 2: if the application is accepted, the protocol negotiation phase commences.
- Step 3: after, and only after, a protocol design is determined that satisifes BOTH PARTIES, a preliminary test is held.
- Step 4: upon successful completion of the preliminary test, the formal test is held.

I cite, as my source, the JREF Million Dollar Challenge Application. I call your specific attention to the following line, found in the second paragraph:

Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. (Emphasis added by Jackalgirl)
Click to expand...

Also, you may wish to pay particular attention to Rule #1:

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. (Again, emphasis added by moi)
Click to expand...

By signing the Challenge Application, you affirmed your willingness to abide by these rules. An acceptance of an application therefore by no means indicates that the contents of that application are accepted, in toto, as is, with no alterations possible. Rather, I have demonstrably shown that a critical part of the process is the negotiation phase, by which both parties settle upon the terms of a demonstration that are satisfactory to both, and that by signing the application, you agreed to this process.
 
Last edited:
bassett said:
You have stated that you do not write in any official capacity for the JREF. Where is the leadership on this issue? I understand that it is their way to hold any official incoming communication concerning the challenge until they have a response that ensures a superior position for the JREF. Why have they waited to publish my response from July 11th, 2006? Why do they continue in failing to published my response that is over 8 months old?
Click to expand...

As has been said many times in many different places, the forum is not the JREF. If you want to talk to the JREF, talk to them. The forum is simply a place for anyone who feels like it to discuss the JREF and its work. Complaining to us is not going to achieve anything.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
Bassett, I do NOT have a copy of this e-mail. Could you please e-mail me a jeff@randi.org?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Wagg,

I sent the communication from July 11th, 2006 again. I did not get a bounce on the email. I didn't get an acknowledgment either. The time stamp is 2/28/2007 8:35 AM, the subject header is EGG SENSE.

Please let me know if you got it, or not. I will check back on this forum, it seems to be a good bridge.
 
Last edited:
On May 8th, 2007, Jeff Wagg responded to my resend of a message that was originally sent on July 11th, 2006. Here is the substance of my response to Mr. Wagg.


"May 8, 2007


Mr. Wagg,

It is good to see that you again have time to consider my response to the challenge. I understand your interest in phenomenal biocommunication. It is an interesting field of research. You have indicated an interest in harming an egg. Harming eggs is not part of my response to the challenge. I found that one egg could sense my intentions and actions in relation to selecting and boiling a cohort egg. Occasionally, I will boil and eat an egg. It is in connection with this sort of activity that I find the event related potentials. For a review of the event related potentials observed on the surface of a monitored egg, see my presentation to the Psychonomic Society from November 18th, 2006. In the November 18th presentation, I included enough detail about the technique of monitoring an egg to allow a trained and motivated scientist to replicate the study. If you have a driving interest in harming things, perhaps you could consult with another experimental psychologist and arrange for that individual to perform that research program for you.

Returning to my answer to the challenge. My experiment involves boiling water. I have read the insightful suggestions of some of the people who posted suggestions at the link,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57372

The most salient suggestions regarding the planning of an experiment for the JREF were centered on the possibility that water vapor could have influenced the production of beeping sounds. In response to this suggestion, I have offered to remove the monitored egg some twenty or thirty feet away from the boiling egg.

A second concern that was raised in the link,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57372

centered on the possibility that the beeping produced by a monitoring unit could be the result of a timer. Setting a timer to start a beeping would be a relatively easy thing to do. So, in response to this concern, I have offered to monitor the event related potentials found on the surface of the monitored egg. The results of such an experiment were presented in November of 2006 to the Psychonomic Society in Houston, Texas. You can review this presentation by downloading a copy from http://www.mindjava.com.

I believe that you will find that my response is consistent with your stated goals as presented in your post of June 27, 2006 which may be viewed at,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1731282#post1731282

Your response from June 27th, 2006 is partially reproduced below.

“…The problem is that your experiment doesn't prove your claim. It doesn't matter how the device works. If it can detect a signal from an egg that the egg is emitting due to it sensing the intention or action of a human, it will win the million dollars, provided it does so under controlled conditions. That's the stage we're at now.. figuring out the controlled conditions.” Jeff Wagg

Sincerely,
Gerald A. Epling"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom