It all comes back to one point on the protocols: The results must be SELF-evident.
If there's any ambiguity in any of this, the test is a FAILURE. In other words, there should be no need for James Randi to be present. There should be no need for a "professional" to be present.
Sorry, the incantation TP wants to make shouldn't, at least in my opinion, even be a part of the proposed protocols. That's all window dressing.
The proposal, as has been stated before, should involve ONLY the following:
1.) What do you intend to do?
2.) How do you intend to do it?
3.) What EVIDENCE will indicate a successful challenge?
The word EVIDENCE is critical here: in other words, what's going to stand up to scrutiny by not just James Randi and JREF, but from the hard, rational scrutiny of the scientific community? And this does not mean a bunch of crackpots who have descended into the World of Woo, but people who understand the Scientific Method, and are willing to use it to the fullest extent possible.
To phrase it another way, if you're going to use a cassette tape, someone is going to have to analyze that tape and show that it started out the test "blank," and that in the end, it's been somehow altered by the forces you're claiming are trying to communicate to you, in one form or another. (I used to work in radio: trust me, this ain't that tough.)
Just because, Professor, you have communicated with Jeff Wagg, that doesn't mean you have fulfilled the requirements which establish acceptable protocols. JREF is not going to budge on this one. The rules have been spelled out from day one of the challenge. If you cannot meet those requirements, the fault is not JREF's.
