Paranormal detection

[reason1]

Here's the thing, Reason1. You may be right in your assertions, but you have no evidence. What possible tests could we run to test your assertions and prove them false? The biggest problem here is these assertions, which none of us here seem to accept as valid. You'll need to prove your case.

Or you could read over my protocol and stipulate that I set up a condition that makes staring as you define it very likely. Then we can ignore your assertions.

It really does boil down to just those two options at this point.

yea.. i was just trying to make people understand the conditions under which i can use my ability (you said before that this can help), as i said before ,i will not be able to prove anything here...and i was drifted by some questions...
these conditions are very rquired by JREF and only the their official test can prove my claim ,but also you can prove/disprove any logic just on paper. can't you ?

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.

I totally agree with you, so please tell me where is your suggested controlled test ?....and also prove to me (using scientific/logical methods that are acceptable in the skeptics world) that my protocol test is uncontrolled...
true critical thinkers can do that ,can't they?
i'm waiting for evidence man....

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.

Protocols: No. Untestable dribble: Yes.

Evidence: Self evident.

Is this your protocol?

Is this your protocol?

This has got to be your protocol, right?

I'm so happppy!
Is he helping your write your protocol?

Got protocol?

A good start would be to show us what your suggested protocol is.

We can work from there.

Any chance of you writing your protocol for us to see?

Well done.

Rupert Sheldrake! A Pigasus award winner, no less.

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


.

Why so many people are asking about the protocol ?!!!!
i did begin suggesting one in my first post and I've also added more consistent details in later posts.
although i'll try the best i can, i didn't say that i'll be able to design the whole thing or eliminate all the problems by myself , and this is why i'm here.
why so many people are NAGGING about this ?!!!!!!!!!!!
Only official JREF Representatives should do that !!!!!!!

to H3LL:
I see you're still using others to gain more security...you are not strong enough and the PTSD will be so hard on you....i know that people like you will be trying to kill me, but as i'm not paranormal in regard to my escape ability ,it will be my last reflex at the killer before that shot in the head.
as unhappy as this ending is ,it will be another (and my last) proof of my paranormal detection ability.

Can you blame me ?...MDC is all about getting media attention , why not add Hollywood to the list

PS: You know that Pigasus award was withdrawn before , don't you ?

 

[arthwollipot]

UncaYimmy is just amazing, don't you think ?

Well I certainly can't find fault with anything you've highlighted, if that's what you mean.

 

[Uncayimmy]

yea.. i was just trying to make people understand the conditions under which i can use my ability (you said before that this can help), as i said before ,i will not be able to prove anything here...and i was drifted by some the questions...
these conditions are very rquired by JREF and only the their official test can prove my claim ,but also you can prove/disprove any logic just on paper. can't you ?

At this point in time I think everyone understands what you are saying about why you believe you have an ability. Had I experienced everything you have described, I would not come to the same conclusions. I don't think others here would either. I believe you have made a hasty and optimistic conclusion, something all humans do.

In other words you could take any 10 of us skeptics and let us observe you in various public situations for 100 hours. We could all agree that we we saw things exactly as you have described. We could all agree that events like you describe happened 500 times.

And yet the 10 of us would not conclude that the only conclusion is that you can detect when people are staring at you.

So, I will repeat. Either address those issues or explain why my suggested protocol would not suffice as an adequate substitute for a public setting.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why so many people are asking about the protocol ?!!!!
i did begin suggesting one in my first post and I've also added more consistent details in later posts.
although i'll try the best i can, i didn't say that i'll be able to design the whole thing or eliminate all the problems by myself , and this is why i'm here.
why so many people are NAGGING about this ?!!!!!!!!!!!
Only official JREF Representatives should do that !!!!!!!

It's true, only official representatives of the JREF are empowered to negotiate with you about your application for the Challenge. But you haven't submitted an application, and therefore no JREF representatives are involved. UncaYimmy, among others such as myself, are trying to help you to formulate your application in such a way that it will not be immediately dismissed as soon as you submit it. The protocol I suggested way back at the very beginning of the thread would have been accepted by the JREF, but you stated that it was not a good test of your abilities. The protocol you suggest has a whelk's chance in a supernova of being accepted by the JREF because the actions of a large number of random passers-by are impossible to take account of.

Instead of getting defensive, try thinking about ways in which your experiences may be fooling you. Think to yourself "what if I am wrong about this? What would that imply? If I am wrong and I have no ability, what would the result be if I tried this particular experiment?"

The whole point of the protocol, after all, is to ensure that there is no other explanation for the results that you experience in testing. Your current protocol does not ensure this. My original protocol did, but as you say it is not a good test of the ability you claim, so there's not much I can do about it.

 

[fromdownunder]

Why so many people are asking about the protocol ?!!!!

Beacuse a protocol is... sort of... what you need to make any progress. Do you not understand that it is up to you to design a protocol?

There have been at least six potential protocols on this thread that I recall, and you have simply refused to make any constructive comments on any of them. At best, you have said words along the lines that "I have problems with that one", That is, for somebody who claims a supernatural power, absolutely pathetic. You claim to know what you can do, so design a protocol around your talent It's simple really!

You have refused to specifically comment on any of the offered protocols, and your "long post" is, in my belief a complete fiction, because you seem to be doing nothing more than stringing people along to keep your thread alive, and replying to issues for many days without even attempting to write and post what you promised to do..

UncleYimmy has already responded that he wants specific criticism of his proposed protocol, which is what he asked of you. So, concentrate on that. Don't talk about it. Do it.

Where is your protocol? Where is your considered criticism of UncleYimmy's proposed protocol. You can go nowhere without it, and it is not the responsibility of the members of this Board to hand feed you, simply because you appear to be incapable of feeding yourself..

If you now not respond to what you were specifically asked to do by the admired UncleYimmy, and with a specific point by point comment on his proposed protocol, then you are nothing but a troll.

Norm

 

[Robert Oz]

Even though I don't believe there's anything paranormal involved, I would offer this half-baked idea as a possible starting point for a protocol. Like with my underwear, I'm throwing this against the wall to see if anything sticks.

Unconscious Desire to Stare
Volunteer "starers" are not told about the true nature of the test. They are told to select the subject with the most interesting hat (humor me here) or none at all if they don't find anyone interesting.

In addition to Reason1 there will be 9 other subjects. There will be 10 different hats. Note: I am pulling these numbers out of my rectum. For each trial the hats are randomly assigned to a subject. The subjects will all be male and roughly the same build as Reason1. They will dress similarly - say jeans and the same color t-shirt. For each trial they will sit in identical chairs with their positions randomly assigned. The subjects will have their backs to the starer.

The Stare
The volunteer is given a video camera and told to center the selected subject in the viewfinder. I'm sure others could flesh out this part to ensure that there is no discrepancy about which subject is selected (tripods, lens markings, fixed zoom).

The volunteer is given some maximum amount of time to signal that a subject is selected. This information is relayed to the volunteers. While continuing to look at the subject, the volunteer will narrate why they chose that subject. What is it about the hat or the person that is interesting? Why do they think this person chose the hat? What type of person might choose such a hat? Of course, precautions must be taken so that the subjects cannot hear this.

To me, at least, this would seem to meet the conscious and unconscious requirements of interest that Reason1 has outlined.

The Reflex
After being told that the volunteer has selected a subject, Reason1 will be free to react in a visible way. Turning around will be sufficient as would raising his hand. If Reason1 is the selected subject, it's a hit. Otherwise it's a miss. Likewise, if Reason1 does not react during the time limit (two minutes?), that would also be a miss.

Evaluation
A second video camera unseen by the volunteer will record the entire row of subjects. The volunteers camera will indicate the selected subject. Judging a reaction or lack of one should be self-evident.

Granted, this is not the most practical test in the world, but it might suffice as a good starting point.

I think UncaYimmy's suggestion is a good starting point for reason1's protocol and would be interested to hear why reason1 does not find it acceptable.

We can, of course, suggest changes to the protocol as issues are raised. At least, then, we will actually be discussing a protocol.

 

[arthwollipot]

How about getting a bunch of volunteers to stand around Reason1, and selecting one randomly to stare at him. He could then look/point at the one he believes to be staring. Would something like that work?

 

[Uncayimmy]

How about getting a bunch of volunteers to stand around Reason1, and selecting one randomly to stare at him. He could then look/point at the one he believes to be staring. Would something like that work?

For you and me? Yeh. For Reason1? Not so much. He has repeatedly said that the person staring at him must have an interest in doing so that is beyond merely being told to do so. That's why in my protocol I tried to establish a controlled situation where the starer is choosing someone who is interested in the subject for their own reasons and is unaware of the real reason for the test.

 

[Robert Oz]

Here is another suggestion for a protocol. Please tell me what you think of it (in detail), reason1. If there are things wrong with it, tell me exactly what you think is wrong.


1. You are in a sound-proof room seated in a chair facing a blank wall.

2. There are six booths spread behind you on the other side of sound-proof glass with an aura reader in each booth.

3. A booth is selected by the roll of a die.

4. Based on the roll of the die, an aura reader is selected.

5. A coin is flipped.

6. Based on the flip of the coin, the selected aura reader is either instructed to look at the wall above your head or to read and discuss your aura. The other five aura readers will be staring at the wall above your head.

7. If you feel the aura reader staring at you (because they will be staring at you intently for their own interest to read your aura) you turn to face the booth you feel the staring coming from.

8. Repeat 50 times.


ETA: I've picked up on an issue with my suggested protocol and have edited my post to fix.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

arthwollipot -- reason1 believes (though he has never done any kind of testing, or even asking, to determine this) that there is some special kind of "staring" that must be done, based upon the starer being fascinated by or attracted to him; and that he only "feels" this kind of staring. Anyone told to stare at him for test purposes will, he claims, not trigger the response in him. Although, since he has never asked any of the people he 'detected' staring at him, he has no way of knowing if that is true, or not.

And the beat goes on....

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, well as I said I skipped a whole pile of posts. What about introducing a reward? If you stare at this guy and he notices you staring at him, I'll give you $10? Would that consititute a reason for staring?

 

[reason1]

At this point in time I think everyone understands what you are saying about why you believe you have an ability. Had I experienced everything you have described, I would not come to the same conclusions. I don't think others here would either. I believe you have made a hasty and optimistic conclusion, something all humans do.

In other words you could take any 10 of us skeptics and let us observe you in various public situations for 100 hours. We could all agree that we we saw things exactly as you have described. We could all agree that events like you describe happened 500 times.

And yet the 10 of us would not conclude that the only conclusion is that you can detect when people are staring at you.

So, I will repeat. Either address those issues or explain why my suggested protocol would not suffice as an adequate substitute for a public setting.

hi UncaYimmy,
i did address this issues when i said "i sense staring and also get feed back at the same moment" and adding to that "i do look around all the time (when i don't sense any staring) but i don't get any reflexes feed back"
Also i'll not be able to discuss your protocol if you are saying that my claim is not paranormal in the first place , there is no point of doing that ?

 

[fromdownunder]

hi UncaYimmy,

Also i'll not be able to discuss your protocol if you are saying that my claim is not paranormal in the first place , there is no point of doing that ?

I think that this statement just beautifully summed up the entire value of the thread. Protocols cannot be discussed unless the person writiing the protocol actually believes Reason1. I guess that it is over to VisionFromFeeling to design a protocol.

Good luck people. I will sit back and watch.

Norm

 

[steenkh]

I would suggest that we could get around the "staring with intent" problem through the following procedure: reason1 one will get a picture of a naked woman pinned to his back. A number of male test persons will be put in a room behind reason1's back, and and according to a die throw, only one will be able to see reason1, while the others are equipped with a hood over their heads. If reason1 can pinpoint which test person is trying to make out the picture on his back, it will be scored as a hit.

 

[eirik]

Here is my suggested protocol:

1. You are in a sound-proof, soft padded room.

 

[fromdownunder]

I would suggest that we could get around the "staring with intent" problem through the following procedure: reason1 one will get a picture of a naked woman pinned to his back. A number of male test persons will be put in a room behind reason1's back, and and according to a die throw, only one will be able to see reason1, while the others are equipped with a hood over their heads. If reason1 can pinpoint which test person is trying to make out the picture on his back, it will be scored as a hit.

I have already suggested a proto-protocol where people would not even know who thay were supposed to be staring at or why. They were not even aware what they were supposed to be doing. It was not rejected by Reason1, but completely ignored, probably for the same reason he has rejected other protocols which actually test his ability, now including his former "friend" UncaYimmy, whom the rest of us have apparently turned to the dark side.

Perhaps he really does intend to attempt to sue the JREF for not accepting his challenge. Of course he would have to prepare one first, and that seems to be outside his capacity.

But, if you do not accept that he has the POWER, any protocol you suggest will not be acceptable to him.

Norm

 

[Pixel42]

Also i'll not be able to discuss your protocol if you are saying that my claim is not paranormal in the first place , there is no point of doing that ?

The whole point of a proper test protocol is to establish whether there is something paranormal going on or not. You think there is, from your descriptions of the experiences which led you to believe so pretty much everyone else here suspects you are being inadvertantly fooled by confirmation bias, but it doesn't matter what anyone believes: a properly designed test protocol will prove it one way or the other.

UncaYimmy, like almost everyone else here, is trying to help you design a protocol which will make it self evident whether it's your belief or our suspicions which are correct. The protocol you originally suggested would not do so, for reasons which have been explained to you ad nauseam. Your claim is now so nebulous that I personally doubt whether any protocol can do so, but UncaYimmy's is the best that has so far been suggested. Either work with him to refine it to your satisfaction, suggest a better protocol of your own (which isn't completely uncontrollable, like your original suggestion) or accept that your claim is untestable and give up.

 

[H3LL]

....i know that people like you will be trying to kill me.....

Yet another example of your dishonesty and delusion.

I missed the post where I suggested a protocol that 10 people randomly "stare" at you through rifle sights and if you don't detect the "staring" quick enough ...

They shoot you!





Mind you, maybe you could include this in your protocol?

Would targeting you through gun sights qualify as "staring"?

The accuracy of the "staring" would be self evident when they fire.

The weapons could be paint-ball guns. (It can't be too hard to find a paint-ball club willing to shoot you).

This could be done in public - I actually like the idea of it done in public. The more the merrier.

It could bring a whole new dimension to assessing hits and misses.


Do we have the bare bones of a protocol for you?

The interest from the military in your amazing ability, that you seem to want, is almost assured.

.

 

[chillzero]

Confusing the MDC with the Pigasus award is just about the funniest unintentional irony I've ever seen.

 

[Ravenwood]

Yet another example of your dishonesty and delusion.

I missed the post where I suggested a protocol that 10 people randomly "stare" at you through rifle sights and if you don't detect the "staring" quick enough ...

They shoot you!





Mind you, maybe you could include this in your protocol?

Would targeting you through gun sights qualify as "staring"?

The accuracy of the "staring" would be self evident when they fire.

The weapons could be paint-ball guns. (It can't be too hard to find a paint-ball club willing to shoot you).

This could be done in public - I actually like the idea of it done in public. The more the merrier.

It could bring a whole new dimension to assessing hits and misses.


Do we have the bare bones of a protocol for you?

The interest from the military in your amazing ability, that you seem to want, is almost assured.

.

Since he said his "power" would be good for sniper detection, I suggested a test with Simmunition (a .223 paint round fired from a low power powder cartridge loaded in a modified AR-15. They are used in CQB training & hurt like hell! waaaay more than paintballs...) I figure the test could be carried out at a indoor range, 6 marksmen, spread out 30m behind him, one randomly selected marksman aims at him through his sights, the others look away & he calls the position of the marksman before he fires...If he is correct, the designated marksman does not fire, & the next random marksman goes through the previous routine. At the least, it will be a heck of an entertaining test...it's also a bare bones suggestion, but it might suffice (at least it would be self evident. He either calls out the correct marksman's number, or gets hit with a .223 paint round in the back...)