• 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

reason1 said:
UncaYimmy is just amazing, don't you think ?
Click to expand...
He is that. He's one of the few Skeptics here who actually work with you rather than just make fun of the Claimants. And he'll work real hard on getting you a protocol too. We're glad to have him. :) Even if he did say he'll take my Nobel prize if there is a discovery. :confused:
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
news:
I'm officially in contact with Rupert Sheldrake.
Click to expand...
102 posts already, and you are in contact with Sheldrake, congratulations are in order I suppose...

Now I assume after posting OVER ONE HUNDRED TIMES, that you've had adequate time to post your "long post" that you have continually promised.

I would also assume that somewhere in those 100+ posts you've had a chance to post a detailed protocol that might be considered acceptable by the JREF (that is what you are here for after all, isn't it?).

I have tried to look for this detailed post with the protocol, but I've been unable to find it. In the interest of fairness I am going to assume it was an oversight on my part, and ask for your help.
Could you please provide me a link to this long post containing the detailed protocol for the JREF million $ challenge? I appreciate it very much.
 
reason1 said:
news:
I'm officially in contact with Rupert Sheldrake.
Click to expand...



Well done.

Rupert Sheldrake! A Pigasus award winner, no less.

Can you show us the test protocol you have shown him?


.
 
Last edited:
The Road to Rupert:

March 11:

reason1 said:
WOW....Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
Is he still alive... i mean Rupert Sheldrake...how do i contact him ?
i think i'll be getting my media profile and affidavits quicker than i thought.
this is going to be huge....i'm too excited.

thanks DevilsAdvocate !
Click to expand...

reason1 said:
...
ps:
i found Rupert Sheldrake email address, i will invite him to this discussion.I hope he signs up
Click to expand...

March 23:

reason1 said:
news:
I'm officially in contact with Rupert Sheldrake.
Click to expand...
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
He is that. He's one of the few Skeptics here who actually work with you rather than just make fun of the Claimants. And he'll work real hard on getting you a protocol too. We're glad to have him. :) Even if he did say he'll take my Nobel prize if there is a discovery. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yea...UncaYimmy won't hesitate to objectively defend you in the faces of some clowns who claim that they're true skeptics. this man is real honest skeptic.

PS: I didn't contact Rupert Sheldrake until 20 march
 
Last edited:
to Pup:
thanks for being objective and open-minded, i'll reply to your questions later.
thanks to you too dlorde.
 
reason1 said:
Yea...UncaYimmy won't hesitate to objectively defend you in the faces of some clowns who claim that they're true skeptics. this man is real honest skeptic.
Click to expand...

Please drop the personal stuff, be it positive or negative. It's irrelevant to the task at hand. You're a long way from defining a protocol or even establishing that what you've experienced in the past is even worthy of future testing. Let's concentrate on that and forget the personalities.
 
chillzero said:
I'm willing to bet the complaint will be that each person is not staring at the applicant 'with intent', but has their mind on the image they are attempting to project, rather than the person they are supposed to be staring at 'with intent'.
Click to expand...
Indeed - my suggestion was no more than that, a suggestion. If the claimant is serious about a controlled experiment, I would expect there to be some mutually agreeable approach for the starers, e.g. try to count number of head twitches, wait for subtle nod, try to pick up claimant's projected picture/word/etc.

The more specific the test conditions have to be, the less plausible the claim of being able to do it with ease in an uncontrolled public place becomes.
 
reason1 said:
Hi chillzero,
well...let me start by giving an analogy:
suppose you're holding your hand behind your back and suddenly something hot touched your hand...what would you do at that moment?....
Yes, you reflex your face and look back at direction of that hot thing, and when you find some smoke is coming out of it , this proves to you that it is the actual hot thing that touched you....
Will you be making an assumption here, that this thing touched you and it is actually hot ?....
NO...because you sensed it and also got feed back from it.
the same here for my ability...i sense staring and also i get feed back, that it is actual staring, and that happened thousands of times.




GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Is this your protocol?
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
yea...of course you are right, i'll not be able to prove anything here ,only the official test will prove that.
All i can do is to tell how to test my claim which is :
"i can detect when people stare at me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, when i sit in a public place and while not having any eye contact with anyone of those people"
Click to expand...
Is this your protocol?
 
reason1 said:
Hi , welcome to the topic,
Well...UncaYimmy also addressed this issue.
but i think it's a problem only if at any certain moment someone could be staring at me from all directions.
here is a solution (still thinking it through though):
at random intervals the testers will instruct me to simulate a reflex in any giving direction. i don't think there will be significant opposite reflexes



I think that will take much more time than a fast reflex.
i'm not saying it's not possible, but It's a matter of probability not possibility.
also the chances/odds are only for testers ,as i don't make reflexes at people when i don't sense any staring ,so i can't be fooling myself



Hi H3LL,
i see you are having a good time, but here is word for you:
i will not accept my protocol if proven flawed, and also i will not reject any suggested protocol without giving good logical reasons, you can be sure of that.
Click to expand...
This has got to be your protocol, right?
 
reason1,

Your claim:

When people stare at me, but:

1. aren't asked to stare at me;
2. don't know they should be staring at me;
3. don't know I am being tested;
4. don't know they are being watched or filmed; and
5. don't know I can detect them staring by paranormal means; then

I can detect them by paranormal means.

Is this correct?

Success is determined by:

When I turn my head suddenly, the person staring will either:

1. be caught staring directly at me;
2. turn away suddenly proving he/she was staring directly at me before turning away; or
3. avert his/her eyes to pretend he was not staring at me when he/she really was.

Is this correct?

Your protocol is:

?


When writing your protocol, please include how you will track all people taking part in the test without their knowledge, how you will count misses and how the results will be self evident.


I can't believe I came back. :boggled:
 
Robert Oz said:
...
Your protocol is:
...
Click to expand...

As this thread nears the five-century-mark:

According to himself, reason1 understands the process of his claimed phenomenon well enough to know about most major details, right?

If he had any interest in a controlled test, he would have submitted a protocol - at least a rough draft giving a success/failure scenario - long ago.



One will not coerce a believer to enter a controlled test. Mike Guska, aka edge, has provided an excellent example what could happen if a believer is presented with evidence from a controlled test.

Reason1 will not enter a controlled test. A believer needs his belief to be true. Not even a possible One Million Dollar Prize is enough to entice him to give up his belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom