• 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

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

As i said before, it's a matter of logic not spelling/grammar, even native English speakers do those mistakes... don't they ?
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
As i said before, it's a matter of logic not spelling/grammar, even native English speakers do those mistakes... don't they ?
Click to expand...

Is this a new definition of logic that you want to invent?

Your protocol is untestable, as has been pointed out to you many, many, times.

Your protocol does not show your ability when there are other explanations or tricks that produce the same effect.

Your new protocol must show your special ability and that ability only. Not something explained by normal means, not something relying on interpretation and most certainly not your interpretations.

I'll give you one reason for each stage of your "protocol" (there are many more) that "logically" show that each stage is incapable of showing your paranormal power alone, without trickery, mundane explanations or misunderstanding being an alternative.


You protocol (taken from your post):
  • I'll be sitting in the chosen public place (maybe pretending that I'm reading a book) - This is an unsuitable location as you may have friends helping you the testers do not know about. It's called cheating and must be eliminated.
  • When someone stares at me (whether from behind, above, right or left) I'll detect that - The testers cannot determine with any accuracy whether someone is staring at you or not and if they do, whether they are a friend helping you cheat or not. This possible confusion needs to be eliminated.
  • and I'll suddenly look back exactly at that person. - The testers cannot know that the person you looking at was staring at you before your reaction and cannot determine if you detected the starer in your periphery vision and cheat. This possible confusion needs to be eliminated.
  • 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. - Most people noticing someone rapidly turn around and look at them will turn away. The testers cannot separate this normal reaction from your paranormal power nor can this be separated from the cheat above. This possible confusion needs to be eliminated.
  • It will be a sudden move from my side followed instantly by a sudden move form the staring one. - See the point above
  • It's self-evident protocol that proves that I have scientifically unexplainable ability to detect people who stare at me. - Nothing is self-evident other than the fact that you turn around rapidly.



The protocol above shows nothing other than you can turn around rapidly and look at people. Most of us here can do that with ease. It is in no way a paranormal power.

You have had these explanations and many others discusses several times in this thread (better than I have, I might add), yet you maintain you have a working protocol for your ability when it is clear that you do not.

I know that one can cheat at every stage of your "protocol". You need to design a new protocol that shows your paranormal powers and your paranormal powers only. No one must be able to think of a way that you can cheat or that the events witnessed are no different from ordinary, mundane, everyday happenings or cheating.

It's not easy and takes a fair bit of work. You have had many helpful suggestions in this thread - pick and choose the ones that you think work.

The protocol you have most definitely does not work as a test for anything other than quick turning ability.

Your time would be better spent on designing a workable protocol other than the posts that you have been writing for soooooo very long.

This is the last time I'm offering anything that may be considered helpful until we see your new protocol. I will resume my efforts requesting you to write your new protocol for us to see.

There are many here that can and will help with your new protocol.

Your old one is useless for your claim.

Maybe in your next post?
 
Last edited:
Last warning. Several posts have been removed after ignoring the mod warnings.

Get the thread on topic, and keep it civil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
reason1 said:
news:
I'm contacting Google regarding sponsoring my MDC application .
Click to expand...
This is a good idea. I think google would be quite interested in your ability to turn your head and redefine the word staring...


*waits to see if I get a warning for use of sarcasm*
 
Reason1: "Hi man. You certainly have heard of the JREF MDC. I'd like you to sponsor my MDC application."

Google: "Hi. What is your claim?"

Reason1: "Without looking at the person, I can detect when someone stares at me."

Google: "Awesome. Have you tested this?"

Reason1: "No. I know I can do it."

Google: "So you haven't done this with anyone impartial observing you?"

Reason1: "No. But I know I can do it."

Google: "How much money were you thinking?"

Reason1: "About _____ dollars. You would get the exclusive rights to broadcast the Final Test."

Google: "All right, listen, this seems like a no-win situation for us at this point. Let us know when you have passed the Preliminary Test. Then we'll talk money. OK? Bye."
 
reason1 -- You will go nowhere in the MDC application process unless you do some work to identify your claim, and determine a workable test for that claim.
As numerous posters have indicated, the rudimentary protocol you initially posted will NOT be acceptable; it is too open to 1) Cheating; 2) Subjective judging; and 3) Normal behavior providing the same results. As you read in the MDC information, none of those conditions can be true for a test to proceed.

You will not be able to do your testing in a large occupied public space. There are too many uncontrolled circumstances, and too many people whose permission would need to be obtained. So, instead of arguing why you think it won't be a problem, why not apply yourself to the issue of identifying what it is you think you get from a random stranger that you would not get from a tester. You have suggested that a 'different kind of staring' is involved--but you have, by your own statements, never in fact tested if that is the case. You simply assume that your "feelings" on what the other person is thinking / feeling are true.

To put it differently: How do you know that people who are staring at you because they hope to see you do something supernatural don't qualify as real staring? Have you ever tested this? What about the proposals by several posters of other ways to stimulate the appropriate form of staring (UncaYimmy's hats; the targetting suggestions; the "you might get money" scenario?

I think the question of what staring you can feel is the most challenging problem with designing a test protocol. Please indicate what testing or events previous have caused you to decide that you cannot feel stares from curiosity, avarice, or targetting intent. So far, I have only seen you argue that "that's how it feels to me" -- but if you have no experience with the silly hat, greed, or target practice scenario, how do you know it won't work?? I am genuinely asking you to focus on this issue, because it's crucial to you developing a testable claim.

