Some questions about the Million Dollar Challenge

[Bjarke Roune]

posted by AshlesI think it is important not to take SwissSkeptic's comment out of context, (or to think that any of us actually speak for the JREF here).

...

I'd hate to think that anyone got the impression that Randi only picks people to test who he knows will fail because, as you say, that observably isn't the case.

I agree that that is not the case, and it is good that you make this clear, so that no one reads this thread and gets a wrong impression.

This is still an issue that I need to look at, though, because it is often falsely claimed that Randi only takes the easy cases.

This forum is obviously not the only information outlet in the world. If anyone applied to the JREF challenge and was turned down for no good reason they could (and would) shout it to the rooftops.

I agree.

However, in the believer's perspective, this is exactly what is happening, and no one cares. Applicants will not agree to a reasonable protocol and then go on to claim that Randi would not test them. Believers see this and think the challenge is fake.

Also, people have been rejected because they became unreasonable or abusive. This can easily be construed as dismissal for no good reason. In this case, it really helps that much of the correspondence is available on the challenge forum, so that it can be seen that they indeed were unreasonable or abusive.

A good argument would be that someone unfairly dismissed could simply post in the regular forum, and other skeptics would say "hey, that is not right!". I think I will put something like that in the article.

It is also worthy of note that there is not a multitude of people claiming that they applied without the JREF putting up information about this on the challenge forum. Even dog-turd-guy is mentioned.

As to what I am looking for, see my response to jmercer.

 

[jmercer]

I can certainly understand that my inquiry seems fishy. I'm trying to think of every way that there could possibly be something crooked about the challenge. This means I'll be looking at many accusations that are completely off the mark. Please, just because I'm trying to make the best case for some (possibly ridicoulous) argument in this thread, that doesn't mean I think it is a good argument, and if I include it in the article, it certainly will not be presented unanswered. I'm not writing this article for the skeptics, though I hope it will hold some interest for them. I hope to avoid preaching to the choir, and this means taking peoples' concerns seriously. You are free to think I'm wasting my time

It's not that so much, as that JREF is continually accused of all sorts of nefarious manipulations... ranging from suppressing emails to having Randi's Amazing Psychic Powers interfere with an applicant so that they fail the test. (A' la Angela. )

Doing a search for "yellow bamboo" on the JREF forums results in 105 threads. Many of those are very lengthy. Searching for "Achau Nguyen" results in only 9 threads. Yellow Bamboo has been all over the internet claiming to have passed the preliminary test and Randi have engaged that in his commentaries several times. The Yellow Bamboo controversy is perhaps the most talked-about applicant of all. Yet, the controversy is not mentioned at all on the challenge log. They must have sent email to JREF about them claiming to have passed the test.

People have confused the forums with the official Foundation before - JREF is not responsible for the content or postings in these forums other than what is presented in the Challenges subforum. The controversy over YB in the forums has no place in the official challenges thread; only official correspondence between JREF and the applicant (and/or comments by Randi or Kramer regarding the application status and process) should be in those posts. If an applicant chooses to reference dialogue from these forums - such as Wellfed did - it certainly has a place in there as well because it falls under the heading of official correspondence from the applicant to JREF about the forum posts.

Obviously, that is not an attempt to put a lid on it, as Randi repeatedly and at length engaged the issue in his commentaries. The point is just that the challenge log did not tell the whole story.

Randi certainly has a right to express his views on ANY applicant (or subject, for that matter!) in his commentaries. They are his commentaries, and he uses them to provide his opinion on entire ranges of subjects. Since YB did indeed begin the dialogue for application - then (as far as official JREF correspondence goes) simply dropped the dialogue - they were certainly fair game for Randi for that alone. (Although their claims would have made them fair game regardless.)

So regarding your assertion about the log - the challenge log absolutely told the whole story - as far as YB's interactions with JREF went, and JREF's view on the process. (Or defunct process, in this case.)

The missing correspondence is not only the faxes. A thread about Jim Dinn in this forum has several posts by Kramer posting new information about the case. This information is not in the challenge forum. Also...

Please provide links to those specific posts of Kramers you are referencing - I can't respond fairly without reading them. (Use the "link this post" option recently added by Darat to make it easy. )

... we don't get to see the email exchange where Kramer got the phone number (this might have been a telephone conversation, in which case the point is moot).

...

I think Kramer chose to leave parts out because he did not think they were relevant or important, and for all I know, he was completely correct.

Or he may not be - Kramer, like all of us, is subject to errors.

Kramer was fairly new to the job for some of these applicants; he's done a lot to change the way he handles both the applicants and the Challenge threads since.

Perhaps I should give a bit more context of why I think these things are relevant. My first reaction to looking at some of the criticisms of the challenge on the internet was: "Look at the damn log on the damn JREF page! How can anyone possibly construe this as anything but sincere, patient and serious conduct?" Unfortunately, if only some data is posted, this argument is less strong, since then the log is not an impartial and complete source of data on the case. Leaving out the part about Yellow Bamboo claiming to have passed the preliminary is an example of this.

Unfortunately for my devil's advocate alter ego, JREF has never claimed that the log is a complete source of information, and leaving some things out certainly is not evidence of anything bad. One example is that Kramer said that he did not want to further engage Jim Dunn in his delusions, as that might be detrimental to his mental health. That is clearly a legitimate reason.

I don't disagree with your concerns, now that you've clarified them here. However - the Challenges subforum started out almost as an FYI kind of thing, but seems to have started evolving into a sort of case-files documentation for applicants and testers. (Which I think is great!)

 

[Bjarke Roune]

People have confused the forums with the official Foundation before - JREF is not responsible for the content or postings in these forums other than what is presented in the Challenges subforum. The controversy over YB in the forums has no place in the official challenges thread; only official correspondence between JREF and the applicant (and/or comments by Randi or Kramer regarding the application status and process) should be in those posts. If an applicant chooses to reference dialogue from these forums - such as Wellfed did - it certainly has a place in there as well because it falls under the heading of official correspondence from the applicant to JREF about the forum posts.

I agree. I mentioned the forums to make it clear that Yellow Bamboo is a case alot of people have been very interested in and that it has been discussed at nauseating length.

Randi certainly has a right to express his views on ANY applicant (or subject, for that matter!) in his commentaries. They are his commentaries, and he uses them to provide his opinion on entire ranges of subjects. Since YB did indeed begin the dialogue for application - then (as far as official JREF correspondence goes) simply dropped the dialogue - they were certainly fair game for Randi for that alone. (Although their claims would have made them fair game regardless.)

I agree. I think you have misunderstood me. I wrote that it was clearly not an attempt to a put a lid on it, not that it was an attempt to put a lid on it.

So regarding your assertion about the log - the challenge log absolutely told the whole story - as far as YB's interactions with JREF went, and JREF's view on the process. (Or defunct process, in this case.)

I disagree. YB must have sent emails to the JREF about their claim of having passed the preliminary test. These claims are a part of YB's interactions with the JREF, and it is relevant to the YB case.

This does not mean that Kramer or anyone else ought to have posted the correspondence in the challenge log, since I have found no claims anywhere that the challenge log is a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence. What it does mean is that the challenge log isn't a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence.

Please provide links to those specific posts of Kramers you are referencing - I can't respond fairly without reading them. (Use the "link this post" option recently added by Darat to make it easy. )

These are all of his posts in the thread. Not all of them have information that would be relevant in the challenge log but some do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725309#post1870725309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725324#post1870725324
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725348#post1870725348
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725374#post1870725374
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870726219#post1870726219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870726403#post1870726403
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870727348#post1870727348
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870729814#post1870729814
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870733261#post1870733261
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870737597#post1870737597
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870740047#post1870740047
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870740108#post1870740108
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870741170#post1870741170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870744328#post1870744328

 

[jmercer]

I agree. I mentioned the forums to make it clear that Yellow Bamboo is a case alot of people have been very interested in and that it has been discussed at nauseating length.

