The PROPHET YAHWEH, Maker of UFO's

[SezMe]

I'm not clear on this. People are arguing that Yahoo's accomplices should either be banned or "marked" (by bright shirts or whatever).

Why?

Will either strategy stop him from having a hidden accomplice somewhere down the block? You know, the one who's going to release the balloon. Will a rule about accomplices keep him from operating?

From where I sit, it's not the accomplices you can see that are the problem, but the ones you can't.

Outlawing bank robbery does not prevent bank robbery. But it raises the bar and makes consequences explicit.

You're right, banning accomplices may not guarantee that accomplices are not used but it raises the bar and makes the consequences explicit.

 

[jadebox]

Regarding "hidden" compatriots... who cares? The balloon shows up; we and the media prove it's a balloon; Mr. Prophet Yahweh is publicly debunked. That this fraud has accomplices is immaterial.

A million dollars is at stake. The challenger (challengee?) must be required to prove he's done what he says he can do. The testers should not have to prove he didn't.

-- Roger

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I'm not clear on this. People are arguing that Yahoo's accomplices should either be banned or "marked" (by bright shirts or whatever).

Why?

Will either strategy stop him from having a hidden accomplice somewhere down the block? You know, the one who's going to release the balloon. Will a rule about accomplices keep him from operating?

From where I sit, it's not the accomplices you can see that are the problem, but the ones you can't.

It might not be that difficult to find an accomplice. On the day of the challenge, figure out the relative wind speed and direction. Determine how long it would take a balloon to reach the target.. Have a group of people scour the basic location that it would have to be released in. Look for people that are hanging around the area. Scout out people who are possibilities. Take pictures when the balloon is released.

 

[Beady]

You're right, banning accomplices may not guarantee that accomplices are not used but it raises the bar and makes the consequences explicit.

So what? Do you think Yahweh's going to care? I don't think I'm the only one here who's noticed that he really doesn't care whether he gets caught out or not. After all, if he blows one gig, there's always the next.

 

[Blatt]

Speaking of de-lurking.
Now is as good as time as any to come out of the shadows and offer my opinion on the matters at hand. The thing that really bothers me about this challenge is that it all seems to come down to judgement.

If I recall correctly, the challenge clearly states that the protocol should leave no room for judgement. However, the protocol for this challenge really is all about judgement.

Even if you have high resolution cameras, and even if you were to observe something that you couldn't immediately explain, it still comes down to judgement, i.e. was the thing you observed an actual extraterrestial spaceship, a holographic projection, or simply a weather balloon?

This obviously makes this a challenge for all the regulars of this board: How could you design a test of this claim where no judgement whatsoever is involved?

 

[Timothy]

If I recall correctly, the challenge clearly states that the protocol should leave no room for judgement. However, the protocol for this challenge really is all about judgement.

I think it's pretty clear that Randi abhors this charlatan's tactics enough that he is willing to bend his acceptance rules in trade for an opportunity to publicly discredit him.

Even if you have high resolution cameras, and even if you were to observe something that you couldn't immediately explain, it still comes down to judgement, i.e. was the thing you observed an actual extraterrestial spaceship, a holographic projection, or simply a weather balloon?

In any other challenge, a rigorous definition of what constitutes a "spaceship" and how it is to be verified as such should be included in the protocol. I have a suspicion, though, that Randi would rather not do that because it might give away the exact method by which any sighted object could be debunked, and he is more interested in having the preliminary test take place and showing Profit Yahoo to be an outright fraud than he is in protecting whether or not the applicant passes the test to the letter of the protocol.

- Timothy

 

[Blatt]

I think it's pretty clear that Randi abhors this charlatan's tactics enough that he is willing to bend his acceptance rules in trade for an opportunity to publicly discredit him.

I totally agree that it is obvious that Randi means to totally discredit this Mr Prophet Yahweh. However, this still doesn't mean that he has to bend the acceptance rules in order to accomodate the challengers requirements. Maybe I'm missing something, but it still seems like it all comes down to a judgement call.

I can clearly vision the following hypothetical exchange of words:
PY: It's a spaceship, hallelujah!!
JREF Rep: Erm, no, it's a balloon, sorry dude. Very physical, made on this earth, not paranormal.
PY: Are you blind?? It's a spaceship, hallelujah! They responded to my call, hallelujah!
JREF Rep: It looks like a balloon, moves like a balloon, smells like a con.
PY: Like I said, it's a spaceship, give me the million!

Now, unless you could actually capture one of Mr PY's associates releasing the balloon, or capturing the balloon while it is still in flight, it would be darn hard to prove that the speck is not a weatherballoon, thus my concern that this claim comes down to a matter of judgement. Which obviously is not what the JREF challenge is about.

 

[Timothy]

"But, spaceships are large futuristic vehicles that are clearly designed to carry passengers, in like you see in the movies."

"Also, before the 45 day summoning period has ended, a spaceship will descend and sit in the skies over Las Vegas on my signal."

"The spaceship will hover in the sky, not far from Nellis Air Force Base, for about two days."

