• 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

news:
I'm contacting the amazing man himself James Randi !.

Don't forget to point him at this thread where you explain so much about your protocol and yourself.

Meanwhile:


How are you progressing with meeting the other requirements (media profile and an academic affidavit)?

Have Google replied yet?

Has Rupert Sheldrake got back to you?

.
 
Okay, so there's no need for a crowd then. We can wipe that straight off the protocol.

That makes things a lot easier!
You're right...but that will make my chances of success become smaller as well !.



That does add some better potential to developing a protocol. But, it also introduces a statistical possibility: you may want to consider that one reason your success shrinks as the number of uncontrolled, random people shrinks, is that the more people are around, the higher the possibility that someone will randomly look toward you, or that your fast head movement will catch their eye, or that you will have more chance to ignore times when you look around and there is no one looking. The fact that you have noticed that your success shrinks as this crowd, and hence these conditions shrink, seems to suggest you have a feeling that you need all this randomness to have a hope of success, and when that randomness is removed, and the conditions become controlled (no matter what those controls wind up being), your success drops.

If this is true, then you should notice that you will resist any controls people suggest that weed out this randomness. This can be self deception.

But if this is not true, than coming up with a controllable protocol, based on your statement above, should now proceed rapidly.
 
news:
i'm contacting ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC.

Wow. You are to be sincerely congratulated. Clicking on the "Contact Us" link on a website is so very, very hard. Why, only a few million people have been able to manage it. To top that off, you figured out how to click on the "Send" button. Good on you, mate. I'm sure the CNN Breaking News team is standing by to detail this.

:rolleyes:

“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” - Aristophanes.
 
Last edited:
news:
I'm contacting Discover, nature , Scientific American,Science News Magazines !.
 
news:
i'm contacting ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC.

Newsroom! It's me, Tom. Ring Katie Couric.
Yeah, I know she's on the air! Just put me through.
Look, I don't care if they found Bin Laden, put me through. I've got a guy here who can tell if people are staring at him.
Yeah, I'm serious! Actually staring, not just fake staring! Yeah! He can do it!
Well, because he says so. Now are you gonna put me through or not?
Listen, I don't want to have to....
Hello?
Hello?
Hey!
 
news:
I'm contacting Discover, nature , Scientific American,Science News Magazines !.

You continue to fail to comprehend that even this simple statement is useless without telling us when.

0/10

Must try harder.
 
Hi JG,
I really appreciate your anticipation but the definitions are very important before discussing any protocols.
Also i didn't say that the videos are answers to your all questions which are not all simple as you think.

But i'll answer the first 2 now:
1. No..i can do it alone.
2.I think i can detect even when someone stares only at my hand.
be patient OK ?


Oh, sure!

See you this time next year. I have better trolls to read. :D


M.
 
[derail]
Not to reason1 but others here.

Even if your first language is not English, surely this:

I'm contacting Discover, nature , Scientific American,Science News Magazines !.

is a little inconsistent with just about any language I've come across.

Hat's off to R1 - It takes special effort to place a comma in three different ways in one sentence.
[/derail]


.
 
well, envy will surely help me in my way to change the world ;) !.

Yeah. Being able to detect "real" staring. That's an earth shaking, world changing ability. :rolleyes:

“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” - Aristophanes
 
That does add some better potential to developing a protocol. But, it also introduces a statistical possibility: you may want to consider that one reason your success shrinks as the number of uncontrolled, random people shrinks, is that the more people are around, the higher the possibility that someone will randomly look toward you, or that your fast head movement will catch their eye, or that you will have more chance to ignore times when you look around and there is no one looking. The fact that you have noticed that your success shrinks as this crowd, and hence these conditions shrink, seems to suggest you have a feeling that you need all this randomness to have a hope of success, and when that randomness is removed, and the conditions become controlled (no matter what those controls wind up being), your success drops.

If this is true, then you should notice that you will resist any controls people suggest that weed out this randomness. This can be self deception.

But if this is not true, than coming up with a controllable protocol, based on your statement above, should now proceed rapidly.
Hi,
No...i meant that the number of self-evident hits (synchronous reflexes) is proportional to the number of people around me.
Even with endless number of people, the odds will be still against me, and I think randomness will make the test more controlled as it eliminates any cheating on part of me or the JREF.

Also notice the following :
Hi , welcome to the topic,
Well...UncaYimmy also addressed this issue.
but i think it's a problem only if at any certain moment someone could be staring at me from all directions.
here is a solution (still thinking it through though):
at random intervals the testers will instruct me to simulate a reflex in any giving direction. i don't think there will be significant opposite reflexes
 
Hi,
No...i meant that the number of self-evident hits (synchronous reflexes) is proportional to the number of people around me.

Exactly. That seems just another way of saying the same thing.

Even with endless number of people, the odds will be still against me, and I think randomness will make the test more controlled as it eliminates any cheating on part of me or the JREF.

Think of it this way: if there were an infinite number of people around you, then statistically there would always be someone looking at you, somewhere, from any given direction. So growing the number forever helps you. But shrinking the number, as you said, does not help. So there must be some perfect crowd size range. Is that a number you think you can define?

Also notice the following :

I didn't really understand that second part.
 
Newsroom! It's me, Tom. Ring Katie Couric.
Yeah, I know she's on the air! Just put me through.
Look, I don't care if they found Bin Laden, put me through. I've got a guy here who can tell if people are staring at him.
Yeah, I'm serious! Actually staring, not just fake staring! Yeah! He can do it!
Well, because he says so. Now are you gonna put me through or not?
Listen, I don't want to have to....
Hello?
Hello?
Hey!

Surely this is the basis for a sitcom?


M.
 
Despite previous warnings, this thread was derailed again. It has now been set to moderated status, and only posts concerning the original claim about detecting staring will be approved (ie. none about invisible animals, etc).

Keep it on topic. Keep it civil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
But what about this post, did you miss it ? :
No, nor did I miss H3LL's response telling you:

"It is your protocol (if you had one) and provided both parties agree, it can be anyone you want."

Part of the purpose of a well-designed protocol is to eliminate all extraneous influences, whether intentional or otherwise.

Your problem with the cheating factor is no longer a problem. Anything else?
 
Exactly. That seems just another way of saying the same thing.



Think of it this way: if there were an infinite number of people around you, then statistically there would always be someone looking at you, somewhere, from any given direction. So growing the number forever helps you. But shrinking the number, as you said, does not help. So there must be some perfect crowd size range. Is that a number you think you can define?



I didn't really understand that second part.

What do you mean by "looking at me" ? , as looking in my direction is not staring ?
 

Back
Top Bottom