I agree. I think you have misunderstood me. I wrote that it was clearly not an attempt to a put a lid on it, not that it was an attempt to put a lid on it.

Hey, thanks for clarifying. My bad.

I disagree. YB must have sent emails to the JREF about their claim of having passed the preliminary test. These claims are a part of YB's interactions with the JREF, and it is relevant to the YB case.

This does not mean that Kramer or anyone else ought to have posted the correspondence in the challenge log, since I have found no claims anywhere that the challenge log is a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence. What it does mean is that the challenge log isn't a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence.

Well... I was here when this all happened, and I was active in the thread about it. I can't say if there was any correspondence between JREF and YB concerning any claims of having passed the preliminary test - I suggest you PM Kramer and ask him about it. He's a good guy, and he'll tell you if there were any or not. (In fact, if there were, he may post them remedially once you guys discuss it.)

As I recall, here's what happened -

A local skeptics organization challenged YB to prove their claims. A test was arranged, and filmed, and the results were posted by that organization on their website. Another organization unrelated to JREF (Bullshido, maybe? I'm not sure, other than it wasn't JREF) posted the link to the video along with commentary in this forum because of the original (abandoned) YB challenge. The thread took on a life of it's own (as they often do!), and someone emailed or PM'ed Kramer (or Randi) about the link.

Randi subsequently posted about YB's failure in his commentary.

But - as far as I know - there was never any mention made of an email to JREF from YB about passing the preliminary. (Although I do recall reading that YB's founder had been claiming that elsewhere in other forums, etc. My memory on that point may be faulty, however.)

If there was an email, the only possible response would have been "What you did wasn't our preliminary challenge - we weren't involved at all. And besides - we've seen the film, and you utterly failed!" If there was correspondence like that, then yes, it probably should have been put in the Challenge thread.

I'll check the links on the Dunn stuff - thanks, btw - and let you know what I think shortly!

 

[IXP]

Jmercer,

The test that YB claimed to have passed is not the one you are referring to. There was an earlier test where someone was actually knocked down, however it was not an official test and did not follow the protocol that Randi suggested.

Randi's commentary concerning the test YB "passed"

 

[jmercer]

Thanks - I think I've seen that mentioned before, now that you mention it.

 

[jmercer]

These are all of his posts in the thread. Not all of them have information that would be relevant in the challenge log but some do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725309#post1870725309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725324#post1870725324
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725348#post1870725348
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870725374#post1870725374
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870726219#post1870726219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870726403#post1870726403
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870727348#post1870727348
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870729814#post1870729814
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870733261#post1870733261
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870737597#post1870737597
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870740047#post1870740047
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870740108#post1870740108
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870741170#post1870741170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870744328#post1870744328

I've gone through the references (thanks again, it made this easy!) and I agree with you - it appears that there may have been correspondence that pertains to the challenge that was left out. (Such as the Valentine email posted by Kramer here in this forum, and some - probably repetitive - emails from Dunn about his status, etc.)

Some of it - as you said - may be phone conversations, so that's understandable... but some of it is clearly email correspondence. I guess that the question is...

Should the Challenge threads in the Challenges subforum be "informational" in nature as they are now, or should they be fully detailed "case files"? And while some stuff is cut & paste, some of it (such as snailmail and faxes) aren't... so is there sufficient labor capacity to create really accurate "case files"?

(Oh - btw - I was re-reading your OP - did you get A. Nguyan's very recent test?)

 

[Bjarke Roune]

(jmercer)
(Oh - btw - I was re-reading your OP - did you get A. Nguyan's very recent test?)

Yeah, got it, but thanks anyway

In case you want to know more about the Yellow Bamboo case, I guess my preliminary list of links about it is a nice place to start. Please notice that all the text is quotes from the links.

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yellowbamboo.html

If anyone cares, I've also written a brief note on each applicant whose test is mentioned in the challenge log.

