• 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...

Maybe this will make some reporters think twice before writing some nonsense stories where they knowingly distort evidence to make nothing sound like something.
 
In case somebody is wondering if Ms. Hunter's failure was a close call, like she almost succeeded, please consider this:

The protocol called for an emptying of Mr. Wagg's bladder before the test.
The claim called for the bladder to be filled and then emptied.

Imagine you have a glass of water and pour it in the kitchen sink. Then imagine the recently emptied glass to be filled out of thin air by the grace of an imagined entity.



I realise of course that a human body might produce urin in 15 minutes or less and even call for the same to be disposed of in that time frame. Usually, this does have to with liquid to be ingested, right?
 
GzuzKryzt said:
<snip>
I realise of course that a human body might produce urin in 15 minutes or less and even call for the same to be disposed of in that time frame. Usually, this does have to with liquid to be ingested, right?
Click to expand...
Well, since I'm a person who can need my bladder emptied within 15 minutes of emptying, I can only answer from my personal experience: no. I do not need to take in any liquid in those 15 minutes, and perversely, the more water I take in, the less often I need to empty my bladder. It actually has more to do with what I ate in the previous 24 hours...although the science on that is inexact as well.

Overall, I agree that in a person of properly functioning physiology, any urges experienced within 15 minutes of prior bladder emptying seems unlikely.

But I am not a doctor, and I don't even play one on tv. Just a person with a pea-sized bladder who knows where every public restroom in every city she visits is.
 
ChristineR said:
Maybe this will make some reporters think twice before writing some nonsense stories where they knowingly distort evidence to make nothing sound like something.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. IMO, reporters are idle creatures. Note that at TAM 3, when reporting on Carla Baron, the people from CFI-West described how rather than fact check, the local press simply reprinted verbatim her own press release describing how she had helped the police solve crimes. Also, there was the recent debacle in the UK with the Ronnie Hazlehurst obituary, where hacks googled the man and simply reprinted his Wikipedia entry, again without fact checking, so it contained a huge error which all the national UK papers printed as gospel.
Woo-woo stories are better business than fact checking to reveal it just ain't so.
 
volatile said:
Well, I take your point, Steenkh. This is a procedural matter.

My first suggestion would be that if, as we were told in April, the JREF want to spend time, money and effort combating the big guns of the woo industry, the media requirement be treated much more strictly. The say-so of one local reporter shouldn't count as a "media presence" for the application, because it wouldn't in any other context. My own subjective opinion of this is that the endorsement of one small-time reporter may have bolstered her opinions of her skills such that she was persuaded to make a not inconsiderable outlay to come get tested. That seems exploitative to me.

The media requirement, supposed to dissuade these kind of poor, deluded saps, seems to have had a role in actually persuading her to travel for the test. In other words, it's had the opposite effect to that originally intended. Would she have flown to Florida had she applied in January, without this media support? I don't know, but I suspect not.

My other concern is this: if the April changes, as we all hoped, were intended to prevent small-time applicants from wasting the JREF's time and resurces, and underpin a more aggressive stance towards the big guns of the paranormal industry,the very fact that Ms Hunter is only the second test published since then is a sure sign those changes have failed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you feel slighted somehow by this Challenge Test.

Ms. Hunter applied before sending media presence. She wanted to come have the preliminary Challenge test *immediately* without presence or affidavits.

She was told that was not possible.

She then provided media presence and affidavits.

So, no, the trip was not planned because she fulfilled the media presence requirement. Ms. Hunter was ready and willing to come to the JREF long before we were willing to allow it, and in advance of the proof of media presence.

I am unsure how this means that Ms. Hunter was exploited in any way.

We cannot just reject applications because someone's power sounds silly. To a skeptic, *all* powers are going to sound silly. The April plan of going into 'attack mode' is still being worked on - but at no point, to my knowledge, did the plan involve rejecting all applications simply because the claimant wasn't popular enough to win the JREF's attention. At this point, the media presence requirement is not proof of popularity. It is proof that yet another unbiased observer witnessed the person's abilities and believed that they were worthy of article space.

I'm sure it is possible to mention that journalists are not unbiased - that they are looking for a story.

But look at it, for a moment, from the JREF's perspective. The affidavits from academics do not prove that the individual who signed them was unbiased. The affidavit might, in fact, be signed by the claimant's Uncle Fred, who happens to be a scientist. In this example, the affidavit would be meaningless as proof of an unbiased witness.

By requiring both some form of media and an affidavit, we are getting closer to the opinions of unbiased parties. Yes, there are flaws in the sense of sensational journalism, but they are ones that simply cannot be gotten around. The media presence adds another layer. That's all.

I may be wrong, but I view the media presence requirement in that capacity, and as somewhat separate from the April 1st goals, in that they work in two different ways: to enable the JREF to focus on more well-known believers, and/or to add another buffer - another unbiased party.

Again, I am not privy to all JREF doings, so I cannot say with any level of certainty that this is how things really are, but it is my perception.

Ms. Hunter fulfilled the requirements. Ms. Hunter wanted, very much, to be tested. Ms. Hunter went to great lengths to achieve this, with no urging from the JREF - merely support for her decision to continue the application/protocol negotiation process.

Honestly, I think you are slighting Ms. Hunter with your arguments. She was aware of what she was doing, the risk she was taking, and the publicity associated with it. She had the ability, at any time, to cancel protocol negotiations with no backlash. Are you saying she is incapable of making her own decisions - regarding her own life?

If you have a problem with the JREF testing paranormal claims, then it sounds like you have a problem with the Million Dollar Challenge as a whole.

And, frankly, I'm insulted that you are annoyed this test was the best we could do. It isn't the best, it isn't the worst. It is a claim, and was treated as any other claim.

If you think nothing is happening with the Challenge, I urge you to look through the Challenge Applicants section and review how much work I've been putting into them. I can only work with the applications that are submitted, and with the claimants who submit them. I cannot wish really hard for John Edward to apply and have it come true, though if I could, maybe I would apply.

Again, the April 1st goals are still being worked on. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the Challenge is going to freeze while that happens.
 
volatile said:
My other concern is this: if the April changes, as we all hoped, were intended to prevent small-time applicants from wasting the JREF's time and resurces, and underpin a more aggressive stance towards the big guns of the paranormal industry,the very fact that Ms Hunter is only the second test published since then is a sure sign those changes have failed.
Click to expand...

People like Rosemary are not our main target. However, she fulfilled all the requirements. She WAS getting press.

Now her claims may seem silly to us, but don't they all? Isn't it just as silly to say you can make someone pee as it is to say you can talk to the dead?

We have to test everyone who meets the qualifications.
 
volatile said:
My other concern is this: if the April changes, as we all hoped, were intended to prevent small-time applicants from wasting the JREF's time and resurces, and underpin a more aggressive stance towards the big guns of the paranormal industry,the very fact that Ms Hunter is only the second test published since then is a sure sign those changes have failed.
Click to expand...

People like Rosemary are not our main target. However, she fulfilled all the requirements. She WAS getting press.

Now her claims may seem silly to us, but don't they all? Isn't it just as silly to say you can make someone pee as it is to say you can talk to the dead?

We have to test everyone who meets the qualifications.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
In case somebody is wondering if Ms. Hunter's failure was a close call, like she almost succeeded, please consider this:

The protocol called for an emptying of Mr. Wagg's bladder before the test.
The claim called for the bladder to be filled and then emptied.

Imagine you have a glass of water and pour it in the kitchen sink. Then imagine the recently emptied glass to be filled out of thin air by the grace of an imagined entity.



I realise of course that a human body might produce urin in 15 minutes or less and even call for the same to be disposed of in that time frame. Usually, this does have to with liquid to be ingested, right?
Click to expand...

I disagree that Ms. Hunter almost succeeded.

She was the one who developed the protocol involving the empty bladder prior to the test.
She also said that it did not matter if the person had a full bladder or an empty bladder.

Put simply, Ms. Hunter failed the test because she could not do what she claimed that she could do.

Sounds like a good result to me!
 
GzuzKryzt said:
When has evidence - or lack thereof - ever changed the mind of a True Believer[tm]?
Click to expand...
Although I was never one myself, there are many, many people, some on this very forum, who at one time or another had unshakable faith in some sort of woo. Some become rational thinkers through a long process of things never seeming to add up. Others via a catastrophic, deer in headlight type failure of their belief. This, I would think, is clearly the latter.

And I did say, “At least I hope so.” I’m well aware the force of the dark side is strong.:(
 
RemieV said:
At this point, the media presence requirement is not proof of popularity. It is proof that yet another unbiased observer witnessed the person's abilities and believed that they were worthy of article space.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose JREF follows these up with a press statement to other media outlets in the area of the original media item? I'm just thinking that "The Evening Tribune Gazzette Journal" might enjoy a story like "Local Psychic Unsuccessful in Test - Reporter_X from The Daily Blather Must Just Have a Weak Bladder" :)
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Isn't a "true believer" by definition someone who continues to believe long after it has been proven false?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome
Click to expand...

I went with a similar definition.

But Colin brought up a valid point: The steady drop of data to the stone of ignorance.



I wish Ms. Hunter (or people who were sure she'd succeed) would join the forum - and we'd be gracious enough to not bark her (them) away. I wish we could learn about the backgrounds that lead people to believe such claims.
 
Last edited:
One good thing about this challenge is that there have been many people write about it. Do a search on "Rosemary Hunter" psychic in your search engine and you will get heaps of hits. Some of them are us, but not all.

Is this the same Rosemary? http://www.northcoastjournal.com/102402/cover1024.html Or is it another psychic with the same name? If she is the same Rosemary then JREF have just scored big time.
 
HawaiiBigSis said:
But I am not a doctor, and I don't even play one on tv. Just a person with a pea-sized bladder who knows where every public restroom in every city she visits is.
Click to expand...

I was really glad to see that Rosemary showed up and the test went as planned. I was also glad to see everything handled in a very professional and courteous manner by the JREF, and would be interested to see if Rosemary reapplies in a year along the same lines. This is my thinking out loud, but if so, maybe a new protocol could be designed for several people being tested at once, with at least one person with pea-sized bladder and/or pelvic pain affecting the bladder included in the group, with 80% of the group producing positive results for Rosemary to make it to the final stage. I'm not an expert with percentages/statistics/math so don't know if that would be feasible, but it could be interesting.
 
Has anyone considererd that Rosemary may be a gambler? I don't know what the statistics are, but if there is one person in this forum who feels the need to unrinate every fifteen minutes, there are more out there.

Maybe she has researched the stats and done a risk vs return calculation when considering the likelyhood of landing a test subject with a weak bladder.

This would explain her cool demeanour - much like that of (some) professional gamblers who know the risk when placing the bet and are collected when they miss out.

Alas, I think not. But would have been damn clever if she won...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom