Paranormal detection

[reason1]

the lights will be dimmed in the tiger side, and the glass wall can be one-way mirror ,so the tiger can see me when i don't
but it will be horrifying experience for me

 

[H3LL]

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

We shall see.

It seems I have the ability to see into the future - Along with most other people viewing this thread ... probably.

Your time could be better spent writing a protocol instead of this:

What about, we get a hungry tiger ...<words>......

the lights will be dimmed in the tiger side, ... <words>

Any chance of a protocol R1?

Maybe your next post perhaps?

.

 

[Uncayimmy]

the lights will be dimmed in the tiger side, and the glass wall can be one-way mirror ,so the tiger can see me when i don't
but it will be horrifying experience for me

Your conduct in this thread - all of it - indicates the seriousness of your claim and thus dictates our responses. Act accordingly.

 

[reason1]

Your conduct in this thread - all of it - indicates the seriousness of your claim and thus dictates our responses. Act accordingly.

yea..i'm not serious..never tested this tiger experience..but i'm sure that my ancestors did it, hence i can also do it.

 

[Rodibidably]

yea..i'm not serious..never tested this tiger experience..but i'm sure that my ancestors did it, hence i can also do it.

OK, I'm calling Poe.

NOBODY can be this dense. It's just... not... possible.

 

[H3LL]

OK, I'm calling Poe.

NOBODY can be this dense. It's just... not... possible.

It seems it could be possible.


R1, your time could be better spent writing a protocol instead of this:

yea..i'm not serious.. <words>

A few more like that one and this thread should be assigned to AAH.

Any chance of a protocol R1?

Maybe your next post perhaps?

 

[reason1]

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

yea...it's pretty ironic but not unintentional

It seems it could be possible.


R1, your time could be better spent writing a protocol instead of this:




A few more like that one and this thread should be assigned to AAH.

Any chance of a protocol R1?

Maybe your next post perhaps?

good , no "us" or "we",
but do you think that playing this bullying game with me will give you more security ?.
You know that flooding the thread with the same stupid questions is something you can get banned for, don't you ?

 

[chillzero]

reason1,
Leave moderation to the mod team.

Asking a self proclaimed potential claimant whether they have a protocol yet is not flooding the forum when said self proclaimed potential claimant is deliberately avoiding answering that very question.

Now - please forget about tigers, etc, and get back to posting on topic.

 

[reason1]

Now - please forget about tigers, etc, and get back to posting on topic.

yea....i wouldn't trust the JREF on my life when they know that i'll be getting their money !.

 

[H3LL]

You know that ... <words> ...

At least I now know you have read the question.

It's noted that you are avoiding writing a protocol at all costs, it seems. 550 posts and several days into your thread and there is little progress to see from you.

Any chance of re-directing your energy to writing a protocol instead of posts that take that issue nowhere?

 

[H3LL]

yea....<words> ....

You are not very likely to get a cent without a protocol.

I think you know what I would say here.

 

[reason1]

H3LL:
Do you have a weak memory or something ?, asking the same stupid questions every minute ? huh?
What about this protocol from page 2, is it not good enough for ?.

My protocol:
I'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.

pathetic...really PATHETIC.

 

[chillzero]

I was hoping not to have to, but I need to step in momentarily as mod to remind you all.... keep it civil, and keep it on topic.

The thread may be placed on moderated status, and further mod actions may ensue against members if this mod warning is ignored.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[reason1]

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?

The claim is simple :
"i can make an earthquake happen by just shouting "INVISIBLE DRAGON" ".
some people will wonder "why should it be "INVISIBLE DRAGON" ?"
I say, "because it's the only way i can do it" , and explaining why is not complicating it (but maybe i shouldn't), also it's still paranormal and testable.

 

[petre]

The claim is simple :
"i can make an earthquake happen by just shouting "INVISIBLE DRAGON" ".
some people will wonder "why should it be "INVISIBLE DRAGON" ?"
I say, "because it's the only way i can do it" , and explaining why is not complicating it (but maybe i shouldn't), also it's still paranormal and testable.

I suppose it depends on how one wishes to define "earthquake" for the purpose of the test. An applicant might think it's fairly obvious to identify what an earthquake is, but left undefined experience shows an applicant will claim the slightest tremor as "the earthquake I was talking about". Including vibrations caused by them jumping up and down at the time. You're correct in that such a protocol seems likely to be workable for a JREF test, but only with a proper definition of "earthquake".

That's all people here are encouraging you to establish for your own test: exactly what criteria we can use to establish that a person was "staring" or "not staring", and how to prevent any non-paranormal means of causing a situation to meet that criteria. It is far easier to establish these things for an earthquake, as it is possible to define one in such a way that it cannot originate from the applicant, and science is currently unable to predict one to the precision it would seem to indicate (within a minute of being declared).

Your original protocol could be adjusted to be acceptable if you can state an objective manner it could be determined that people are staring at you and a way to prevent you from learning that people are staring at you (or cause them to stare at you) in any way other than paranormally. If it cannot be objectively determined that a person is "staring" at you, under whatever definition your ability is able to detect, then there is no basis of comparision to determine if your ability is doing anything. If whatever protocol you describe does not rule-out every non-paranormal means of accomplishing the same feat, then it has not demonstrated that something paranormal has occurred.

So by such measure your original protocol cannot demonstrate that something paranormal is going on. Do you have any suggestions of your own how it might be modified to better suit the criteria I mentioned?

 

[Robert Oz]

I've changed my suggested protocol slightly, because I concede aura readers might be looking around the target rather than at the target.

So, reason1, what do you think of this protocol?

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 and we will make adjustments as necessary.


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 a psychic (who believes they can tell your medical condition just by looking at you) in each booth.

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

4. Based on the roll of the die, a psychic is selected.

5. A coin is flipped.

6. Based on the flip of the coin, the selected psychic is either instructed to look at the wall above your head or to read your body and discuss your medical condition. The other five psychics will be staring at the wall above your head.

7. If you feel the psychic is staring at you (because he/she will be staring at you intently for his/her own interest to read your medical condition) you turn to face the booth you feel the staring coming from.

8. Repeat 50 times.

Please provide feedback on this suggestion, reason1. I noticed you ignored a similar suggestion the first time.

 

[TSR]

yea...if someone has interest only in the results, he/she would stare at the results, not at me.

But there are no results yet for them to stare at. And so they are staring at you, because of a desire.

Why is this not sufficient?

 

[Robert Oz]

H3LL:
Do you have a weak memory or something ?, asking the same stupid questions every minute ? huh?
What about this protocol from page 2, is it not good enough for ?

My protocol:
I'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.

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.

I think it has been shown that your suggested protocol is unsuitable. Can you give your detailed views on the following suggested protocols:

1. UncaYimmy's suggestion with the hats.
2. Ravenwood and H3LL's suggestion with the simunition snipers.
3. My suggestion with the psychics reading your body for medical conditions.

The three tests seem to include active staring as part of the protocol. Is there anything wrong with these?

 

[Jackalgirl]

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 :


maybe it's not perfect but it's pretty close

There is no actual difference between my analogy and yours: both are untestable scenarios.

By "untestable" I mean, of course, a test in which all other possibilities that could explain your claim are controlled for -- in other words, the test rules them out. So the only possible explanation is that what you claim is actually happening.

However, your own analogy points to a scenario in which these types of controls are impossible. Therefore, it is an analogy of an untestable scenario; the end result is exactly the same as my scenario, which is also an untestable scenario.

So, in conclusion, you are stating that your claim is untestable.

The only protocol you have suggested does not provide the necessary controls to rule out other explanations for what you are experiencing, leaving only your explanation. Therefore, it is unsuitable.

Because it is unsuitable, you have to come up with a better protocol. Kindly stop pointing to that protocol as evidence that you have a protocol. It is not an acceptable protocol, therefore you do not have an acceptable protocol.

A number of protocols have been proposed that have pretty good controls -- UncaYimmy's hat protocol, for example, or H3LL's sniper(s) protocol, or my (single) sniper protocol.

What are your specific objections to these protocols? In what specific way will they inhibit your claimed ability?

I am especially interested in the sniper protocols. You have expressed confidence that the military would be interested in you as a "sniper detector". Therefore, a sniper protocol should be perfect. So what is the problem?

 

[Robert Oz]

There is no actual difference between my analogy and yours: both are untestable scenarios.

By "untestable" I mean, of course, a test in which all other possibilities that could explain your claim are controlled for -- in other words, the test rules them out. So the only possible explanation is that what you claim is actually happening.

However, your own analogy points to a scenario in which these types of controls are impossible. Therefore, it is an analogy of an untestable scenario; the end result is exactly the same as my scenario, which is also an untestable scenario.

So, in conclusion, you are stating that your claim is untestable.

The only protocol you have suggested does not provide the necessary controls to rule out other explanations for what you are experiencing, leaving only your explanation. Therefore, it is unsuitable.

Because it is unsuitable, you have to come up with a better protocol. Kindly stop pointing to that protocol as evidence that you have a protocol. It is not an acceptable protocol, therefore you do not have an acceptable protocol.

A number of protocols have been proposed that have pretty good controls -- UncaYimmy's hat protocol, for example, or H3LL's sniper(s) protocol, or my (single) sniper protocol.

What are your specific objections to these protocols? In what specific way will they inhibit your claimed ability?

I am especially interested in the sniper protocols. You have expressed confidence that the military would be interested in you as a "sniper detector". Therefore, a sniper protocol should be perfect. So what is the problem?

I agree. The sniper protocols are the best suggestions so far and directly address reason1's claim that his paranormal detection can be used to detect snipers that are aiming at him.

The simunition snipers suggested in the protocol actually want to shoot the target with the simunition rounds, so there is no way this could be construed as passive staring.

reason1, we await your response...