Speck don't count. Spaceships do.

Besides, that's why I asked about describing the angular extent of the object in the protocol.

And, also, this is only the preliminary test. He has to do it again under strictly controlled conditions for the dough.

- Timothy

 

[rjh01]

It is easy to hide and not be found. Ever play hide and seek? If you fail to find the person he will expose himself for only a few seconds while the balloon is blown and up and released. Then you lose the $1m.

Find the accomplice in a demonstration before the day and expose him as a fraud. Is fraud a crime in the USA? Bit hard for him to claim the $1m in a prison cell.

 

[SezMe]

[BAnd, also, this is only the preliminary test. He has to do it again under strictly controlled conditions for the dough.[/B]

If I remember, Kramer says the final test would take place the next day! Big mistake. If he passes the prelim, I would think the JREF crowd would want to review the event and plan an iron-clad final.

 

[princhester]

It might not be that difficult to find an accomplice. On the day of the challenge, figure out the relative wind speed and direction. Determine how long it would take a balloon to reach the target.. Have a group of people scour the basic location that it would have to be released in. Look for people that are hanging around the area. Scout out people who are possibilities. Take pictures when the balloon is released.

In Vegas? You're dreaming. Could be anywhere. In a building, in a van. Just blow up the balloon inside. Open the window for as long as it takes to shove the thing out (what? 5 seconds? 2 seconds?). Within about 10 seconds the balloon will be too far up for you to be able to positively say that it came from any given location.

And the "basic location" you'd have to cover would come down to acres. In a city.

No way you're going to be able to cover that off without an army.

No, the only way to do this is to agree a protocol that means that nothing he can get up into the air is going to satisfy the criteria for a pass.

 

[SezMe]

In Vegas? You're dreaming. Could be anywhere. In a building, in a van. Just blow up the balloon inside. Open the window for as long as it takes to shove the thing out (what? 5 seconds? 2 seconds?). Within about 10 seconds the balloon will be too far up for you to be able to positively say that it came from any given location.

And the "basic location" you'd have to cover would come down to acres. In a city.

No way you're going to be able to cover that off without an army.

No, the only way to do this is to agree a protocol that means that nothing he can get up into the air is going to satisfy the criteria for a pass.

You're assuming a balloon will pass muster for this test. But PY has asserted that the UFO will hover over Vegas for hours and that it will be certifiably be "summuned" from aliens. A balloon does not meet these criteria.

 

[princhester]

I always find the "read post, then reply" technique to have its benefits, SezMe.

 

[Ashles]

As a thought, if anyone has any particularly cunning or subtle methods for checking for tickery by PY maybe it might be worth PMing them to Kramer.

We don't necessarily want to give PY too many hints about what we're looking for/expecting.

 

[Azrael]

When I saw the KNTV footage there was a small part that surprised me. I hope you debunking buffs can help me find an explanation.

At about 2:30 in the video, right after the guy says "It's going to Nellis Air Force Base!", there is a steady shot of a pole with the field's spotlights on it on the left hand side of the frame. This part is hardly moving, which means the camera is being hold still. On the right hand side of the frame however you see the unidentified flying object jumping upwards in the sky and back again. This happens almost instantaneously (or at very high speed).

From this I could only conclude that the object is not a balloon but something more sophisticated. Someone suggested it may be a glitch but to me that would be (too) much of a coincedence. Aside from this one could wonder if the footage is really authentic, but this was aired by a major high-profile tv station (affiliated with ABC-TV) and I don't think they would sink down to the level of forgery.

I'd really appreciate some thoughts on this. It has been bugging me a bit for the last week, especially since nobody else seems to have noticed it.

For convenience sake, here is a direct link to the wmv video stream: KNTV footage

 

[KRAMER]

Just to clarify:

His entire protocol proposal has been tossed out the window.

The total extent of the agreement (and new protocol) is detailed in my email exchange with him. So please understand....

It will NOT occur at his "summoning site". It will occur at a location of the JREF's choosing.

He will summon actual Spaceships. TWO of them, in fact. "UFO's" will not suffice.

Of course we'll agree to his request that no one smoke pot or drink whiskey with beer chasers or kick out the jams while he's doing his "summoning".

Don't worry, folks. We've got it under control. Come to TAM4 and see for yourselves.

 

[edjunior]

It's a glitch either from the camera, or from when it was streamed.

IMO.

 

[Azrael]

Kramer, what are you thoughts on what I just posted? I'd love an expert's opinion.

 

[Azrael]

It's a glitch either from the camera, or from when it was streamed.

IMO.

Wouldn't it be weird for a glitch to affect only a small section (around the ufo) of the frame (while leaving the rest of the frame intact)?

 

[KRAMER]

WRONG

If I remember, Kramer says the final test would take place the next day! Big mistake.

Look again; I said it COULD take place the next day.

People, I'm going to assume that Yahweh will eventually be clued in to the existence of this forum, and do some reading herein.

Please don't ask me to show my full hand. I can't.

Trust us. Randi's no dummy, you know.