• 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.

Paranormal detection

abr said:
i d'ont want to requierd media attention, and you give my answer,where i can pass the first test, give me your contact in europe contries or arabic countries
Click to expand...
To mod team:
I don't mind being unfairly treated by members of the forum but i do mind that on part of any moderator.
it's discrimination, why less eligible "new experience" thread still at the MDC sub-forum
 
Last edited:
reason1, it is equally easy for you to work towards developing a protocol for the challenge, and actually getting the required documentation no matter where this thread is.

So why not develop a protocol, rather than spending 8 pages, and several weeks talking on a thread that ultimately has nothing to do with preparing your challenge? You know what we think by now - you simply have not shown from your posts that you have any paranormal ability .

If you do not like it here, develop your protocol without the members here. Show us all up! A number of challengers have applied without even coming onto these forums. Focus on the challenge and stop trying to win brownie points by thinking that you are "winning" something on a BB.

Norm
 
Last edited:
reason1 - Thank you for reading through my other posts on different, unconnected threads.

I'd prefer instead if you read through everyone's posts in this thread and answer them constructively and not try your, rather poor, mind-reading skills out on me.

Your excuses and supposed lack of time to produce your promised explanatory post is obviously not true as you have plenty of time to trawl through my old posts that are irrelevant to the issues here.

So far:

  • You still have no intelligible claim.
  • You still have no protocol that is testable.
  • You still have not met minimum MDC requirements.

Your time would be better spend on these issues.




Meanwhile, you ignore my posts with suggestions/ideas for a protocol and an offer of my time to help you, stage by stage, to understand how to construct a protocol.

With each post you further demonstrate my suspicion that your motivations in this thread are dishonest.

The de ja vu is very strong - Does a close friend of yours claim to have a PhD?



.
 
Last edited:
If you have issues about a thread being moved you can either raise an Appeal in the Appeals section, or ask for discussion on it in the Forum Management section. Do not derail this thread further with complaints and comments about this thread being moved. Stay on topic in this thread, please.

reason1, when you are ready to apply with the relevant requirements, then you can open a new thread in the MDC section. It's as simple as that. As the previous 6 pages showed, this thread does not belong there.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
reason1 said:
regarding me being dishonest :
H3LL, can you please tell me how do you think i'm so ??!!!!
Click to expand...

Quite easy.

You misquoted me as saying:

H3LL said:
Now is the time to say "thank you very much" and leave us
Click to expand...


Whereas my actual quote was:

H3LL said:
Now is the time to say "thank you very much" and leave us and go to your lawyer as you suggested. He might have more patience than I.
Click to expand...


Note my use of the period. It is customary to use it at the end of sentences so that full meaning is apparent and to prevent people "accidentally" stopping half way through.

Perhaps there is a new definition of dishonest that you have yet to tell us about.

The definition I know of makes you dishonest.

Claiming lack of time when you have enough for irrelevant searches also makes you dishonest.

Cherry-picking my posts and ignoring the offers made is also dishonest IMHO.

It was expected and I fully expect more to come later.

I'm sure you won't disappoint.
 
Last edited:
reason1, so far, as far as I can tell, you have:

When someone does something that is not clearly defined I can do something that is not coherently described in an environment where undefined, poorly described, badly explained and incoherent actions can't be tested.

300+ posts on you should be doing better.


.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
You don't get my logical point,
Click to expand...

What logic? Your thread was relocated because, by your own account, you do not meet the requirements to apply for the MDC.
You say you could have lied about whether you were eligible, but you chose to be honest.
So, since you were honest, you are right back at not meeting the requirements to apply for the MDC.
Logically, that you could have lied about your eligibility is a moot point, since you didn't.

...which is:
i have a normal ability to lie that i share with all human race.
also have the ability to choose whether to lie or not.
Since I've chosen not to lie , this means i was honest.
Click to expand...

Okay, you were honest. Which means, again, you don't meet the requirements to apply for the MDC. Thus, the relocation of this thread was appropriate.

Hence ,you shouldn't punish me for that, and in the same time, if any other claimant did choose to lie, he wouldn't have been punished at all !.
Click to expand...

a) I'm not punishing you for anything; and b) how is the relocation of this thread a punishment, in any fashion? The mods didn't delete the thread - they simply moved it to the appropriate subforum. They've also stated, repeatedly, that when you are eligible to apply for the MDC, you can do so. Really, what difference does it make what subforum the thread is parked in, as long as it still exists, and your claim can still be discussed?

Why are you wasting time with the issue of the relocation of your thread when, as H3LL pointed out, your time would be better spent developing an intelligble claim, a testable protocol, and meeting the minimum MDC requirements?


GzuzKryzt said:
desertgal said:
No. YOU said you could have easily been lying about those two requirement. I'm simply wondering what purpose such a lie would serve, and why you would say you could have been lying if you weren't.
Click to expand...

Perhaps for the same reason he posted this.
Click to expand...

The type of behavior which, I'm sure, contributed to Randi's decision to pull the plug on the MDC.

As stated above, please keep this thread on-topic. Discussions concerning the movement of threads should take place in Forum Management.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited by a moderator:
reason1 said:
Hi nathan again, here is why you have been harassing me.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are playing a prank on us - meh.

If you really - really - believe nathan is envious about something concerning you, ah, er, oh, well, you are surely very mistaken.



I think I have done enough to try to help you. Discussing with you seems futile at this point.

Good day, reason1.
 
reason1 said:
...
There is no confirmation bias in the outcome results of experiments that involve self-evident hits and non self-evident misses, because the odds are against that the results shows 20 hits, while those experiments were done under random but scientifically acceptable controlled settings.
...
Click to expand...

I haven't had a laugh this good since Paul Carey left.
 
Hello reason 1. I see that you are at least responding to the posters here, which is something. I am curious about the central issue, though. Now that you know that your protocol involving a public place is unacceptable, have you considered using this thread to design an acceptable one? If your original protocol, complete with random strangers in public, is the only one acceptable to you, I don't see the point.
 
reason1 said:
As i have told you before that you can come up with many explanations for any paranormal claim, i myself can come up with some, even James Randi himself does it, but again this is off-topic.
you may say "why" ? ...i say "because it's contradicting the whole idea of the MDC".
It's like saying "what's wrong with those JREF stupid fools reserving 1 million dollars for paranormal claim that we all know for sure that it has normal explanations"
Click to expand...
This is the whole ballgame right here. R1, you have to show that all other potential explanations are impossible before you can conclude that a single one (paranormal or not) is the correct one.
 
I think it's interesting that just recently, he has shown less coherence in the way he articulates himself (I mean, those last replies to me do not make any sense at all. I'm not even bothering replying).

At the beginning of the claim, his posts were much more lucid and seemed to be written coherently. But these last posts.... it's almost like I'm reading Tim4848's thoughts or Yrreg's thoughts. Pure incoherence. It's almost as if the mask had been slowly wearing off.









:tr:
 
Hi UncaYimmy, i think there is some misunderstanding here.I didn't mean that i want your objective opinion about my previous experiences (of course you can't do that),but about my suggested protocol.
so let us give it another try:
what's is your objective thoughts about the following argument regarding confirmation bias ? (if you want to ,you may also put my protocol aside for the sake of the discussion)

There is no confirmation bias in the outcome results of experiments that involve self-evident hits and non self-evident misses, because the odds are against that the results shows 20 hits, while those experiments were done under random but scientifically acceptable controlled settings.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what the part in bold means.

In order for there to be confirmation bias, there needs to be something to be confirmed. The definition of hit and miss need to be defined as well. I don't get that from the above, so I really can't comment directly.

I will repeat what I have before in this thread and in others. When investigating a detection ability there are three possible outcomes for a given trial: Correct Detection, Failure to Detect, and False Positive (Incorrect Detection). A false positive is clearly a miss.

But is it confirmation bias to ignore Failures to Detect (FD)? Stated another way, is FD always a miss? No. It depends what you're testing.

Let's use a "hearing test" as an example. In a hearing test the subject is wearing headphones through which pure tones at various frequencies and volume levels are played. The subject indicates whenever he hears a tone. The technician then plots the frequency and volume level detected.

At the end of the test we will have a pretty good idea of what frequencies that person can hear and at what volume (if any) In this "test" we ignore the FDs. But that begs the question of whether we have performed a test or a study. In one sense it might be a good "test" to see if the person can hear at all. In another sense it is really just a "study" of the frequency response of that person's hearing.

What will complicate matters is if we have a lot of False Positives (FP). That is, the subject said he heard a tone when no tone was being played. A properly designed hearing test will play the tones at random intervals to keep the subject from anticipating when the next tone might be played. I'll leave it to the statisticians to work out the details, but suffice it to say that if there are a lot of FPs, then at best the test/study is inconclusive.

Sticking with the "hearing test" suppose somebody says that they can hear tones outside of the range of normal human hearing (below 15Hz and above 18kHz). What happens if we ignore the FDs? Well, once again it all depends. Our results might tell us that the subject can detect these tones but only at a certain volume or above. Thus in one sense we are "ignoring" the FDs when answering the yes/no question about his hearing. In another sense we are using that data to refine the claim.

So, under what situation must we always count the misses? When they are in direct contradiction to the claim.

Continuing with this example, suppose the subject says, "I can detect tones from 5Hz through 22kHz at a sound pressure level of X or higher." In that case we cannot ignore FDs at all nor can we ignore FPs. Similarly the subject might add "with 85% accuracy" to his claim. It wouldn't change the test protocol at all - only our true/false evaluation of the data.

So, in order to judge confirmation bias, we must know the exact claim and protocol. In my next post I will address that in regards to what you wrote early on.
 
'll be sitting in the chosen public place (maybe pretending that I'm reading a book)
When someone stares at me (whether from behind, above, right or left) I'll detect that and I'll suddenly look back exactly at that person.
The staring one will be caught off guard and will try to avoid being caught staring, by suddenly turning his/her head away which proves that he/she was staring at me.
It will be a sudden move from my side followed instantly by a sudden move form the staring one.
It's self-evident protocol that proves that I have scientifically unexplainable ability to detect people who stare at me.
Click to expand...

Here the specific issues I have with this:

* We need a definition of "staring" that will enable a reasonably intelligent and neutral observer to know that someone is "staring" at someone else (not just you). If your definition involves you personally in any way, then it is unacceptable. You don't have to call it staring. You can call it "shaggifying" if prefer. The definition is all that counts.

* How long will it be before you detect someone staring?

* What percentage of "starers" do you detect?

* What is your rate of false positives?

* At any given time how many people on average are staring at someone else?

* How can a reasonably intelligent and neutral observer know at whom you are looking when you react? The line of sight for a human is ~160 degrees. How can a neutral observer differentiate between you automatically seeking out the "starer" versus you consciously choosing someone who appears to be reacting to your movement?

* What percentage of the time is a book reader in a public place stared at? For example, if 80% of the time at least one person is staring at a book reader, then anytime the book reader turns his head left or right will result in detecting a "starer" 40% of the time.

* If we had 9 other subjects and yourself follow your protocol at separate times, how would impartial judges determine which of you had the ability?

* The only "self evident" conclusion right now is that if you suddenly turn and look at someone, they will react by looking away. You have not laid the foundation for any other conclusion.

My protocol, which was just a rough draft, either answers these questions or makes them irrelevant altogether. To be honest I would prefer you address my suggested protocol point by point.
 
reason1,

Okay, rather than continuing our discussion on whether your experiences are normal or paranormal, let's get back on the protocol.

reason1, please give us a protocol design that answers or eliminates the following problems:

1. How many cameras will be required to watch all faces in a moving crowd from multiple angles to see whether they are staring at you before you turn around and whether you react before they turn away?

2. What scientific equipment will be required to attach to every member of the crowd to determine whether they were staring with the appropriate emotion (i.e. actively staring)?

3. How will your protocol eliminate the effect of causing people to look at you by turning your head suddenly?

4. How will you count the number of people who stared at you and weren't detected?

Please answer UncaJimmy's and these four questions if you answer anything else. This would be a huge step forward in developing an acceptable protocol.
 
Last edited:
Robert Oz said:
reason1,

Okay, rather than continuing our discussion on whether your experiences are normal or paranormal, let's get back on the protocol.

reason1, please give us a protocol design that answers or eliminates the following problems:

1. How many cameras will be required to watch all faces in a moving crowd from multiple angles to see whether they are staring at you before you turn around and whether you react before they turn away?

2. What scientific equipment will be required to attach to every member of the crowd to determine whether they were staring with the appropriate emotion (i.e. actively staring)?

3. How will your protocol eliminate the effect of causing people to look at you by turning your head suddenly?

4. How will you count the number of people who stared at you and weren't detected?

Please answer UncaJimmy's and these four questions if you answer anything else. This would be a huge step forward in developing an acceptable protocol.
Click to expand...

Also add:

"Are you ready to pay for all of this, and for the lodging, food, and expenses of everyone involved?"

Remember, you're responsible for all of the costs of the Challenge, per the Challenge Rules.
 
De-railing threads, forward promoting things that never appear, harassing moderators, promising to post proof "later".

Is anyone else experiencing a strange sense of déjà vu?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom