Paranormal detection

[Lanzy]

reason1, You have a lot of people staring at you in public places? Why? Are you wearing an ugly hat?

to the group: Wasn't there someone recently who thought something similar? A martial artist who thought he could roll out of the way before someone cut his head off?


So, I went and had lunch, and every now and then turned around and EVERY time caught someone looking at me (can't claim staring) right in the eye. OK, 3 times it was the same girl and now I hate to think what she is thinking.

 

[reason1]

I am almost 100% sure that Randi would disagree - and I think you are lying when you said it was meant as a joke.

... I really don't want to get too much off-topic but i guess there is only way you can tell that,try to contact him or if any mod./admin is reading this can do it and also tell him that this threat is real not a joke. let's see what he will say

 

[GzuzKryzt]

... I really don't want to get too much off-topic but i guess there is only way you can tell that,try to contact him or if any mod./admin is reading this can do it and also tell him that this threat is real not a joke. let's see what he will say

Agreed, let's be on topic:

Reason1, do you have someone you trust - a friend, a relative, a life partner - doing the "staring" the way you need it to detect it?

Have you performed one of the suggested simple self-tests?

Concerning media profile and academic affidavit: Who exactly did you plan to contact and what would you tell them?

 

[chillzero]

Everyone, please remember that this section should be posted to strictly on the topic of the specific claim for each thread. Let's focus on the claim, and stop the off topic stuff.

reason1, there's a separate section titled 'JREF' where you can discuss your issues with Randi. If you want to let him know something, email him yourself : randi@randi.org
No one else will do it for you, and he won't read it here. He does respond to emails though. Your issues with Randi are not the concern of the mod team, unless they impact a thread ... like this.

 

[reason1]

Hi mod. chillzero,
I'm sorry for involving mod team in this ,i was trying to prove my point that James Randi wouldn't mind my joke/threat, as GzuzKryzt is claiming that he would mind he the one that should contact him

PS:GzuzKryzt, man...i begged you not to ask the same questions again, is this how you get thousands of posts ? ...you are flooding the forum !

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Hi mod. chillzero,
I'm sorry for involving mod team in this ,i was trying to prove my point that James Randi wouldn't mind my joke/threat, as GzuzKryzt is claiming that he would mind he the one that should contact him

PS:GzuzKryzt, man...i begged you not to ask the same questions again, is this how you get thousands of posts ? ...you are flooding the forum !

This subforum is for claims relating to the MDC. Not for anything else. Hence, for your convenience:

Do you have someone you trust - a friend, a relative, a life partner - doing the "staring" the way you need it to detect it?

Have you performed one of the suggested simple self-tests?

Concerning media profile and academic affidavit: Who exactly did you plan to contact and what would you tell them?

Simple answers will suffice.

 

[petre]

... man...there are not only harassments but gang harassments in this page and the previous one

i was shocked as the banner says "Paranormal in a friendly and lively way"

Everyone in the forum (other than mods of course) are just people of a self-selecting sample of the general public and bound only to follow the rules of the forum (which do not actually include any stipulation of maintaining discussion in a friendly or lively way). Some are friendlier than others, some smarter than others, some...er...livlier than others, and a wide spectrum of other colorful traits. I suppose somewhere there's a forum where you could post your ideas and recieve great encouragement, adoration, and general well-wishing.

All of that may be what you need to continue your pursuit of the JREF challenge, and you're not likely to find a great deal of that here. I would rate the responses you have gotten about par for applicants that choose to participate in forum discussion (many don't).

What it boils down to is this: Your ability is of the category "I can obtain information through paranormal means" (in your case either the information that someone is staring at you, or the location of someone staring at you, or both). A protocol for such a claim requires three things:

1. That the information is verifiable to an outside audience in some objective way (to later determine your accuracy).
2. That any imaginable non-paranormal means of your obtaining the information is prevented.
3. That your answers demonstrate an accuracy beyond that expected by chance (guessing). Beating the odds of 1 in 1000 has been accepted by the JREF as sufficient in the past.

#1 could be satisfied if you are able to provide a person that can stare on command. Based on the assumption that this person wishes to help you and your word in their ability to trigger your ability based on an instructed pattern, an outside observer would likely accept that such person was indeed staring and not staring as instructed. If it is not possible for you to find someone that you accept in this capacity, it will be necessary for you to find some other way it could be objectively determined that the target was or was not staring at you, independant of the use of your ability.

#2 will vary a good deal depending on what is needed to satisfy #1. At the very least, some sort of sound-proofing will likely be necessary if the target is a person selected by you (more to the point, any form of non-paranormal communication will need to be ruled out in some way or another). If this is the case, some self-testing will have to be done to find suitable controls that do not interfere with your ability.

#3 will also vary depending on the requirements for #1 and #2, but should not be very difficult for such a test. I believe for a boolean (staring/not staring) answer a result of 16 correct out of 20 will satisfy the odds requirement.

Most of the other posters here are trying to help you find what you need for one or more of these areas. Hopefully this generalization will be helpful in the discussion.

 

[H3LL]

Just a little self-test I did with regard to my earlier comment:

I have found that, even without my spectacles, a chromed area as small as 3mm², even at quite unexpected distances, was sufficient to quite easily detect a head/body movements. A simple drawing-pin, nice and shiny, even several feet away, gives a great fish-eye view of the whole room . Not enough for detail but plenty for detecting movement.

IMHO, consciously or sub-consciously the movement to turn and stare is very easy to spot in reflective and semi-reflective surfaces.

For this and other reasons mentioned in the thread, a public space is totally out of the question for a controlled experiment.

If reason1 cannot perform his claim other than in a public space the claim is dead-in-the-water from the off.

If that is the case, reason1 would be best to bow out now, safe in the knowledge that his claim is not testable.

Otherwise, after considering GzuzKryzt's questions, his thoughts should be for a test in a room and how to control, among other things:

• Reflection/sight

• Sound

• Confederates/devices

• Blinding

Once that is out of the way, state his claim, anticipated success rate and how that is to be recorded.

IMHO, there is enough in this thread to make a very good attempt at a protocol which might be acceptable. (I have other concerns but not worth muddying the already murky waters).


----------------


As a side thought - reason1 seems to be finding the responses here uncomfortable. My initial response is tough ****. However that is less than helpful.

I was wondering if reason1 could try and think a little differently ...

Imagine, for a moment, that I, H3LL, will duplicate your paranormal ability but claim no paranormal powers and state, up front, that I will use trickery and deception to the best of my ability.

How will you stop me tricking people?

When you have found a way - You have probably got your protocol.

I genuinely hope that helps.


ETA: Furthermore, if you wish, I will state a method I will use for deception and you come up with a method to stop me. We could do this bit by bit if you want but I'm confident you would get the idea after a few examples.

Your call.

 

[Robert Oz]

regarding me cheating at the test:
although i choose the date and maybe the kind of the place,i will not be aware of the actual place and the time of the day that the test will be done.
I won't have any wireless communication mean or a mean to tell the exact time of the day.
So under these settings I'll will not be able to synchronize any sudden moves with anyone.
can anybody think of way that will make me cheat under these conditions?

TOP 10 WAYS TO CHEAT UNDER reason1's PROTOCOL

1. See movement in reflective surfaces.
2. See movement in lighting.
3. Have an audio signal from a confederate when they are staring (e.g. cough).
4. Turn around toward a large number of people and quickly zero in on anyone looking at you. How do we know you didn't find a person staring in the split second after you turn around? This can be done very quickly and virtually impossible to detect.
5. Claiming a hit for people who began looking at you because you suddenly turned around.
6. Not counting misses for people who were staring, but were not detected. How do we keep track of all starers in a crowd of people?
7. Claiming hits for sudden movements of heads that weren't staring at you.
8. Claiming hits for people staring at something near you or in your general direction.
9. Counting misses as passive staring. Claiming hits as active staring.
10. Subjective judging.

Do you now see the problems with your protocol, reason1? If you can eliminate these ten problems, you are on your way to developing a suitable protocol.

H3LL made an excellent suggestion:

Imagine, for a moment, that I, H3LL, will duplicate your paranormal ability but claim no paranormal powers and state, up front, that I will use trickery and deception to the best of my ability.

How will you stop me tricking people?

I honestly believe H3LL could duplicate what you are claiming quite easily. I honestly believe I could do the same. So, how would you stop us from cheating? The same rules must apply to you.

I also think you at least need to address GzuzKryzt's question:

Do you have someone you trust - a friend, a relative, a life partner - doing the "staring" the way you need it to detect it?

If the answer to this question is 'no', then just say 'no' and we'll try to move on (if we can), but this is a key question that, I think, your entire claim rests on.

 

[reason1]

I really shouldn't be doing your work for you. If you would have taken the time to read peoples questions and tried to answer them you would have found the answer to your question and how to set up an experiment that excludes confirmation bias.

The problem that you have with counting the hits is: if you suddenly turn around (or look up, whatever) people will be looking at you that weren't looking at you before. You have no way of telling when they started looking at you. You count this as a hit. when it isn't. You need to set up an experiment that does not include you making sudden moves since that will MAKE people look at you

The problem that you have with ignoring the misses: you don't count the times that people look at you but you don't notice it. You need to find out how often people DO look at you and you don't know.

The tests that people have asked you to do, are to exactly exclude these problems.

thanks Kariboo,
well... yea actually I'm trying to apply confirmation bias to my suggested protocol not the other ones .
And that is because I've proved in page 2 that these protocols not controllable nor reliable , allow cheating, and even more don't count as staring by the definition.
Maybe confirmation bias is actually off-topic

PS:Robert Oz, WOW 10...i thought of something like nil

 

[Robert Oz]

these protocols not controllable

The suggested protocols are completely controllable. You can't see, hear or communicate with the starers. The starers are selected randomly. The results are self-evident.

nor reliable

Only protocols that provide self-evident results are reliable. Therefore, the suggested protocols are reliable.

allow cheating

They may allow cheating by the people testing you, but not by the person being tested (i.e. you). This is why GzuzKryzt's suggestion that you use a trusted friend to do the staring is so important - a friend who you trust will not take any part in cheating on behalf of the people testing you - especially if they stand to win a percentage of the million.

and even more doesn't count as staring by the definition.

This is where your claim falls apart. There is no way to prove that the people in public are actively staring or passively staring or staring near you or over you, etc. This is a problem that will arise in whatever protocol you design, unless you have a friend you trust to stare in the right way.

Maybe confirmation bias is actually off-topic

No, confirmation bias is very, very on-topic. It is precisely what has made you come to the conclusion that you can actually do this, and it must be eliminated from the protocol at all costs.

PS:Robert Oz, WOW 10...i thought of something like nil

Most of the ten I provided would apply directly to your past experiences.

 

[Chris H]

reason1,
Just wondering if you'd managed to catch my one way mirror proposal. Would this idea work for you?

All the best,

Chris

 

[reason1]

reason1,
Just wondering if you'd managed to catch my one way mirror proposal. Would this idea work for you?

All the best,

Chris

hi Chris,
I'm not ignoring your proposal but I'm still not getting it well, i hope you clarify more
thanks

 

[reason1]

Robert Oz:
i guess you will have to wait for my long post

 

[Robert Oz]

Robert Oz:
i guess you will have to wait for my long post

Okay. I look forward to it.

 

[Chris H]

hi Chris,
I'm not ignoring your proposal but I'm still not getting it well, i hope you clarify more
thanks

Certainly. If the ability you are claiming is to know when another individual is staring at you, I'm proposing that you would be seated on the reflective side of a one way mirror. I'm thinking the kind of room you see in police movies, with the interviewer/interviewee on the reflective side, and the observers on the see through side. You would be unable to hear or see anyone on the opposite side of the glass, and furthermore wouldn't even know if they were there. The event could be recorded from the see through side of the screen, so you could be sure at the end that the results were not "fiddled". The "starer", positioned on the opposite side of the mirror, would stare at you through the glass at random intervals during a specified time period. When you sense that you are being watched, you could raise your hand.

How long do you need to be watched before you know what is occuring? 10 seconds? One minute? I would suggest a half hour test, with the starer watching you a total of 10 times during the test, for say, 15 second intervals? Obviously we need a little more detail about what you are claiming before we can assist in a test that will work for you.

I'm essentially just brainstorming at the moment, but hopefully these ideas are of some assistance to you.

All the best,

Chris

 

[Robert Oz]

The "starer", positioned on the opposite side of the mirror, would stare at you through the glass at random intervals during a specified time period. When you sense that you are being watched, you could raise your hand.

The problem reason1 has raised is he doesn't think the ability will work if the person is told to stare as part of a test. In effect, reason1 wants the starers to be unaware a test is even being conducted.

reason1 will not accept any protocol that is conducted in a small room, with a limited number of people or even with people who are staring based on, say, the flip of a coin or the roll of a die.

reason1 is adamant that the test has to be in a public place with people who are staring because they want to stare and for no other reason, leaving the door wide open for confirmation bias.

Surely reason1 must be coming to the realisation that he would not be able to pass a controlled test. I don't mean this as an attack, but there are just way too many loopholes in reason1's claim, and I don't think there is a way around it purely based on his categorisation of staring into 'active' and 'passive' staring.

 

[Pantaz]

... yea actually I'm trying to apply confirmation bias to my suggested protocol...

reason1,
It appears you are not familiar with the term "confirmation bias". Here is the definition:

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.
<More...>

Confirmation bias is something to avoid.

 

[H3LL]

reason1 will not accept any protocol that is conducted in a small room, with a limited number of people or even with people who are staring based on, say, the flip of a coin or the roll of a die.

If this is so he does not have a testable claim.

End of story.

Chalk this one up alongside cloud-busting - also not testable.

 

[reason1]

just a question :
If after i win the challenge someone found that it was a fraud operation, will there be any legal actions against me ?, i mean will i lose the money ?

PS:I'm a little scared, I'm sure the Russians will be interested in kidnapping me to develop their new telepathic weapon.
But i hope the Americans get me first. hint: Sniper Detection System