Paranormal detection

[VisionFromFeeling]

Cacakoka!

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.

Yay! They've included me in the test!

I think the Skeptics are gathering up all the Claimants and setting up so that their tests all take place at the same time... let's see... we have reason1 who can detect when someone is staring at him from behind, VisionFromFeeling who does psychic medical descriptions, Jozen-Bo who sees in the dark, abr who can send as well as receive telepathy, and ferj who does predictinos. So here's how we do it:

The test takes place in a dark basement without any light sources. Skeptics are in a remote location watching the test take place with sensitive infrared cameras and there are motion detectors placed out on the test site so that no claimant leaves their position and there is sound recording to ensure no one speaks during the test. Once all five claimants are in place the Skeptics choose a random number between 0 and 10. ferj makes a predictoin to know the number and holds up that many fingers for Jozen-Bo to see in the dark. abr reads the number from Jozen-Bo's mind and sends it over to VisionFromFeeling (and this works, since VFF is also telepathic, see, if us woo's didn't have multiple talents the chain would be broken and no test would be possible!). VisionFromFeeling waits that many minutes and then begins to do psychic medical reading on reason1, who senses that his VibrationalInformation^TM has been activated. reason1 then says cacakoka! and everybody hears it and the trial is ended and the results are calculated.

I think we can work in some real snipers in this test protocol too.

reason1 announces when VisionFromFeeling was reading his VibrationalInformation^TM. ferj says what the number was and so does abr. Jozen-Bo says how many fingers. And VisionFromFeeling provides with a detailed description of reason1's health information. The million is split five ways for a nice $200,000 each.

Just do 'em all at once and get it over with and let all the woo's get on with it already and get out. Out with this year's claimants and we'll see everyone again next year. Thank you and goodbye.

 

[reason1]

...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?

hi,
no...i didn't mean that, i meant that after winning the MDC, The most important challenge will be conducted ,which is :
using all state-of-the-art hi-tech equipment to try to scientifically explain my ability.
We made powerful machines that simulate our mental abilities (like computers) and physical ones (like heavy lifters).
There is no use in using me as a sniper detector, i only can detect one staring at a time.

petre : thanks
Robert Oz : be patient man

 

[Robert Oz]

Robert Oz : be patient man

Patient for what exactly, reason1? Isn't sticking with this thread for over 550 posts being patient?

As I said:

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?

The above was an on-topic post addressing protocol development. Isn't that why you are here? Please address my question so that we can try to get closer to your ability being tested.

What is wrong with the three suggested protocols that make them unsuitable to test your abilities?

 

[reason1]

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.

1.Although it's very hard for me to detect starers this way, testers can easily ensure there is no reflective surfaces.
2. There will be many people at the public place , so i can't individually identify any starer by shadows.
3.

added detail:
there will be 4 sensitive microphones around me to record the signals and direction of all the possible sound frequencies .Any hit in that direction at the same moment will be dismissed.

I don't think it's a must though.
4. I'll not identify any starers, they will identify themselves by their reaction opposite reflex which is triggered by my reflex.
5. I will not do that.
6. It's impossible to count missed starers.
7. Should be very rare.
8. I will not do that.
9. The chances of passive staring are near impossible.
10. No...testers will only count opposite reflexes as self-evident hits.

 

[Robert Oz]

1.Although it's very hard for me to detect starers this way, testers can easily ensure there is no reflective surfaces.
2. There will be many people at the public place , so i can't individually identify any starer by shadows.

Fair enough, a location would have to be chosen where there is no chance of reflective surfaces (e.g. an open park).

3.added detail:
there will be 4 sensitive microphones around me to record the signals and direction of all the possible sound frequencies .Any hit in that direction at the same moment will be dismissed.
I don't think it's a must though.

So now we need a camera on every individual in public from multiple angles and microphones surrounding you that are advanced enough technologically to discern direction, all the while none of the crowd can know a test is being conducted?

4. I'll not identify any starers, they will identify themselves by their reaction opposite reflex which is triggered by my reflex.
5. I will not do that.
6. It's impossible to count missed starers.
7. Should be very rare.
8. I will not do that.
9. The chances of passive staring are near impossible.

We cannot use a protocol where we have to take your word that you will or will not do something.

10. No...testers will only count opposite reflexes as self-evident hits.

No... this would require subjective judging. The testers would have to know for certain that those people were staring at you and not near you, in your general direction or blankly staring at nothing while lost in thought.

 

[Robert Oz]

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?

The above was an on-topic post addressing protocol development. Isn't that why you are here? Please address my question so that we can try to get closer to your ability being tested.

What is wrong with the three suggested protocols that make them unsuitable to test your abilities?

Also, the above three suggestions are much simpler, require fewer people, require less expensive equipment, eliminate any possibility of cheating and require no judging whatsoever.

Please answer my question, reason1.

 

[reason1]

...So now we need a camera on every individual in public from multiple angles and microphones surrounding you that are advanced enough technologically to discern direction, all the while none of the crowd can know a test is being conducted?

I don't think the microphones will be visible at all.
Although i still didn't make up my mind about the positions of hidden cameras but:
1 hidden camera in front of me to record my eyes angle of sight.
1 hidden camera above me to record my head/reflex angle.
others first-person observer hidden cameras should be somehow around my back to record 300 degrees of sight.
If anyone could suggest cameras techniques/positions, I'd appreciate it.

We cannot use a protocol where we have to take your word that you will or will not do something.

man..it's not a promise , it's a protocol , i can't change my mind after the test. Even if i did , the testers will just have to ignore me.

No... this would require subjective judging. The testers would have to know for certain that those people were staring at you and not near you, in your general direction or blankly staring at nothing while lost in thought.

only the synchronous reflexes will be counted (judged) and this is an easy task.

Also, the above three suggestions are much simpler, require fewer people, require less expensive equipment, eliminate any possibility of cheating and require no judging whatsoever.

Please answer my question, reason1.

I'm sorry...i need a logical proof that my protocol is flawed/untestable, before i can discuss any suggested protocols, i did it before and i still can do that, but i don't have time and much energy now.Also why we need to discuss protocols if mine is good.
I'm not saying that my protocol is better than others ,but it's simply based on my real experiences, hence it's the most way i can make success in the final test.
So i need a proof first ?

 

[Robert Oz]

I don't think the microphones will be visible at all.
Although i still didn't make up my mind about the positions of hidden cameras but:
1 hidden camera in front of me to record my eyes angle of sight.
1 hidden camera above me to record my head/reflex angle.
others first-person observer hidden cameras should be somehow around my back to record 300 degrees of sight.
If anyone could suggest cameras techniques/positions, I'd appreciate it.

How will the cameras around your back focus on people in the crowd close to you (e.g. 5 metres away) and people in the crowd further away (e.g. 40 metres away)? How will the cameras get close ups of the eyes of all those people, since a person far away may be facing towards you and be looking at something else, but this would be impossible to detect by a camera that may be many metres away? Or, if the camera is detecting head reactions from people, how will the camera show whether the person's head reaction was because they were caught staring or because something else caught their attention? Remember, the protocol needs to eliminate all other possibilities. Cameras won't do that in your protocol.

man..it's not a promise , it's a protocol , i can't change my mind after the test. Even if i did , the testers will just have to ignore me.

I'm not saying you'll change your mind at all. I'm saying that a person who is so inclined could use several methods to cheat in this test (which I have outlined) and you're saying that you just won't do that.

I'm also saying a person may misread results that are so subjective and you're saying that you just won't do that either.

Example:

Person A suddenly turns around and notices a person sharply turning their head away from Person A's general direction. Person A counts the sudden head movement as a hit. However, the person was reacting to something he saw off in the distance.

Your protocol does not eliminate the possibility of this happening. How will your protocol ensure that this CANNOT happen?

only the synchronous reflexes will be counted (judged) and this is an easy task.

No it isn't. See my example above. It would require subjective judgement as to the reason someone turned their head away.

I'm sorry...i need a logical proof that my protocol is flawed/untestable, before i can discuss any suggested protocols, i did it before and i still can do that, but i don't have time and much energy now.Also why we need to discuss protocols if mine is good.
I'm not saying that my protocol is better than others ,but it's simply based on my real experiences, hence it's the most way i can make success in the final test.
So i need a proof first ?

Your protocol is not "good". That is why no one has accepted it as suitable. Even UncaYimmy (who you thought was treating you very fairly and was being objective) does not consider your protocol to be suitable.

The three protocols suggested are smaller, simpler and cheaper and effectively test the same ability. Unless you're saying that you would not be able to detect a person looking at you because they like your hat or looking at you because they aim to shoot a simunition round at you or looking at you because they want to psychicly predict your health. Are you saying you would not be able to detect any of these?

If you could detect this sort of thing, then:

Can you give your detailed views on the following suggested protocols:

1. UncaYimmy's suggestion with the hats.
2. Jackalgirl, Ravenwood and H3LL's suggestions 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?

<snip>

What is wrong with the three suggested protocols that make them unsuitable to test your abilities?

 

[Robert Oz]

One last point, reason1, regarding your last post:

I'm sorry...i need a logical proof that my protocol is flawed/untestable, before i can discuss any suggested protocols,

<snip>

Also why we need to discuss protocols if mine is good.
I'm not saying that my protocol is better than others ,but it's simply based on my real experiences, hence it's the most way i can make success in the final test.
So i need a proof first ?

If you read the MDC rules, you will see that both the claimant and the JREF have to agree that a protocol is suitable. You can say that your protocol is "good" as much as you like, but if the JREF decides it is not objective enough and the results aren't self evident enough (which, I assure you, the JREF will), then your application will not be accepted.

Either you come up with a protocol that is acceptable to you and the JREF or you forget about the MDC.

So considering that there is virtually zero chance the JREF would accept your chosen protocol for reasons provided many times, would you please consider and discuss the other three suggestions?

Disclaimer: I do not speak on behalf of the JREF, but if you doubt my advice, you are welcome to submit your application. I doubt you will get very far, though.

 

[Jackalgirl]

There is no use in using me as a sniper detector, i only can detect one staring at a time.

Interesting. Because you said:

PS:I'm a little scared, I'm sure the Russians will be interested in kidnapping me to develop their new telepathic weapon.
But i hope the Americans get me first. hint: Sniper Detection System

So you are no longer afraid of being kidnapped for use as a sniper detection system, right? Also, can you clarify why only being able to "detect one staring at a time" makes you useless for detecting snipers who (if I recall correctly) usually operate on their own (well, with a spotter, of course)? If two people -- sniper and spotter -- are staring at you from essentially the same direction, does this render you unable to detect them?

Also, you said "I only can detect one staring at a time".

This is perfect! My protocol only uses one sniper! The sniper's spotter would not be as fixated on you as the sniper (the spotter is there only to start his/her watch when you turn around).

So...any problems with my protocol?

 

[Robert Oz]

Interesting. Because you said:



So you are no longer afraid of being kidnapped for use as a sniper detection system, right? Also, can you clarify why only being able to "detect one staring at a time" makes you useless for detecting snipers who (if I recall correctly) usually operate on their own (well, with a spotter, of course)? If two people -- sniper and spotter -- are staring at you from essentially the same direction, does this render you unable to detect them?

Also, you said "I only can detect one staring at a time".

This is perfect! My protocol only uses one sniper! The sniper's spotter would not be as fixated on you as the sniper (the spotter is there only to start his/her watch when you turn around).

So...any problems with my protocol?

Jackalgirl,

My apologies for excluding you from the viable suggestions in my earlier posts. I have edited my last post to acknowledge you appropriately.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Jackalgirl,

My apologies for excluding you from the viable suggestions in my earlier posts. I have edited my last post to acknowledge you appropriately.

Oh, no worries! I actually left out Ravenwood when I was talking about the simunition protocol(s) -- my apologies, RW; it was a particularly good idea!

 

[Sparhawk]

Reason1, how will you pay for all the camera's ect? The jref does not cover the cost of testing (see rule# 7).

 

[Robert Oz]

Reason1, how will you pay for all the camera's ect? The jref does not cover the cost of testing (see rule# 7).

reason1 is confident he will be able to find a sponsor who will fund the test:

well...I really don't like the idea of me paying anything , i prefer the sponsors do this job for me.

 

[reason1]

reason1 is confident he will be able to find a sponsor who will fund the test:

maybe my sponsor will be James Randi himself, you never know .
I think he would prefer to be part of it, rather against it, when he knows that he also has this detection ability.

 

[Jackalgirl]

maybe my sponsor will be James Randi himself, you never know .

Bet you a million dollars he won't.

So how about my single sniper protocol? It'd be relatively easy, relatively cheap, and loads of fun. In what ways would the setup hinder your abilities, or do you think it's a doable protocol?

 

[H3LL]

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 ?.

Well no, no it isn't. For the many reasons that have been indicated by several posters here and also because YOU appeared unhappy with it.

Your "protocol" as stated here:

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.

According to YOU it was incomplete and still "general" and YOU requested more help:

hi all,
my protocol is still general. it's open for any modification you think is appropriate and this is why we all are here....to design one right ?.
Also if someone wants to propose another completely different controllable protocol, I'm open for it

My bold. You now seem to be claiming that you are not open to other suggestions and that your original "protocol" is the one and only even though YOU think that it's not very good.

the reason that i may delay my answer is to think carefully about how i'm going to present it. i have a really bad answer because i didn't do that

We have yet to see your long post or your "carefully" thought about protocol.

pathetic...really PATHETIC.

For once we are in agreement but on different topics.

When are we going to see your new protocol that you've carefully thought about in your "long post" that YOU indicated was forthcoming from help that YOU requested?

Maybe in your next post?

.

 

[Marcus]

I'm sorry...i need a logical proof that my protocol is flawed/untestable, before i can discuss any suggested protocols, i

The whole point of discussing your claim in this forum is so you can benifit from people who have knowledge of the Challenge. If you are not going to listen to anyone, there is no point to the thread. You should submit your claim to JREF, you will have your proof when it is rejected.

 

[reason1]

I'm sorry...i need a logical proof that my protocol is flawed/untestable, before i can discuss any suggested protocols, i did it before and i still can do that, but i don't have time and much energy now.Also why we need to discuss protocols if mine is good.
I'm not saying that my protocol is better than others ,but it's simply based on my real experiences, hence it's the most way i can make success in the final test.
So i need a proof first ?

The whole point of discussing your claim in this forum is so you can benifit from people who have knowledge of the Challenge. If you are not going to listen to anyone, there is no point to the thread. You should submit your claim to JREF, you will have your proof when it is rejected.

Do you read and understand english well man ?...how can you say "If you are not going to listen to anyone" ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you read and understand english well man ?...how can you say "If you are not going to listen to anyone" ?

Well, there's listening and then there's hearing. Hearing, to me, says that you have an actual interest in what the other person is saying. Listening is just a physical act, and without interest, well... it's just listening, innit?

And while you may be listening, man... You sure ain't hearing.

(And I do love it when you can't write, punctuate, or spell and then question someone's comprehension of English.)