• 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.

Rosemary Hunter...

Wouldn't a blindfold work better than sunglasses? A properly tied blindfold should block out everything, but I've never seen a pair of sunglasses that you couldn't see out the sides.
 
Cuddles said:
Wouldn't a blindfold work better than sunglasses? A properly tied blindfold should block out everything, but I've never seen a pair of sunglasses that you couldn't see out the sides.
Click to expand...

A blindfold would probably really stink to have on for a full half hour. CSI used sunglasses in the Natasha Demkina test. (Scroll down for a photo.)
 
RemieV said:
.



The urge to urinate will not count as a hit. Only actual urination.

A 'hit' is counted only when the target person is peeing.
Click to expand...

I have raised this issue before but it has not been addressed. How much urine is there to be before it is counted as a hit? Does wet underpants count? Or does urine have to be on the floor? How do you measure such a thing?


One thing you can do is give pads to all 10 people. They are then collected afterwards. If Ms Hunter can tell which pads were worn by the two targets then that is a hit. Only problem is that she can guess this right once in 90 times. Not good enough.
 
The people are going to be wearing their clothes. If urine is visible from the outside of their clothing, then it is a 'hit'.

Pads and diapers don't work well because they would have to leave the sight line of the participants in order to be examined.
 
I like Antraniki's answer best. It is a black and white answer. But is it the right one?

With RemieV's answer Ms Hunter may insist that urine is visible even when it is not.
 
That's where the "self-evident" part comes into play. There should be video, and it ought to be clear to any observer whether or not a subject has wet pants at the conclusion.
 
So not only does a person have to pee but it has to be clearly visible from the outside. This means that two drops of pee does not count. This needs to be in the agreement.

There needs to be an inspection before hand to ensure that nothing that could be pee is on the volunteers.
 
I am worried that the test might get end up something like this test PETER HUBINKSY, I WALK THE LINE The applicant said he could make objects appear. When tested all what happened was dust appeared that probably was there beforehand. I can see something similar happening here.

RemieV I have a similar power too. Your pants will be wet when you read this. Not from you urinating, but from me transferring my urine to your pants. Please inspect your pants. It will take you ages to prove me wrong. Now imagine I am in front of you insisting that I am right.
 
I agree that it is a problem that in this test, somebody - the test persons or the testers - have to judge whether peeing has happened or not. There should be some objective way of determining this. But on the other hand, I must admit that I cannot come up with something better than letting the test persons judge if they have peed or not. This would be better if they did not actually expect to pee.

Hmm .. there are some dyes that turn from colourless to blue when in contact with urine. It is used in some pubblic baths to reveal people who pee in the water. If ms. Hunter thinks it is OK, the test persons could sit on a sheet of paper prepared with this dye, and the test would only be successful if the paper get blue stains. Ms. Hunter would probably be in her right to demand that all the test persons will be wearing light clothes only that will let urine through easily.
 
I should note that there is no actual chemical used to turn water unusual colors when peed in (it is a myth created simply to discourage the behavior). I'm fairly sure there are no chemicals that typically occur in urine that do not also commonly occur in perspiration, and it would seem silly to put anything in a pool that will discolor when someone in it sweats a little :)

I haven't reread the protocol, but mandating that the resulting urination quantity is enough to produce self-evident results ought to be sufficient.
 
I have heard that urine will fluoresce under UV. If it does, then pass everyone by a UV light before the test (to ensure no false positive) and after.
 
According to Ms. Hunter, it *will* be visible from the outside. She isn't claiming to make people tinkle a little or sweat heavily. She is claiming to make them pee themselves in an obvious and provable way.
 
Well, I guess I came late to this thread, but even though I made all the way through it, I didn't find any reference to it (apologies in advance if I missed it):

What is the volunteer selection process?, and how will JREF make sure they (or some of them) are not confederates of Ms Hunter?
 
I thought that one of the reasons the MDC protocalls were changed was to avoid such piddling claims.
 
Apathia said:
I thought that one of the reasons the MDC protocalls were changed was to avoid such piddling claims.
Click to expand...

We can only assume the JREF had a solid reason to accept this application. An actual test happening would surprise me.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
We can only assume the JREF had a solid reason to accept this application.
Click to expand...

She has a "media presence" (in the form of a newspaper article) and an affidavit from someone with academic credentials, which would seem to fulfill the new requirements. On the other hand, I find it odd that apparently neither of these documents actually attests to the claim she's making. The newspaper reporter felt "strange and ill" and the academic "cri[ed] uncontrollably."
 
Steven Howard said:
She has a "media presence" (in the form of a newspaper article) and an affidavit from someone with academic credentials, which would seem to fulfill the new requirements. On the other hand, I find it odd that apparently neither of these documents actually attests to the claim she's making. The newspaper reporter felt "strange and ill" and the academic "cri[ed] uncontrollably."
Click to expand...

Ms. Hunter claims quite a few different powers. She chose to focus on urination, but has said that she is also willing to be tested on the crying ability.
 
Given the latest announcement about Jeff Wagg being the test subject, I wonder if it would be inappropriate for people attending the test to chant GO, JEFF GO!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom