jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
And, yet you commented anyway.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant
- Thread starter RemieV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pavel ziborov
And, yet you commented anyway.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.
It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.
If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.
Norm
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
And just to add,if you wish to send an email to multiple addresses ,you just specify them in field "To:" .
Good point with the cc, Norm. I had completely forgotten that.
All of these issues could have been avoided though if the following points would have been adhered to:
1. Send a registered letter.
2. Address is to the Challenge Administrator or his deputy.
3. In the letter, ask the recipient to forward the letter if improperly addressed.
Pavel, I think you could still do that.
And you haven't voted on your poll yet.
Blank photos
I like the idea of using blank photos. How about this:
* 20 photos suitable for the test. All photos to be physically identical - same paper, same size.
** by "suitable", we mean that Ziborov agrees that the image in the photo is not blank
** Either Ziborov to supply the photos, in which case JREF must be satisfied that they are physically identical, or JREF to supply 30 photos and Ziborov to select 20 of them on test day.
* 20 blank photos physically identical to the 20 photos.
* 40 opaque envelopes big enough to fit a photo, labelled "1" through "40".
The blanks and the photos are put at random in the envelopes.
* the pile of photos is shuffled.
* for each envelope, a tester decides by coin toss whether to place a blank or a photo in it
* when either the pile of 20 blanks or the pile of 20 photos is exhausted, the remaining envelopes are filled with whatever remains
Ziborov's test:
* all envelopes start as "undetermined"
* a round proceeds as follows:
** the tester presents each undetermined envelope to Ziboriov
** Ziborov (does whatever he does) and states "photo", "blank", or "not sure"
** If "photo" or "blank", then tester records the envelope number and the determination and the envelope is "determined" and is put into a "determined" pile.
** if "not sure", then the envelope remains undetermined and is put into the "undetermined" pile (to be presented again in the next round, if there is one)
* (time limits? limit to number of rounds? Breaks?)
Marking:
* Each envelope is opened. For each one:
** If the photo within is blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "blank", then that is counted as as success.
** If the photo within is not blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "photo", then that is counted as as success.
Zabirov passes the test if he achieves ?? successes or more out of 40.
I like the idea of using blank photos. How about this:
* 20 photos suitable for the test. All photos to be physically identical - same paper, same size.
** by "suitable", we mean that Ziborov agrees that the image in the photo is not blank
** Either Ziborov to supply the photos, in which case JREF must be satisfied that they are physically identical, or JREF to supply 30 photos and Ziborov to select 20 of them on test day.
* 20 blank photos physically identical to the 20 photos.
* 40 opaque envelopes big enough to fit a photo, labelled "1" through "40".
The blanks and the photos are put at random in the envelopes.
* the pile of photos is shuffled.
* for each envelope, a tester decides by coin toss whether to place a blank or a photo in it
* when either the pile of 20 blanks or the pile of 20 photos is exhausted, the remaining envelopes are filled with whatever remains
Ziborov's test:
* all envelopes start as "undetermined"
* a round proceeds as follows:
** the tester presents each undetermined envelope to Ziboriov
** Ziborov (does whatever he does) and states "photo", "blank", or "not sure"
** If "photo" or "blank", then tester records the envelope number and the determination and the envelope is "determined" and is put into a "determined" pile.
** if "not sure", then the envelope remains undetermined and is put into the "undetermined" pile (to be presented again in the next round, if there is one)
* (time limits? limit to number of rounds? Breaks?)
Marking:
* Each envelope is opened. For each one:
** If the photo within is blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "blank", then that is counted as as success.
** If the photo within is not blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "photo", then that is counted as as success.
Zabirov passes the test if he achieves ?? successes or more out of 40.
Obviously being unaware of the previous discussion: 0.02 $
Typing useless protocol: 0.43 $
Using three different names: Priceless.
Exactly what we've all come to expect. Blockquoting the entire post - well, maybe not proceless, but certainly good value.
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 363
Happy Holidays and small update!
Dear Guys, boys and girls, Lady's and gentleman's!
I know my post will be a bit premature but I am not sure I will be on line on Xmas day so I do it in advance
I would like to tell you all Merry Christmas and Happy new year! Wishing you all, all the best to have a great time with loads of love, light, positive energy and what ever you all would wish to yourselves for new year!!
Sincerely yours,
Pavel
XXX
p.s.
Small update..
So far I still have not received ANY reply from JREF, even though following some suggestions from forum,I have addited and sent another letter to Alison
"
From: Pavel <[email protected]>
To: Alison Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Dick Startz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 7:24:54 PM
Subject: Please respond.
James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E.
12th Street Ft Lauderdale
Florida 33316
USA
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my file, with the reason - “ In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.”
The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and presenting me in false light.
This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options. The JREF (James Randi) imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable, and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the facts:
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 the sudden letter limiting the test and offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider as unfair!
I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute false and lie!
There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Pavel Ziborov "
Its been a month and also OF COURSE no reaction whatsoever.. I suppose GzuzKryzt did not received any as well.. That unfortunately proofs ones again DECENCY and respect its not about JREF..
Its not about whether I am wright or they wrong.. I did not said in my letter they all wrong and being rood or something demanding 1.000.000$ or something..
I just sent my point.. asked them at least, EXPLAIN there decision as from my point of view its unfair, I have asked to amend record on applicants page that present me in false light ( that is true) .. Any reply would be appreciated from them and it simple decency of suppose to be dicent organization that claims to be truth seekers....
All the best!
Dear Guys, boys and girls, Lady's and gentleman's!
I know my post will be a bit premature but I am not sure I will be on line on Xmas day so I do it in advance
I would like to tell you all Merry Christmas and Happy new year! Wishing you all, all the best to have a great time with loads of love, light, positive energy and what ever you all would wish to yourselves for new year!!
Sincerely yours,
Pavel
XXX
p.s.
Small update..
So far I still have not received ANY reply from JREF, even though following some suggestions from forum,I have addited and sent another letter to Alison
"
From: Pavel <[email protected]>
To: Alison Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Dick Startz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 7:24:54 PM
Subject: Please respond.
James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E.
12th Street Ft Lauderdale
Florida 33316
USA
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my file, with the reason - “ In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.”
The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and presenting me in false light.
This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options. The JREF (James Randi) imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable, and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the facts:
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 the sudden letter limiting the test and offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider as unfair!
I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute false and lie!
There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Pavel Ziborov "
Its been a month and also OF COURSE no reaction whatsoever.. I suppose GzuzKryzt did not received any as well.. That unfortunately proofs ones again DECENCY and respect its not about JREF..
Its not about whether I am wright or they wrong.. I did not said in my letter they all wrong and being rood or something demanding 1.000.000$ or something..
I just sent my point.. asked them at least, EXPLAIN there decision as from my point of view its unfair, I have asked to amend record on applicants page that present me in false light ( that is true) .. Any reply would be appreciated from them and it simple decency of suppose to be dicent organization that claims to be truth seekers....
All the best!
Last edited:
Hi Pavel. Good to hear from you. Have you sent a letter - via so-called snail mail - to Alison Smith or did you send an e-mail?
I strongly recommend you send a registered letter to the JREF Headquarters using this address:
James Randi Educational Foundation
PO Box 21652
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335-1652
U.S.A.
I also recommend you simply ask politely for a re-opening of your MDC application file. I would not ask the JREF for a statement or a clarification concerning their past actions, or any explanation at all. Just the re-opening.
You still have not voted on your poll.
Close to 31% of participants have voted for you. That's way more than I expected.
Keep in mind that this is not necessarily a vote of confidence for your claimed ability, but simply a statement from JREF forum members that your MDC file should be re-opened.
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 363
Hi Pavel. Good to hear from you. Have you sent a letter - via so-called snail mail - to Alison Smith or did you send an e-mail?
I strongly recommend you send a registered letter to the JREF Headquarters using this address:
James Randi Educational Foundation
PO Box 21652
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335-1652
U.S.A.
I also recommend you simply ask politely for a re-opening of your MDC application file. I would not ask the JREF for a statement or a clarification concerning their past actions, or any explanation at all. Just the re-opening.
You still have not voted on your poll.
Close to 31% of participants have voted for you. That's way more than I expected.
Keep in mind that this is not necessarily a vote of confidence for your claimed ability, but simply a statement from JREF forum members that your MDC file should be re-opened.
Yes it was EMAIL.. not sighned letter...
I shell do so maybe.. BUT to be honest with you.. I am sure it will make NO difference...Re to vote in poll... its closed.. I cant vote there... tried a few times.. forgot to tell u..
Last edited:
Yes it was EMAIL.. not sighned letter...
Re to vote in poll... its closed.. I cant vote there... tried a few times.. forgot to tell u..
About the poll: I forgot that I only ran it for 90 days. Sorry, Pavel.
About the letter: Perhaps it would not make a difference. But if you had a piece of paper in your hand to document to the world that the JREF received your letter - remember, I am from Germany and a sucker fpr bureaucracy - you would at the vey least ensure a moral victory.
I will walk you up the stairs of said victory:
Ground floor: Request denied in a statement of the JREF; official or in a letter to you. You would have fought for your right to have your file re-opened. You would have failed, but fighting is not too shabby.
First floor: Request denied with no response at all. You would not get a chance to compete for the prize but you would have scored a significant moral victory.
Second floor. Request granted.
Are there more floors? I do not know. You will need to show us, Pavel.
Last edited:
Watching from the sidelines, I'd like to say that I think the MDC thing is a dead end, but that's not a dead end to proving the claims. There are plenty of avenues available. Hook up with a local skeptics group and put together your own demonstration - no prize money needed. If you do that and by some freak chance succeed, you will have a lot of leverage over the JREF in the court of public opinion because not only will you have demonstrated that you can agree to a protocol but that there might actually be something there worth looking at.