Just my thoughts, MK
 
reason1,

I think it has been conclusively determined that your suggested protocol provides for cheating, subjective judging and normal experiences being misinterpreted as paranormal experiences.

So, getting back to the other suggested protocols:

Robert Oz said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
reason1 said:
Do you read and understand english well man ?...how can you say "If you are not going to listen to anyone" ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have used the word "believe". You have been told repeatedly that your protocol will not be acceptable and have failed to believe it. This is a mistake on your part.
 
I'll be honest. I started off reading every post but for the last few pages I've been skimming through waiting for the detailed post in which reason1 answers everyone's concerns. Since that doesn't seem to have been written yet I thought I'd fire in a suggestion of my own.

Reason1's problem with most of the controlled protocols suggested to him seems to be that he can’t detect people who are only looking at him because they have been told to. They need to be looking at him because they wish to do so.

I liked Uncayimmy's way around this with the hats and have yet to see reason1's reasons for rejecting it. Admittedly I may have missed them in my skimming.

My idea is an alternative to the hats. Volunteers are told that they will be looking at the back of a celebrity with a small cash prize offered if they can identify him. They will, in fact, be looking at reason1. The suggestion that he is famous and that they could win some prize would surely be incentive enough for their "stare" to meet with reason1's requirements. From there it is simply a matter of having enough volunteers and a setup allowing a randomly selected one of two or three potential starers in different positions behind a blindfolded reason1 to have the chance to stare at him with reason1 noting which position he believes the starer to occupy.
 
Hi, CiB --

Another very good suggestion. In defense of my paintball sniper scenario, the sniper is going to want to look at reason1 too -- he, or she, will want to shoot reason1.

This is no different that the real world, in which a sniper is ordered to take out targets. If the very act of ordering a sniper to shoot targets of interest somehow neutralizes reason1's powers, then at least we've determined that the military would most like not be slightly interested in reason1 as a "sniper detection system".

Reason1, is there any reason why my single paintball sniper protocol would not be suitable? Could you please elaborate why it is unacceptable, if it is indeed unacceptable?
 
Jackalgirl said:
Hi, CiB --

Another very good suggestion. In defense of my paintball sniper scenario, the sniper is going to want to look at reason1 too -- he, or she, will want to shoot reason1.

This is no different that the real world, in which a sniper is ordered to take out targets. If the very act of ordering a sniper to shoot targets of interest somehow neutralizes reason1's powers, then at least we've determined that the military would most like not be slightly interested in reason1 as a "sniper detection system".

Reason1, is there any reason why my single paintball sniper protocol would not be suitable? Could you please elaborate why it is unacceptable, if it is indeed unacceptable?
Click to expand...


Similarly, psychic medical health readers would be looking at reason1 very intensely to try to get hits of their own. Whether psychic medical readings are possible is irrelevant. The desire to look is all that matters.

Even if reason1 is not comfortable with the number of protocols suggested, it at least gives him an idea of what would be considered suitable. He can, of course, suggest a similar protocol that he is more comfortable with (as long as it doesn't involve potentially hundreds of people in a public place with no way to control for cheating).
 
As I mentioned earlier, I am guilty of skimming along waiting for reason1 to post his detailed post answering everyone's concerns. While I spotted the sniper protocol and the aura reader protocol I did not read them in detail. I am certain that they are both fine protocols. The volunteer viewers in each case would have incentive to stare with the sort of intent that reason1 seems to require.

I just thought I’d throw my "guess the celebrity" idea in there as an option which does not require any kind of specialisation (woo or marksman) in the volunteer.

I look forward, as ever, to reason1's detailed response.
 
Coveredinbeeees said:
I just thought I’d throw my "guess the celebrity" idea in there as an option which does not require any kind of specialisation (woo or marksman) in the volunteer.

I look forward, as ever, to reason1's detailed response.
Click to expand...


Wonderful! We now have four suggestions for reason1 to consider.

reason1,

Can you give your detailed views on the following suggested protocols (or pick your favourite):

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.
4. Coveredinbeeees suggestion with the 'pick the celebrity' competition.

The four tests seem to include active staring as part of the protocol. Is there anything wrong with these?
 
Please note that my protocol does not actually suggest the use of simunition. I am proposing regular, ordinary paintball pellets and the assistance of a civilian paintball club or some such.
 
Jackalgirl said:
Please note that my protocol does not actually suggest the use of simunition. I am proposing regular, ordinary paintball pellets and the assistance of a civilian paintball club or some such.
Click to expand...

Fixed...

Robert Oz said:
Wonderful! We now have four suggestions for reason1 to consider.

reason1,

Can you give your detailed views on the following suggested protocols (or pick your favourite):

1. UncaYimmy's suggestion with the hats.
2. Jackalgirl, Ravenwood and H3LL's suggestions with the paintball or simunition snipers.
3. My suggestion with the psychics reading your body for medical conditions.
4. Coveredinbeeees suggestion with the 'pick the celebrity' competition.

The four tests seem to include active staring as part of the protocol. Is there anything wrong with these?
Click to expand...
 
Heroic efforts, but reason1 doesn't seem to have any interest in developing a protocol.
 
I suppose you could even substitute an airsoft rifle in place of the paintball gun for an even easier sniper protocol, though you would still need proper PPE, just as with simmunition & paintball. Here's the minimum model I would recommend using(there are much better & more accurate):
http://shortyusa.com/index.html?RID=4328
this would allow you to conduct the tests indoors or in places where a paint gun or simmunition would not be allowed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom