Paranormal detection

[reason1]

In a crowd, I think that's pretty likely, especially if their eye is drawn to you by your movement of turning toward them. Remember, you don't actually know (in a non-paranormal way) that they're staring at you until you've already done something to draw their attention (turned to look).

I don't know if you're following the thread from the beginning ,but i don't catch those people staring at me , i catch them avoiding being caught staring by reflexing their face away.

Have you already given that an honest try in a crowded situation?

But that's exactly how you're fooling yourself. If you don't sense any staring, you don't look around. You just assume you're right.

How have you proven to yourself that no one is actually staring at you, if you don't look around?

You are talking about confirmation bias :
I do look around all the time when i don't sense staring but i don't catch any reflexes from anyone.
Also the possibilities of random chances are there, but it's only a matter of probability.For example , you can dowse for cards and get them right only by non-paranormal random chances.

This sense is like any normal sense, it's not perfect.
There are also situations in which your normal senses can fail you and that doesn't mean that you don't have those senses.
for example:
If you get into a fight with someone, you will not hear when someone calls your name, touches you from behind or even punches you.
And that is because all your mental energies are focused on overcoming the opponent.

other extreme example in regard to my claim:
If someone is staring at me and a speedy car is about to hit me, what would be the priority here ?, to reflex my body out of the way of this car or reflex my face at the starer ?

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.

I did post that detailed post secretly by dividing it in multiple posts , but i'll do it again in one post sometime .

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

#447

Or you were just trying to make the book pages flip using only the power of mind ????

No, that's already been done. Choose another trick.

 

[eirik]

I don't know if you're following the thread from the beginning ,but i don't catch those people staring at me , i catch them avoiding being caught staring by reflexing their face away.

To catch people "avoiding being caughth staring" is not paranormal. I keep picturing you with a spider-sense, like in Spider-Man. But I don't see the movie prospects for The Catch-people-avoiding-being-caught-staring-by-reflexing-their-faceaway-Man. Can you make it more snappy?

I do look around all the time when i don't sense staring but i don't catch any reflexes from anyone.
Also the possibilities of random chances are there, but it's only a matter of probability.

I hope you are not planning on using the old narrative in the MDC-section, where where superpowers gets weaker and weaker inversed proportionate with the post count, to the point they cease to exist. But to be clear- we are suddenly talking only of a small statistical anomaly?

This sense is like any normal sense, it's not perfect.
There are also situations in which your normal senses can fail you and that doesn't mean that you don't have those senses.
for example:
If you get into a fight with someone, you will not hear when someone calls your name, touches you from behind or even punches you.
And that is because all your mental energies are focused on overcoming the opponent.

Why do you feel the need to explain this? Nobody asked you whether your super power has a 100% hit ratio. Why don't you adress the protocols suggested to you? People will respect you for it, I promise.

Other extreme example in regard to my claim:
If someone is staring at me and a speedy car is about to hit me, what would be the priority here ?, to reflex my body out of the way of this car or reflex my face at the starer ?

OKeeey.. So a car speeding towards you should NOT be included in the protocol? I'm so glad we got that pressing problem out of the way.

 

[dlorde]

I've read every post in this thread, and even made a skeleton protocol suggestion myself, and I was quite interested to see a preliminary test of this claimed ability.

However, the way I now see it, reason1 started by believing he really had a testable paranormal ability, but as the thread progressed and he came to realise all the problems with his own protocol suggestion, what a reasonably well-controlled protocol would look like, and all the ways he could be mistaken about this ability, he started to hedge and delay. Now he simply can't bring himself to admit that his claim is untestable, and worse, that this could mean that he really has been deceiving himself... This is why the more rigorous protocols have been ignored.

 

[Moochie]

I've read every post in this thread, and even made a skeleton protocol suggestion myself, and I was quite interested to see a preliminary test of this claimed ability.

However, the way I now see it, reason1 started by believing he really had a testable paranormal ability, but as the thread progressed and he came to realise all the problems with his own protocol suggestion, what a reasonably well-controlled protocol would look like, and all the ways he could be mistaken about this ability, he started to hedge and delay. Now he simply can't bring himself to admit that his claim is untestable, and worse, that this could mean that he really has been deceiving himself... This is why the more rigorous protocols have been ignored.

Oddly enough, I found this post staring at me just as I looked at my monitor, and somehow I knew it was there.

Bloody amazing, if you ask me!


M.

 

[reason1]

I've read every post in this thread, and even made a skeleton protocol suggestion myself, and I was quite interested to see a preliminary test of this claimed ability.

However, the way I now see it, reason1 started by believing he really had a testable paranormal ability, but as the thread progressed and he came to realise all the problems with his own protocol suggestion, what a reasonably well-controlled protocol would look like, and all the ways he could be mistaken about this ability, he started to hedge and delay. Now he simply can't bring himself to admit that his claim is untestable, and worse, that this could mean that he really has been deceiving himself... This is why the more rigorous protocols have been ignored.

C'mon... you can't accuse me of ignoring anything when i could respond to it after one month from now, can you?

 

[Jackalgirl]

C'mon... you can't accuse me of ignoring anything when i could respond to it after one month from now, can you?

Why not respond to it now? What's wrong with, say, my single sniper protocol?

 

[reason1]

Why not respond to it now? What's wrong with, say, my single sniper protocol?

Hi Jackalgirl,
Sometimes i can respond to more recent posts quicker than former ones . and that is because some posts (especially suggested protocols) take much more thinking time.
Also i have a list of all the suggested protocols even the ones that I've proven uncontrolled.

I still don't have team who are working with me, only my computer and the Internet connection.

 

[tsig]

Hi Jackalgirl,
Sometimes i can respond to more recent posts quicker than former ones . and that is because some posts (especially suggested protocols) take much more thinking time.
Also i have a list of all the suggested protocols even the ones that I've proven uncontrolled.

I still don't have team who are working with me, only my computer and the Internet connection.

That's all we all got.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Hi Jackalgirl,
Sometimes i can respond to more recent posts quicker than former ones . and that is because some posts (especially suggested protocols) take much more thinking time.
Also i have a list of all the suggested protocols even the ones the I've proven uncontrolled.

I still don't have team who are working with me, only my computer and the Internet connection.

Here's the thing, though. I proposed my sniper protocol almost three days ago. I've also asked some fairly basic questions that should not require a whole lot of time to process. What you have been doing, in that time, is responding to posts either unrelated to protocols entirely, or arguing the specific points of the protocol you initially proposed. The same protocol, I might add, that was determine to be unsuitable even longer ago, with many explanations.

If you are truly interested in the MDC, you need to stop thinking about your protocol right now and process what people here have been telling you. We are not telling you that your protocol is unsuitable because we are trying to shut you down. Quite the opposite; we're spending a considerable amount of time trying to help you with a protocol that the JREF would accept and that would, in fact, prove that you have this power you claim to have (or, at least, make a compelling case, and one that would probably attract significant interest).

So please stop wasting time with your initial protocol. It's unsuitable. Adding a zillion cameras will not make it suitable. Getting Google to sponsor it will not make it suitable.

Now, in the meantime, it should not take you very much time at all to think about, process, and respond to this basic question:

You initially said that you thought the military might be interested in you as a sniper detection system. Do you think that you can detect a sniper? The sniper would have specific instructions to shoot you and would be interested in shooting you. This is consistent with a real sniper in the real world. The sniper would be accompanied by an observer (spotter), as snipers most often are in the real world. If being specifically instructed to shoot you, reason1, then instructions can be given to "shoot the person who reveals himself as a target", which is not inconsistent with the orders received by snipers in the real world.

This is, in essence, a scenario not at all unlike how snipers operate in the real world. Would you be able to detect the sniper's location?

 

[reason1]

That's all we all got.

yea...but i only have less-than-24 hours a day to think versus less-than-24 hours a day multiplied by posters number.
Also i'm working on the media/academic attention and doing some other researches too.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I tend to write long posts, so in the interests of keeping things shorter, I'll repeat the relevant part of my post (which should take very little time to process and answer):

You initially said that you thought the military might be interested in you as a sniper detection system. Do you think that you can detect a sniper? The sniper would have specific instructions to shoot you and would be interested in shooting you. This is consistent with a real sniper in the real world. The sniper would be accompanied by an observer (spotter), as snipers most often are in the real world. If being specifically instructed to shoot you, reason1, then instructions can be given to "shoot the person who reveals himself as a target", which is not inconsistent with the orders received by snipers in the real world.

This is, in essence, a scenario not at all unlike how snipers operate in the real world. Would you be able to detect the sniper's location?

 

[Jackalgirl]

I do realize that you need some time to think; however, what I'm basically asking for is a yes or no answer to the question "can you detect a sniper". So it should be fairly easy for you to answer. We can get into the nitty-gritty of why or why not (as the case may be) later.

 

[reason1]

I do realize that you need some time to think; however, what I'm basically asking for is a yes or no answer to the question "can you detect a sniper". So it should be fairly easy for you to answer. We can get into the nitty-gritty of why or why not (as the case may be) later.

Yea...i'm sure i can detect anyone who is interested in killing me ,whether it's a sniper or not.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Yea...i'm sure i can detect anyone who is interested in killing me ,whether it's a sniper or not.

Okay, so are you stating that the intent of the stare has to involve killing you, or merely shooting you? In other words, would you be able to detect a paintball (or airsoft) sniper?

 

[chillzero]

Okay, so are you stating that the intent of the stare has to involve killing you, or merely shooting you? In other words, would you be able to detect a paintball (or airsoft) sniper?

Given that he made this discovery in the mall, I'd say that the intent to kill is unnecessary. Either that or he's one of the most unpopular men in mall history!

 

[Jackalgirl]

Given that he made this discovery in the mall, I'd say that the intent to kill is unnecessary. Either that or he's one of the most unpopular men in mall history!

I would think so, too. If he does maintain that his ability to detect a sniper depends on the sniper's desire to kill him (and that a sniper not intending to kill him would inhibit his ability), I intend to ask about the mall (so be ready for the question, reason1! ; ) ).

I'm hoping, though, that the sniper's intent to shoot -- and interest in shooting -- are sufficient, which they logically should be. If so, then I think we have the potential for a really fun demonstration -- fun for everyone. Especially if we have a potluck BBQ, with beer and other beverages of choice, afterwards. : )

 

[reason1]

Okay, so are you stating that the intent of the stare has to involve killing you, or merely shooting you? In other words, would you be able to detect a paintball (or airsoft) sniper?

Hi,
The starer must has an interest in me that will make him/her look at me intensively for a while when I'm for example surrounded by crowd.

Given that he made this discovery in the mall, I'd say that the intent to kill is unnecessary. Either that or he's one of the most unpopular men in mall history!

You know that i could be your boss in the near future .

 

[Jackalgirl]

Hi,
The starer must has an interest in me that will make him/her look at me intensively for a while when I'm for example surrounded by crowd.

How about if you're not surrounded by a crowd?

If your abilities only work when you are surrounded by a crowd, could you explain why? Also, if your abilities only work when you are surrounded by a crowd, what number of people constitutes a "crowd"?

Would you be able to detect a paintball/airsoft sniper if you were alone?

 

[IMST]

Hi,
The starer must has an interest in me that will make him/her look at me intensively for a while when I'm for example surrounded by crowd.

Help those of us watching out here. Does this mean "yes" or "no" to jackalgirl's question?