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/applicants.html

If anyone could tell me where Randi initially asked for volunteers to test Yellow Bamboo, that would be nice. I know he has, but I can't find a commentary about it. Maybe it is too old for the commentary archive.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

The below link is one instance of Yellow Bamboo correspondence not on the challenge log.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=27804

 

[rwguinn]

The below link is one instance of Yellow Bamboo correspondence not on the challenge log.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=27804

That is not official correspondence. There is no way to actually verify that the posting is from a YB official type, anyway.
So it is in the user forums, not the official one. It was posted that way, not as official correspondence.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

That is not official correspondence. There is no way to actually verify that the posting is from a YB official type, anyway.
So it is in the user forums, not the official one. It was posted that way, not as official correspondence.

I see your point. I am assuming that they also sent this to the JREF. The yellowbamboo user has also given scanned copies of documents with Randi's signature, so I think it is safe to assume that it is the real deal.

Yellow Bamboo also made a press release about what they claim was the preliminary.

The open letter has also been posted to rec.martial-arts, and as far as I remember, that was the same user that had a real-life visit in Bali by a respected martial artist.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I just wanted to share this little gem - it certainly brightened my day

http://psymag.tripod.com/issue_2/2_loopholes.htm

and there is must just like it

http://psymag.tripod.com/index.html

this has got to be a hoax, but funny none the less.

 

[jmercer]

OMG, that's priceless! If it's not a spoof, then somebody's one sick puppy.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

doh!

If anyone could tell me where Randi initially asked for volunteers to test Yellow Bamboo, that would be nice. I know he has, but I can't find a commentary about it. Maybe it is too old for the commentary archive.

I found it. I don't know how I missed this.

http://www.randi.org/jr/070403.html

 

[jmercer]

Hey, Bjarke - you should read the "Yellow Bamboo Reprise" thread just recently posted here, if you haven't already. Straight from the participants POV.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I sent the following message to Kramer using the forum mail system yesterday. Anyone should feel free to comment on or discuss the questions here. I will not be posting Kramers reply, at least not verbatim, as that defeats the purpose of him not posting here.

Subject: Questions about the Yellow Bamboo controversy

Hi Kramer

I have some questions about the Yellow Bamboo controversy that I would be grateful if you would take a look at. These questions might seem like I do not think you are doing a good job or that there is something objectionable about the Challenge. I certainly do not mean to imply that. I think you are doing a great job and I think the Million Dollar Challenge is an important and worthwhile project that furthers the cause of clear thinking.

Now on to the questions.

Was Joko Tri authorized to perform a JREF preliminary test on Yellow Bamboo?

If not, what is your opinion on the following quote.

"I also asked about Joko Tri. He showed me a letter signed by James Randi and Joko, nominating Joko as his designated rep to do the test in Bali. There was a rep from the media also there who apparently was some Radio guy from Bali. I saw video of him doing the test."
http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.m...961a95810bcebc1

I believe Fraser Johnston was involved with the test in Perth, so I assume he would not say such a thing if he did not believe it. I have not yet verified with him whether it was an imposter who posted that, but I doubt it. Maybe he was shown a forgery?

I have read the official challenge log on Yellow Bamboo, and I am somewhat puzzled. Since Yellow Bamboo does not mention the Joko Tri test, and you write nothing about any previous encounter with Yellow Bamboo, I would think their email that is displayed in the challenge log is the first communication between Yellow Bamboo and the JREF. However this cannot be true, as you write that you never heard any more from them, but Randi makes it clear in his commentaries that there were more communication, and things even went so far that he called for volunteers to perform the test. How do these pieces fit together? Is there a reason that the controversy about the test conducted by Joko Tri is not mentioned in the challenge log?
(I suggest adding some links to the relevant Randi commentaries)

In his commentary at http://www.randi.org/jr/101703.html, Randi writes:

"In any case, we're now discussing the performance of a proper preliminary test of the Yellow Bamboo claim. I'm contacting the Australian volunteers who formerly offered to take part in a test, and we'll keep you informed via this web page. This is getting to be very interesting indeed!"

My understanding is that the test in Perth was not associated with the JREF and that it specifically was not a JREF preliminary test. So what happened to this effort to conduct a JREF preliminary test on Yellow Bamboo? Did they back out? (this might also be worthwile to mention in the challenge log)

If a person conducting a test on behalf of the JREF does not follow the protocol, is the test valid? (notice that I am asking "what if" the JREF representative does not follow protocol - I am not talking about the applicant) What if he allows something that is not mentioned in the protocol, but that he should clearly not have allowed? (like "sure you can bring a walkie talkie to this telepathy test")

Best regards
Bjarke Roune

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I got an answer from Kramer some days ago. You can read the correspondence at

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb_email.html

The noteworthy result is the information that Joko Tri was in fact authorized to perform an official JREF preliminary, but that the JREF does not recognize the actual test that took place since the protocol was not followed - and only for this reason.

Right now I'm in the process of obtaining a scan of the contract between Yellow Bamboo and the JREF so I can verify what the protocol actually was.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I got the images from CFLarsen, who got them from Yellow Bamboo, and you can download them all from here:

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb.zip

I've unpacked what I feel to be the 3 most interesting pages, which are here:

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb002.jpg
http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb003.jpg
http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb008.jpg

Interestingly, I do not at this time see how the protocol as outlined on those pages have not been followed by Joko Tri. It does say that Joko should "gently tap", and it has been argued that he could not possibly have done so from the way he was charging in the video.

I've done some Iaido, and I feel confident that I would have been able to do so without any problems by stopping right in front of Mr. Serengen and bringing the bamboo down in arc to the side, hitting the ribs sideways. It is an easy adaptation of a standard movement in Iaido, and I do not believe that Joko Tri would have needed any weapons training to perform it. Try it yourself

I will ask Kramer whether these documents are genuine, whether something important has been left out and in exactly which ways the JREF does not believe the protocol was followed.

Do notice that the images have all originally been provided by Yellow Bamboo, who are hardly neutral in this matter.

 

[Zep]

I think, having read those pages, that there was NO agreement in place at all. It all hinged on the protocol being acceptable to both parties (see the second sentence of the letter), and it was never finally agreed as far as I am aware. These pages show simply a stage of the ngotiating process, not any final position and sign-off.

Also, if this were a final protocol, it does not prevent Joko Tri from striking the YB guru at all. All that is requierd to register as a YB failure is for at least a light tap with the bamboo weapon. To my way of thinking, however, a solid whacking about the head and body, along the same lines as happened in Perth, would have been well worth the video effort!

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I think, having read those pages, that there was NO agreement in place at all. It all hinged on the protocol being acceptable to both parties (see the second sentence of the letter), and it was never finally agreed as far as I am aware. These pages show simply a stage of the ngotiating process, not any final position and sign-off.

It seems many people think that there was no agreement and Joko was acting independently, and I suspected so too some time ago, but read the letter Kramer sent me a bit further up in this thread. He makes it abundantly clear that Joko Tri was authorized to perform the test, and that the problem was solely that Joko did not follow the protocol. This implies that there was a protocol.

I agree that there could have been further correspondence. However, even if we assume that Randi got his way in all his demands in that letter, Joko Tri actually would have followed the protocol as far as I can tell. Of course, it is possible that Randi made more demands later. I am quite looking forward to hearing what Kramer has to say on the matter!

Also, if this were a final protocol, it does not prevent Joko Tri from striking the YB guru at all. All that is requierd to register as a YB failure is for at least a light tap with the bamboo weapon. To my way of thinking, however, a solid whacking about the head and body, along the same lines as happened in Perth, would have been well worth the video effort!

Yes, I think your interpretation is the most faithful reading of the words too. However, there has been made an issue of the "light tap" versus "hitting" in some threads and in Randi's commentaries, so I have to look at the matter.