"JAK" KEERAN, Astrologer

...from Jim Alcock

Hi John and Kramer and Randi:

I am back in town now, and I have been giving some thought to this test. We have to be very careful with regard to the choice of participants. For example, people who maintain an interest in horoscopes may well come to view themselves in terms of what they have read about the meaning of their sun signs. If a person is a "Virgo" and knows what that is supposed to mean about his/her personality astrology-wise, then he/she may respond to te questionnaire according to that belief (whether or not he/she has any inkling about the nature of this test and its focus on astrological signs). Indeed, there is some reason to believe that horoscope devotees may even have to some extent shaped their personalities and behaviours according to that belief. "I'm a Vïrgo, we are all ..."

So, to be sure that we are examining the correspondence between astrological sign and personalities, we need to be sure that neither the personality itself, nor the individual's responses to the test, have been distorted to some extent by knowledge of the person's sun sign. This is NOT a minor problem.

How do we eliminate this problem? Keeping the participants ignorant of the astrological aspect of the study is a good first step, but certainly on its own does NOT eliminate the problem. Ideally, we need to choose people who have no knowledge of their sun sign and what it is supposed to mean.
However, it is hard to recruit people by asking,"Do you know your sun sign?" for that obviously tells them that the study is about astrology.

Further, people who do not know their sun sign are probably less likely to have knowledge of their time of birth, for they will not have bothered to find out. (I am not sure off-hand whether most, or all, or any birth certificates also record time of birth. If they do, this would not be a problem).

John, I don't know how this would sit with you, or with Randi and Kramer, but I would be inclined towards the following: Since we do not know in advance the possible confounding effect that knowledge of sun sign might cause, and since it would take some considerable effort to eliminate its possible effects, a two-step procedure would be in order:

1. First, run the study without regard for possible knowledge of sun sign.

If the results are negative, there is no point in going any further. The test fails.

2. If the results reach the criterion for success (10/12 correct), we cannot know whether the results support astrology or simply reflect the effects of the participants' knowledge of what they should be like if astrology is correct. We then run a second, definitive, study where we take all the pains necessary to eliminate that possible influence.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. We also have to discuss and agree upon the procedure for selection of participants.

Sincerely,
Jim Alcock
 
From "JAK" to Jim

Hi Jim,

I like your thinking.

Regarding your first point:
"1. First, run the study without regard for possible knowledge of sun sign.
If the results are negative, there is no point in going any further. The test fails."

Yes, we must obscure any indication that astrology is involved.
Fortunately, my questionnaire does not focus on "Sun sign" information. If you, or the JREF, do not require a representation of all 12 astrological signs, then it will ease your job. Perhaps you can get birthdate information in your initial interview. Many research questionnaires request sex, race, and birthdate information. Asking for this should not raise suspicion. Of course, I couldn't care less about the sex or the race of the participant, so you can discard that info or, at least, not send it to me.
You can further obfuscate the critical information by asking for other "driver's license" information (marital status, hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc.). Finally, as one member of JREF proposed, you can present this as a sociological investigation which, in my opinion, is exactly what it is.

To attempt to obtain as many different signs as possible, you might approach 20 or 25 "volunteers". From that group, you may obtain a greater variety of Sun signs to be represented. If the JREF still requires the full complement of 12, then you may need to continue soliciting volunteers until one from each sign is included. This will be a "JREF call".

One other condition of the participants which Kramer & I have discussed is the age group. The questionnaire leans heavily toward participants with both a career and a spouse. So, we decided that you should favor age groups over college age. College students are not likely to have established a career nor are they as likely to be married. (However, please allow Kramer to reconfirm this.)

Jim, in regards to your second point ("2. If the results reach the criterion for success (10/12 correct) we cannot know ...), if we approach potential participants as described above, it appears to already eliminate much of the danger you describe.

Let us know if we are in agreement.

Thanks,
JAK
 
From Jim Alcock, Investigator

Subject: RE: JAK's Astrological Questionnaire

Hi again - first of all, I am not sure, Kramer, just how we are to proceed.

Surely you and the JREF want to vet the procedure, since it is your prize that is under consideration. So, what happens? Do John and I come to an agreement and then submit it to you?

Second, John, my concern is still a valid one with regard to what does such a test show.

Let's suppose your were to get 12 out of 12 correct. My point is that this might be showing an "astrological" effect, or it might be showing an effect of how people see themselves in light of their knowledge of their astrological signs.

By way of a silly example, suppose that we were testing the validity of the old nursery rhyme about "Monday's child is full of woe, Tuesday's child has far to go, Wednesday's child works hard for a living, Thursday's child is loving and giving..." (I forget the rest). Suppose, for the sake of argument, that one devised a questionnaire of some sort that was set up to evaluate indirectly the correlation between day of birth and these characteristics of woe, hard work etc. Of course, we would need to avoid cuing the subjects about the purpose of the study, and this you and I already agree on.

However, what I am getting at is this: To the extent that subjects have some knowledge of the nursery rhyme (or were taught it as a child, even though they may forget the details), then there is always the possibility that the child born on a Wednesday expects to be woeful, and answers the questionnaire in that manner,,, etc etc. leading to "hits".

This is much more likely to be a factor with astrology, where so very many people know their sun sign and what it is supposed to mean.

Thus - and I am not being difficult here just because this is astrology; this is the same concern that I would have for any similar study in psychology - a single test is not enough to confirm the astrological effect, unless we could be absolutely certain that no one has any such astrological knowledge.

Now, we can never be absolutely certain, but we can certainly try to eliminate the impact of such an effect, but to do so is complicated and time-consuming. That is why I suggest a preliminary test, free of such complexity. If the preliminary test fails, then there is no point in going on. If it is successful then we must go further to see what the cause of the success was.

Cheers, Jim

============================================
Kramer's response to Jim:

Hello Jim,

Yes, just negotiate with John and then email the protocol to us for final approval.

It was Randi himself who told me to contact you, so you can trust that you have his complete confidence in these negotiations. Feel free to telephone Randi here at any time to discuss matters, if you need some guidelines in advance of your chats with John.

I strongly agree with your concerns about the true meaning of the test results, Jim, and I have expressed similar concerns to Randi, but Randi has told me that beating Chance is all JAK needs to do to pass the preliminary stage of the Challenge. He simply has to do what he claims to be able to do, under proper observing conditions.

I also agree that a pre-test (prior to the official JREF preliminary test) must be conducted. This would be a "Base-Line" test that Randi normally requires, anyway.

Finally, I believe it is vital to the integrity of the test that we do everything in our power to be sure that the test subjects do not know enough about atsrology to be able to "fudge" the questionnaire by giving answers they think will correspond to their "sign".

This may prove difficult, but surely it is not impossible.
 
From Randi, to Jim Alcock

Jim, the "pre-test" Kramer refers to should be part of the preliminary, conducted before that actual test run at the same time and place. That way, we have evidence that under the circumstances in place, the subject can properly perform an "open" run, thus avoiding the claim that things weren't just right at that time and place....

- James Randi
 
from Kramer...

Hello Gentlemen,

There's been much debate about how to be sure that the subjects answering the questionnaire have no real knowledge of astrology. One JREF forum member suggested that chosing a religious group (such as Quakers, Amish, etc.) would be a good way to do that, thinking that "highly religious folk" would be less likely to support astrology.

Believing this to be a good idea, I suggested it to Randi, who immediately chastised me for my sloppy thinking.

"Are you joking? Religious people? That's where these kinds of silly ideas like astrology COME FROM!!!! Plenty of church-going folk believe strongly in astrology, or at least in the possibility that it works. They're the exact type of people that WOULD believe such nonsense."

Of course, he's right.

This problem is actually a non-issue that neither of you should be concerned with.

So long as proper Double-Blind procedures are in place and the subjects do NOT know that they are involved in a test of astrology, there is no need find subjects ignorant of it.

-Kramer, JREF
 
from "JAK" to Jim

Hi Jim,

Regarding the portion of your email directed to me:

Near the end, you suggested a preliminary test. As I understand it, that is what this portion of the JREF Challenge is. Only $10,000 is at stake. (Please have Kramer confirm.) A more stringent test design can be created for the final test when the remainder of the million dollars is at stake.

You also note that the preliminary test should be free of complexity. The JREF also wished to simplify the test, and the test we are embarking upon is the result of JREF's suggestions and mine. I'm not sure what other simplifications you have in mind, but I am open to suggestions. Please clarify.

Regarding your other comments and concerns, my questionnaire is designed to gather information about Saturn, the Moon, Capricorn, Cancer, and the 4th and 10th Houses. These usually are only obliquely related to a person's Sun sign. Consequently, most people know little or nothing about these planets, constellations, and "houses." The only people who may "taint" the questionnaire, due to prior knowledge of astrology, are those trained in astrology. As part of your screening, you might ask a question such as, "Are you trained or knowledgeable in any of the paranormal or occult sciences like ESP, reincarnation, astrology, telekinesis, palmistry, numerology, etc.?" If the answer is "Yes", then you could hold that questionnaire in reserve pending a decision by the JREF.

However, if a participant is knowledgeable or trained in astrology, it will generally tend to work in the JREF's favor and to my disadvantage. The reason is that most astrologers use the American Ephemeris to locate planets and signs. Unfortunately, the American Ephemeris is drastically in error (by about 30 degrees - over 15% of the night sky). For instance, the American Ephemeris locates Mars tonight in mid to late Taurus. Taurus starts with the Pleiades (a small but bright star cluster known as the "Seven Sisters") and goes eastward to Aldebaran (a bright red giant star), the Hyades star cluster, and then the horns of Taurus (above Orion). If you take a pair of binoculars and look toward the south or southeast around 2 AM, Taurus should be readily visible along the ecliptic (roughly in the neighborhood of 40-60 degrees above the horizon). Mars, one of the brightest objects in the sky, will be further right from the Pleiades - IN THE CONSTELLATION OF AIRES! The American Ephemeris is obviously wrong. (Here is the JPL Simulator's position of Mars - note the Pleiades star cluster to the left of Mars: http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/w...=00&minute=00&fovmul=1&rfov=60&bfov=5&brite=1 .) The effect is that the vast majority of western astrologers of the northern hemisphere will construct astrology charts with grossly inaccurate information which will cloud and distort all astrological information and its analysis. Again, such distortion can only work to my disadvantage.

I believe the key statement you made is this,
"…unless we could be absolutely certain that no one has any such astrological knowledge."

If you qualify this with "… no one has any such 'Saturn, Moon, Cancer, or Capricorn' astrological knowledge", then I believe we are okay. With what I am asking, knowledge of the Sun sign is oblique and useless. It is extraneous noise just as prior psychological knowledge is extraneous noise in a psychological test. If someone has taken the Myers-Briggs or DISC test, they may form conceptions about themselves before taking a psychological test. But such prior experience should not significantly taint a well-designed psychological test. Similarly, prior knowledge of "Sun sign" should not significantly taint my questionnaire which ignores the Sun sign and focuses on other astrological factors.

I suggest you lean toward the "criteria of truth" known as Negative Pragmatism - postulated by Harvard professor, William Earnest Hocking - "What works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot possibly be true because the truth always works." For astrology, if I am successful, then it may be due to the influences of planets and constellations, as most astrologers believe, or it may be something else (like chaos theory, which I favor). Either of these explanations "may or may not be true." However, if I fail, then it proves that whatever I have done is NOT the truth - because the truth always works. Even so, the issue of astrology will still be up in the air. Just as the failures of many crashed airplane prototypes did not refute the possibility of human flight, my failed test will not refute the possibility of astrological techniques being predictive and useful.

We are not building an "iron-clad" proof or disproof of astrology. We are only establishing a benchmark of effectiveness of astrological techniques. Past tests and experiments have shown astrology to be useless. I am bringing a new twist - astronomical correctness, improved techniques channeled through a medium, and a systematic analysis and application of techniques. If I succeed, the techniques I use can be learned and tested by others - the scientific method. The cause of effectiveness will await further investigation and analysis. However, the utility of effective astrological techniques could affect the educational systems throughout the world as well as job applicant screening, counseling (as Carl Jung did), and many, many other applications.

This test needs to be run whether a million dollars is at stake or $10,000 or just our time and JREF's time. The potential, if the results are positive (success at a rate of "better than chance"), is huge.

JAK
 
Written by JAK in the JREF Forums

Astrology is clearly a pseudo-science with severe weaknesses and breakdowns. Further, it has no standardized system or methodology. As a result, any astrological test is only a test of one astrologer's techniques and ideas. This is true of mine as well.

Even so, please keep in mind my "human flight" analogy. Many, many attempts were made with all sorts of contraptions before the Wright brothers got it ... well ... "right". All of the other contraptions failed for a variety of reasons. Trying to sort out each failure individually would be very time consuming - and pointless, since the Wright brothers succeeded. And herein lies the issue: Should we stop investigating astrology because of all of the failures? Or should we allow the investigations to continue in case, by some miracle, someone makes it work?

JREF has decided to encourage investigation. I have chosen to seriously investigate. As with any contract, if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer, and the details of the contract are agreed upon, you have a binding contract. JREF and I have, essentially, a contract to investigate my system of astrology on the off chance that it might work.

-JAK

==============================================

No Comment.
 
This "JAK" person has made these statements:

1. Astrology is clearly a pseudo-science with severe weaknesses and breakdowns.

Agreed, though I think it doesn't even qualify as a pseudoscience.


2. Further, it has no standardized system or methodology.

Also true.

3. As a result, any astrological test is only a test of one astrologer's techniques and ideas. This is true of mine as well.

Yes, we've always recognized that. So?

4. Should we stop investigating astrology because of all of the failures?

Sounds like a good reason to me, but the JREF is required to test any and all clearly-stated paranormal claims.

5. Or should we allow the investigations to continue in case, by some miracle, someone makes it work?

That's not a good reason, since we don't care about miracles, only facts. And what do you mean by "allow"? The JREF "allows" ALL investigations to continue: of the Tooth Fairy, of the Easter Bunny, of Tinkerbell; we just don't care to waste our time.

6. JREF has decided to encourage investigation.

No, we haven't. We just don't care.

7. I have chosen to seriously investigate.

Well, have a good time.

8. As with any contract, if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer, and the details of the contract are agreed upon, you have a binding contract.

Gee, you're right. But what's for sale, by whom, who's the buyer, and what contract are you blathering about?

9. JREF and I have, essentially, a contract to investigate my system of astrology on the off chance that it might work.

Show me the contract that so states the situation. Next question....?
 
JAK comments on Randi's Comments

Hi Jim, Kramer,

It's been about a week since I've heard about my challenge from either of you, so I am requesting a status. Are you able to find volunteers? Are you encountering any difficulties which I may be able to help with?

Also, it appears that Randi has posted comments on my challenge thread.

I am honored since he rarely posts anywhere (only 39 posts noted as of this date).

I would like to comment in return:

4. Should we stop investigating astrology because of all of the failures?

Randi quote:
"Sounds like a good reason to me, but the JREF is required to test any and all clearly-stated paranormal claims."

The term "required" is interesting. I shall reference this later.

6. JREF has decided to encourage investigation.

Randi Quote:
"No, we haven't. We just don't care."

This, too, is interesting. Providing a $1 million dollar challenge, IMO, encourages people to look for paranormal abilities and proclaim them. If JREF is not encouraging this behavior in people, why advertise a reward for this behavior?

8. As with any contract, if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer, and the details of the contract are agreed upon, you have a binding contract.

Randi Quote:
"Gee, you're right. But what's for sale, by whom, who's the buyer, and what contract are you blathering about?"

I suspect that your lawyers were very explicit about the wording of the JREF application form because they may have to defend it. As a result, I was not allowed to make any changes whatsoever. If changes are made to a contract, typically, both parties need to initial it. (Point #4 of the application is very similar to other contracts I have made: "No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned.)

I have not bothered my lawyers about the binding legality of the JREF $1 million dollar challenge application, but it "smells" very close to a contract. In substance, the contract stipulates that if the applicant (seller) has a viable paranormal ability, then the JREF (buyer) will pay $1 million dollars for it (point #8 of the application): "In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds."

However, point #7 is designed to free the JREF of contractual obligations: "When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes."

Even so, the "crack in the door" may be the reference to "established statutes".

9. JREF and I have, essentially, a contract to investigate my system of astrology on the off chance that it might work.

Randi Quote:
"Show me the contract that so states the situation. Next question...."

I do not believe that we have a typical "binding contract". If we did, a representative of the JREF would have had to sign my application and provide me with an original. (The JREF would have an original, and I would have an original of the application.)

However, please note my purposeful use of the term "essentially". "Essentially" is different from "actually".

We do not have a typical contract. We likely do not have a true contract. However, much of the law is based upon interpretation. The essence of a contract is: if the contractual conditions are met, then one party must fulfill the seller's obligations stipulated in the contract, and the other party must fulfill the buyer's obligations stipulated in the contract. If the conditions of the contract are met, both parties become legally bound to the obligations. Contracts can be intricate and lengthy or very simple. (Binding contracts have been written on napkins.)

Whether or not the JREF $1 million dollar challenge application can be interpreted as a binding contract remains to be seen. However, my lack of a signed original application from the JREF certainly weakens my legal position.

Lastly, if a contract is not in force, then how is the JREF "required" to do anything, as noted in point #4 of the JREF $1 million dollar challenge application? If there is nothing binding (like a contract), the JREF has no need to fulfill any obligation. Or is the obligation bound to the formal establishment of the foundation itself?

But all of this is an unnecessary digression. (It appears that anything I say is presented in the worst way causing needless consternation by many.)

Please. Let us dispense with the viscous and turgid legalities. I am much more interested in running a test.

Again, what is the status of the progress of my challenge?

Thanks,
JAK

==============================================

Dear JAK,

It is my understanding from Jim Alcock that you and he were getting along spendidly and that a test protocol was forthcoming. Please correct me if I am mistaken in this regard.
 
Last edited:
From Jim Alcock, to JAK

Subject: RE: JAK's Astrological Questionnaire

Hi John -

OK, I am now ready to go. Just some details:

1. Can you send me your questionnaire as an XLS attachment? When I print it from your website, it prints with all sorts of extra stuff, including theheading "astrological questionnaire."

2. Most people I have contacted as potential respondents do not know the time of their birth. Your email of 19/8 suggests that birth time is not important. Is that correct?

3. I agree to proceed without going to great lengths to test for astrological knowledge. YOur argument that the sunsigns that people use are not meaningful and do not bias results towards your hypothesis notwithstanding, I am aware of at least one informal study where a skeptic was able to predict an astrologer's "success" with judging the sun sign of a number of subjects simply by finding out how much each subject knew about/followed horoscopes. In any case, for me, if the test fails, then we don't have to worry about biases and confounds. If it succeeds, then we need to go further to find out why it succeeded,without presuming that the explanation necessarily lies in your system or astrology in general.

4. Point for clarification. I am confused by 1. your statment that knowledge of astrology won't work in favour of your hypothesis because "The American Ephemeris is obviously wrong" (email of 31/08) and 2. your statement that "The tester will then create a list identifying the matching and noting the Sun sign for each of the 12 participants. This Sun sign will be from the ?American Ephemeris for the 20th Century 1900 to 2000 at Noon? (email of 09/08)"

So, I am lining up adults who have jobs and are married/partnered, who were born in Canada or the US, and who do not have any readily apparent knowledge of or interest in astrology. I will endeavour to get someone from each astrological sign.

Cheers, Jim
 
From Kramer

Hello Jim, Hello John,

How can we be sure none of the test participants are made aware of the fact that this test involves astrology if the plan is to ask them about their knowledge of astrology, which I am assuming must be done in order to ascertain the participants lack of knowledge?

Asking their time of birth may also clue them in to what the experiment is all about, don't you think?

So if birth time is not important and is not inquired about, I think this would be a good thing for the applicant, should he pass the preliminary test.
 
Hi Guys,

First, time of birth is critical. The three pieces of information I require are: date of birth, time of birth, and location of birth. If any of these three data is missing, the test falls apart.

If I misled anyone about needing a birth time, it may have been my request for the birth time to be within 4 minutes. The further away from 4 minutes we go, the more error is introduced into the analysis. I can tolerate some variance, but I need a time. With a birth certificate, whatever time is documented is close enough for me.

Let me address the other points in-line:

How can we be sure none of the test participants are made aware of the fact that this test involves astrology if the plan is to ask them about their knowledge of astrology, which I am assuming must be done in order to ascertain the participants lack of knowledge?

My expectation is that no question will be asked "up front" with the word "astrology" in it. After the questionnaire has been filled out and submitted, then asking the "astrology" question will allow screening applicants for such knowledge. The question could be oblique: "Do you know what an 'ascendant' is? If so, please explain." Only serious students of astrology will likely know the answer: "The ascendant is the sign on the first house." Or "the ascendant is the sign on the horizon when you were born." Such knowledge will disqualify the candidate. If the candidate has no clue, then the candidate is "good," and the questionnaire should be submitted.

Asking their time of birth may also clue them in to what the experiment is all about, don't you think?

Yes, this is possible. But if a copy of the birth certificate is requested, the candidate may not think about what data on the certificate is to be used. Just make "submission of a photocopy of your birth certificate" a mandatory requirement, and any questions regarding "Why?" should be brushed off (i.e.: "The researchers made it a requirement, and we are complying."). Anyone who refuses to submit a birth certificate is disqualified and should not be given a questionnaire.

CAUTION: Some birth certificates do not have a birth time. These, too, should be disqualified.

So if birth time is not important and is not inquired about, I think this would be a good thing for the applicant, should he pass the preliminary test.

Again, birth time IS important.

3. I agree to proceed without going to great lengths to test for astrological knowledge. YOur argument that the sunsigns that people use are not meaningful and do not bias results towards your hypothesis notwithstanding, I am aware of at least one informal study where a skeptic was able to predict an astrologer's "success" with judging the sun sign of a number of subjects simply by finding out how much each subject knew about/followed horoscopes. In any case, for me, if the test fails, then we don't have to worry about biases and confounds. If it succeeds, then we need to go further to find out why it succeeded, without presuming that the explanation necessarily lies in your system or astrology in general.

I agree. If anything in the test works, first and foremost, we need to check for holes in the test.

4. Point for clarification. I am confused by 1. your statment that knowledge of astrology won't work in favour of your hypothesis because "The American Ephemeris is obviously wrong" (email of 31/08)...

For tonight (Sept. 19, 2005), the American Ephemeris claims that the Sun is in Virgo (wrong, the Sun is in Leo), Venus is in Scorpio (wrong, Venus is in Libra), Mars is in Taurus (wrong, Mars is in Aries), Jupiter is in Libra (wrong, Jupiter is in Virgo), and all of the other ephemeris positions are wrong, too. You can "eyeball" Mars tonight. As you look toward the southeast (roughly) after 1AM, Mars will be to the right of the Pleiades (Aries) - not to the left of the Pleiades (Taurus). You can also verify this with Jack Horkheimer or any university astronomy department. You can check it on-line at the JPL Solar System Simulator (http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/). Attached is info showing the constellations of Gemini and Taurus (note the Pleiades on the right of the 1st image) and the position of Mars (second image) for tonight. (Mars is to the right of the Pleiades and Hyades.)

Because almost all western (Canada & U.S.) astrologers use the American phemeris, anyone adhering to that system will likely screw up my questionnaire.

2. your statement that "The tester will then create a list identifying the matching and noting the Sun sign for each of the 12 participants. This Sun sign will be from the American Ephemeris for the 20th Century 1900 to 2000 at Noon? (email of
09/08)"

So, I am lining up adults who have jobs and are married/partnered, who were born in Canada or the US, and who do not have any readily apparent knowledge of or interest in astrology. I will endeavour to get someone from each
astrological sign.

Cheers, Jim

Thanks, Jim. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

JAK
 
An Inquiry

Hello JAK,

It's been almost a month now since we last received a "cc" from you on your correspondence with Jim Alcock, and the status of the forthcoming test of your claim for the JREF Paranormal Challenge.

Please advise.
 
from JAK (to Kramer)

Hi Kramer,

We are making progress, but Jim is still collecting volunteers.

Jim can give you a clearer status if you need it.

-JAK
 
From Kramer (to Jim Alcock, Investigator)

Jim, please give me some more details on the present status of this claim.
 
from Investigator Jim Alcock, to JAK & Kramer

Hi to both of you.

I am sorry to tell you that I have now hit a brick wall with regard to carrying out what I originally thought would be a very easy piece of work. While I had managed to persuade six people to provide me with birth certificates without giving away very much in terms of why I needed to see them, NONE of the birth certificates produced for me carry birth times,only the dates. (This is true of my own birth certificate as well). I have therefore stopped trying to enlist others in this project.

So, I am sorry, but I have to withdraw from assisting in this project. It has become just to frustrating, and I have got nowhere.

Sorry, but I gave it a good try.

Jim Alcock
 
To JAK, from Kramer

Hello JAK,

By now I am sure you have received the email from Jim Alcock in which he states that he feels there is no choice for him but to withdraw his participation from the proposed test of your claim. Although we are, of course, disappointed by this, we feel that Jim has gone above and beyond what is required of investigators.

According to the Challenge rules, it is the applicant himself who must provide all the necessary ingredients for the test.

At this point in time, we are prepared to confess that there is no possible way to conduct this test according to your stated requirements.

I am quite confident that you will strongly disagree with my assessment, so I look forward to your speedy reply.
 
from JAK, to Kramer (cc; Jim Alcock)

Thanks Jim for all of the effort.

Kramer, I think birth times on birth certificates are more common in the U.S. Got any other referees in the CONUS?

-JAK

========================================================

Hello JAK,

What do you mean by "referees in the CONUS"?

Sorry, but you've lost me on this one.
 
Last edited:
Hi Kramer,

I have never had difficulty with people having a birth time on their birth certificate. However, I have almost exclusively worked with people living in the USA. I have personally seen birth times carried on birth certificates over the past 30-50 years from Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, and Colorado. The only exceptions have been for those who do not have a birth certificate and have had one created by legal action (like my mother). If the participants are located within the USA and born within the last 60 years, I am confident that the criteria of the test can be met. BTW, “CONUS” is a military term for “continental US” – the contiguous 48 states. May I suggest Jack Horkheimer or another of your U.S. based colleagues?

Let me know when you are ready to resume the challenge.

Thanks, JAK

=========================================================

Hello JAK,

Please forgive my ignorance of US Military jargon, and many thanks for the clarification thereof.

Please let us know when you have secured a means of procuring the data you require in order to resume the Challenge. Once you have done so, I will contact Jack Horkheimer.
 
Chaos Theory? Is that Paranormal?

Hi Kramer,

My first plan is to solicit volunteers from JREF. I know it is not your preference, but it is cheap and fast. Here is the thread I plan to create:

“Okay gang, here's the situation:

JAK's JREF CHALLENGE -

In a thread, Kramer said that you didn't have to believe in something to create a challenge for it.

I took him up on it and submitted a challenge to see if astrological techniques have any merit. The challenge was accepted.

Do I believe that we are guided by the planets? Absolutely not.

Do I believe astrological techniques have merit? Maybe. That is the point of the challenge.

The only hope of astrological techniques being useful is if some other underlying law of nature is at work. (I'm voting for Chaos Theory.)

CHALLENGE STATUS (11/10/2005) -
The challenge was assigned to a canadian (Jim Alcock) to administer control over the challenge. Unfortunately, it appears that canadian birth certificates do not carry a birth time (as U.S. birth certificates seem to do). And Jim has been unable to gather viable participants.

Jim has bowed out.

Kramer has just (today) tasked me with securing "a means of procuring the data" required.

CHALLENGE SITUATION -
If I get my cronies involved, the test is likely tainted. It is best to gather data from folks who do not know me.

IMO, the Religion and Philosophy forum may have the best mix of "dirts and woos." ("Dirts" believe in stuff you can touch and scientifically test - like dirt. "Woos" believe all sorts of non-scientific stuff - ghosts, religion, karma, etc. If you are somewhere in-between, you are a "dwort" - part woo and part dirt. I'm a dwort.)

If you would like to participate in this challenge, please follow these rules:

1. You are married and over the age of 30. (This is due to the questionnaire targeting working people with spouses.)

2. You were born in the USA. (Other countries will be included in the second phase should I pass the first one.)

3. Your birth certificate has a birth time, birth date, and birth location on it.

4. You are willing to send a photocopy of your birth certificate to whomever Kramer chooses to administer the test.

5. You are willing to fill out the questionnaire at http://www.creativitygame.com/questionnaire.html

6. You are not knowledgeable about astrology other than your Sun sign. (If you can correctly answer the question, "What is an ascendant?", then you are disqualified.)

7. If you do not wish to answer the questionnaire truthfully, regardless of the outcome, you cannot be accepted.

8. You agree not to divulge to anyone that you are participating.

9. Posting to this thread may disqualify you as a candidate. (Kramer will decide.)

10. You will send an email to Kramer avowing to the above and requesting acceptance. Also, please include your birth date (mm/dd/yyyy) in the email. Those who are accepted as viable volunteers will receive further instructions from Kramer or the challenge administrator assigned (Jim's replacement).

It does not matter if you think astrology is bunk. It does not matter if you read your horoscope every day.

Do not worry about being the first to respond. We need 1 participant from every Sun sign (12 volunteers). You maybe the 100th volunteer, but you may also be the first of the Sun sign we are still looking for. Further, in the case of multiple volunteers, those with the least contact with me may be preferred. If you've never seen me post, and you want to participate, you are an excellent candidate.

I will create a post here when we have accepted the initial 12 applicants.”

Let me know if this is an agreeable approach.

Thanks,
JAK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom