• 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

Ravenwood said:
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...)
Click to expand...


You should have R1 as one of 6 targets and they all fire each time (different colours. Linky )

This eliminates accidental "staring" as they can't possibly be accidentally "staring" at R1 if they hit a different target.

The "staring" at R1 is most definitely with "interest" and "intense", as he wants.

They can even wait until R1 has detected the shooter - Then fire.

It also has the extra bonus of R1 being shot each time.

Ensure no one is looking except the marksmen. Randomly select targets and communicate to snipers by headset. (Selection and even ammunition colour can be blinded).

Ready!
"Stare"!
Wait for it, wait-for-it ......
(R1 indicates staring detected (button connected to a buzzer?) - [#4 - Blue]).
FIRE!!!

R1 hit by red round from #2.

FAIL!

Repeat. Many, many times.


There are only minor details to work out. This could be the most fun test ever. :D


ETA: He might even be able to get the military to help set it up on a range with trained soldiers (good target practice for them and training in holding a bead). A contribution to a veteran's fund or similar may be all the investment he needs.


.
 
Last edited:
H3LL said:
You should have R1 as one of 6 targets and they all fire each time (different colours. Linky )

This eliminates accidental "staring" as they can't possibly be accidentally "staring" at R1 if they hit a different target.

The "staring" at R1 is most definitely with "interest" and "intense", as he wants.

They can even wait until R1 has detected the shooter - Then fire.

It also has the extra bonus of R1 being shot each time.

Ensure no one is looking except the marksmen. Randomly select targets and communicate to snipers by headset. (Selection and even ammunition colour can be blinded).

Ready!
"Stare"!
Wait for it, wait-for-it ......
(R1 indicates staring detected (button connected to a buzzer?) - [#4 - Blue]).
FIRE!!!

R1 hit by red round from #2.

FAIL!

Repeat. Many, many times.


There are only minor details to work out. This could be the most fun test ever. :D


ETA: He might even be able to get the military to help set it up on a range with trained soldiers (good target practice for them and training in holding a bead). A contribution to a veteran's fund or similar may be all the investment he needs.


.
Click to expand...


Brilliant, guys! Simply brilliant! :D


M.
 
I like the idea of this test, too, since it more specifically tests reason1's assertion that he can detect snipers.

I highly doubt that the military will be interested. I am not a spokesperson for any branch in the military, but I just can't see any instance in which the military would be slightly interested in involving themselves in a test of psychic powers in which military personnel shoot a civilian with anything (simunition or no). I mean, go ahead and ask, but I just don't think there's a good chance of it.

However, I am SURE that there are plenty of paintballer clubs out there who would be DELIGHTED to play. H3LL's idea of using different colors for the shooters is a good one.

However, I would recommend a protocol in which there is one shooter, but several different shooting locations with a weapon at each one. Let's say there are four firing "platforms". There will be a screen in front of each weapon, with a cutout that allows the barrel to protrude and allows the shooter to see the target. A piece of plastic or cloth, shiny silver on one side and black on the other, will be placed across the cutout (with a hole for the barrel, but covering up the rest of the cutout with the shiny silver side on the side of the target -- the net effect is that a person downrange will not see into the cutout (and see that there is a shooter in place through the cutout).

The location for the target should be such that the target can either be concealed (unable to see uprange) or revealed, and should be far enough away fro the platforms so that sounds should not reveal the location of the shooter.

So, essentially, it goes like this:

Target places himself in the concealed position with an observer. Perhaps a boombox might be employed to make some noise while the setup is in progress.

A shooting platform is randomly chosen. The shooter positions him- or herself in that location. The shooter's observer signals that the shooter is ready via some means that doesn't betray the location of the shooter.

Target makes himself visible. Observers mark the time on their watches. Shooter sights on target.

Target identifies the platform in which the shooter is located. Target may look at the platform. The identification must be made within 15 seconds of the target making himself visible. Observer records choice.

After 15 seconds, shooter's observer instructs shooter to shoot. Shooter attempts to shoot target. This is paintball, so it shouldn't be all that bad if the shooter is successful (and, of course, all necessary PPE will be utilized). It is necessary for the shooter to shoot in order for the intent to shoot to be maintained throughout the test.

If the target successfully identifies the shooter's location four out of ten times or more, the test is a success. If the target successfully identifies the shooter's location three or fewer times out of ten, the test is a failure.

You can do it with two shooting platforms instead of four, but if I'm not mistaken, you'd need to do it 9 times out of ten in order to beat 1:1000 odds.

Reason1, any problem with this protocol?
 
Last edited:
reason1, let me tell you a little bit about the Invisible Dragon.

Me: There's a dragon in my garage.
You: Cool! Could you show me a picture of it?
Me: Sorry, but no. It's invisible. But there really is a dragon in my garage.
You: Invisible, huh? What about IR?
Me: Sorry, it emits a magical kind of heat the doesn't show up on IR scopes.
You: Perhaps you could throw some flour into the garage? Surely some of it would stick to the dragon, or at least reveal its shape and footprints.
Me: Good idea! Only it's not really a very large dragon, so I probably wouldn't be able to catch it with the flour. Oh, and it's constantly levitating, so putting flour on the floor shouldn't show any footprints, sorry.
You: What about hitting the garage with a wide-angle spray from a fire hose?
Me: Ah, terrific! Only...the garage is too big to be completely covered by the spray and the dragon would just move out of the way as we panned it back and forth.
You: Multiple fire hoses?
Me: It might work, but the dragon is also telepathic. It could sense where we were going to play the hoses and move out of the way. Plus, I don't want that much water damage in my garage, sorry!
You: So there isn't any way to really prove that the dragon is there, is there?
Me: But it is there. Didn't I tell you that?

What's going on here is that the claim starts out simple, but as you try to brainstorm ideas for ways to actually test my claim, the claim starts to get more and more complex. Ultimately, the claim is untestable.

I am suggesting that your description of your ability to detect staring is turning out to be absolutely no different from my claim of a dragon in my garage.
 
Jackalgirl, R1 did say he needed a number of people around IIRC and this was rejected by others as we have no way of verifying who is "staring" intently, glancing or whatever. It was reliant on R1 himself deciding who was "staring" - So no good.

My hope was that using several marksmen gives R1 a number of people, would confirm that five of them were definitely not "staring" at him and would be self evident by them hitting targets away from him.

I also could not think of a more intense and verifiable method of "staring" than targeting someone.

BTW, the military tested that ridiculous landmine dowsing device - so you never know.

ETA: Dragon In My Garage
 
Last edited:
H3LL said:
Jackalgirl, R1 did say he needed a number of people around IIRC and this was rejected by others as we have no way of verifying who is "staring" intently, glancing or whatever. It was reliant on R1 himself deciding who was "staring" - So no good.

My hope was that using several marksmen gives R1 a number of people, would confirm that five of them were definitely not "staring" at him and would be self evident by them hitting targets away from him.
Click to expand...

I understand; however, he did initially talk about how useful his powers were in detecting snipers, and how he thought the military would be interested.

That's why I'm discarding the "target in a crowd of potential starers" protocol. If he says his powers would allow him to detect a sniper, then we should set up a situation in which there is a sniper. Snipers rarely work in packs (I think), so we should have just one sniper and spotter (aka the observer), as happens in the real world.

If reason1 comes up with a reason why this protocol wouldn't work (such as the need for a pack of snipers), well, at least we can say that the military would likely have no interest whatsoever in this person.

H3LL said:
I also could not think of a more intense and verifiable method of "staring" than targeting someone.
Click to expand...

I totally agree! I think it is a stellar idea. : )

H3LL said:
BTW, the military tested that ridiculous landmine dowsing device - so you never know.
Click to expand...

Well, in that case, the dowsing device was gussied up in a bunch of pseudoscientific babble that could be impressive to someone with little experience with the scientific method. But reason1 isn't claiming that he has a gadget that works on quantum principles to detect something -- he's pretty much straight out claiming superpowers.

(Which are turning out to be of questionable utility, IMO, but still...)
 
I'm betting that the target idea will be rejected because it's not the right kind of interest. It's going to turn into "positive" interest or something equally impossible to define.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm betting that the target idea will be rejected because it's not the right kind of interest. It's going to turn into "positive" interest or something equally impossible to define.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but then Reason1 will have to drop his idea of being abducted by the Russians or US to be used as "Sniper Detection System" (post #140)
 
Multiple staring from Ravenwood and I and Jackalgirl's sniper scenario and lots of other suggestions, old and new.

R1 should be good to go.

Protocol time.

Or is it just the old wriggle, squirm and derail time - hard to tell?

We shall see.
 
The thread's title is Paranormal Detection

The claimant does indeed claim something quite paranormal: To detect being stared only when the person was staring with a lot of intent and desire

You have got to be quite a MINDFREAK to be able to do that

Here's my protocol:

-Gather 10 people
-One of them is a cannibal. Make sure he hasn't eaten for a couple days
-Put each one of them in separate cubicles with an opening to the front, but walls on the sides so that they can't see each other (And so that the cannibal can't see the other people. Only Reason1)
-The cannibal, starved as he should be, will stare at Reason1 with a very strong intent and desire
-If Reason1 does not turn around and point to the cannibal, he has FAILED
 
Jackalgirl said:
reason1, let me tell you a little bit about the Invisible Dragon.

Me: There's a dragon in my garage.
You: Cool! Could you show me a picture of it?
Me: Sorry, but no. It's invisible. But there really is a dragon in my garage.
You: Invisible, huh? What about IR?
Me: Sorry, it emits a magical kind of heat the doesn't show up on IR scopes.
You: Perhaps you could throw some flour into the garage? Surely some of it would stick to the dragon, or at least reveal its shape and footprints.
Me: Good idea! Only it's not really a very large dragon, so I probably wouldn't be able to catch it with the flour. Oh, and it's constantly levitating, so putting flour on the floor shouldn't show any footprints, sorry.
You: What about hitting the garage with a wide-angle spray from a fire hose?
Me: Ah, terrific! Only...the garage is too big to be completely covered by the spray and the dragon would just move out of the way as we panned it back and forth.
You: Multiple fire hoses?
Me: It might work, but the dragon is also telepathic. It could sense where we were going to play the hoses and move out of the way. Plus, I don't want that much water damage in my garage, sorry!
You: So there isn't any way to really prove that the dragon is there, is there?
Me: But it is there. Didn't I tell you that?

What's going on here is that the claim starts out simple, but as you try to brainstorm ideas for ways to actually test my claim, the claim starts to get more and more complex. Ultimately, the claim is untestable.

I am suggesting that your description of your ability to detect staring is turning out to be absolutely no different from my claim of a dragon in my garage.
Click to expand...
Hi Jackalgirl,
I like analogies they can explain things better.
But i think the analogy here is wrong in regard to my claim .Here is my version of it :
Me: Dragons come to me in my garage.

skeptic: Cool! Could you show one to me?.

Me: Sorry, but no. they're invisible, i myself can't see them. But i can really sense when there is one in my garage.

skeptic : Invisible, huh? What about IR?.

Me :no...there is no scientific method to measure their existence but i'm sure there will be one in the future.

skeptic: but if you don't see them,how are you being so sure they're there ?.

Me:The Dragons somehow subconsciously transmit their existence to me by some kind of telepathic mean ,and when i receive this signal I shout at one of them saying "INVISIBLE DRAGON".at the same moment when i do that ,the Dragon will be trying to run and the whole house will be just like going down, it's like an earthquake.

skeptic: yea...but there is confirmation bias here, you do speak loudly in your garage all the time and there would be no effect.

Me: true...but I've never shouted "INVISIBLE DRAGON" in my garage when i didn't sense the Dragons.

skeptic: yea..but there is a possibility that when you shout "INVISIBLE DRAGON" and there will be no effect.also there could be an actual earthquake at the same moment.

Me: true...this is possible, but i can do this many times.

skeptic: you seem to be delusional here , how about i get you an elephant from behind, and you shout when you sense it ?.

Me: no..i only can do that with those invisible Dragons and I've never tested it with elephants.

skeptic: but this makes your claim untestable.

Me: why...it's self-evident ...the same moment I shout "INVISIBLE DRAGON" there will be an earthquake

skeptic: yea right :rolleyes:... how about you tell your Dragon to come to my lab,so we can test your claim ?.

Me: no..i can't order the dragons to do anything , they come and go by their wish ,they're afraid of humans, and they don't want anyone to know about their existence. Also even if one of the dragons came to me in the lab, it will not be caught off guard and won't try to escape, the dragon will be prepared and will not do anything that can actually prove its existence.

skeptic: OK...how many times you can do this in your garage ?.

Me: I can do it thousand times.

skeptic: hmmm...But how about when there will be also thousand actual earthquakes at the same moment ?.

Me: what ! :(.....i'm hanging myself in my the garage
Click to expand...

maybe it's not perfect but it's pretty close :)
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
maybe it's not perfect but it's pretty close :)
Click to expand...

You took all that time to write a load of drivel but can't take the time to write a protocol.

Your next post maybe?
 
Last edited:
Instead of complicating the scenario with the dragon (even if you believed, or knew, it was there), you could instead simply shout "Earthquake!". That way, you would not have to prove the dragon is there, but still win the JREF prize for doing something paranormal.

Maybe you could apply this same simplification to your paranormal detection claim? You don't have to explain why or how this staring (or whatever word best describes it) works - just define a scenario, that can be tested in a controlled environment, that doesn 't seem to have any other explanation except a paranormal ability?
 
And meanwhile, I was wasting my time writing one for him and I still haven't heard any feedback
 
H3LL said:
Can I find a human-flesh eating person?

Can I balls!
Click to expand...

Sure, if you could help us out and start finding a cannibal that will agree to spend two days without eating and then being part of a scientific test, then please.... by all means.....

Oh and H3LL?..... be careful
 
reason1 said:
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"
Click to expand...
Actually, you didn't address the specific issues I laid out.

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 ?
Click to expand...
I never said your claim was not paranormal. I said that based on the observations you have related thus far, I would not agree that a paranormal ability is the only explanation of the events.

For example, suppose I am holding something in my hand. It's red and comes from a plant. Cut it open and you will find seeds. It's edible. Can you with certainty says it's an apple? Tomato? Of course not. Does that mean it cannot be a tomato or an apple? Of course not.

My protocol operates under the assumption that you do, in fact, have a paranormal ability. It attempts to reproduce the proper conditions for testing. In fact it is probably very similar to the preliminary tests the military would do should they be interested in your claim.
 
What about, we get a hungry tiger which is separated from me by a thick sound/break-proof wall of glass ?.
The stare of the kill is the most intense kind that i can detect .:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom