Dear Mr. Randi,
In response to the requirements of Rule #1 of your challenge.
The demonstration offered by myself consists of an 8 page document that proves a publication named THE BOOK OF THE LAW was dictated by a discarnate entity named Aiwass to the English magician Aleister Crowley in 1904. Verses in the book predict the discovery of such proof and include several cryptic puzzles that are accompanied by statements predicting someone will find a solution to them. It is my contention that through the application of a Gematria system to the text of the book, evidence is produced showing portions to the text of the book are deliberately constructed so as to both omit and include mathematical sequences of a peculiar nature, neither of which can be explained without acknowledging a deliberate effort on the part of the author to include them in the book. Furthermore, the described sequences are of sufficient complexity that an implementation of them in the text circa 1904 without the use of a computer is highly unlikely, while the discovery of them without a computer is is also practically impossible. Included as part of the evidence are a complete and cogent solution to all of the puzzles the book offers, one of which shows my name encoded, as well as the name of the true author of the book - Aiwass.
I also propose submitting a floppy disk containing evidence of gematric computations performed, along with a copy of the book text used in my analysis.
As for what constitutes a positive or negative result, what I bring to the challenge is a string of evidence that is uniform and exhibits clear signs of intelligent design. If expert analysis of the data produces evidence indicating the mathematical patterns isolated are random occurences (thereby rendering the solutions to the puzzles ipso facto random), I will accept the outcome as a negative result. On the other hand, if no counter-evidence can be produced, then the data as presented in my essay should be considered in and of itself a positive result.
-Tim Moss
============================================
Dear Mr. Moss,
Thank you for your letter and JREF Challenge application.
Such claims as yours cannot be verified by any known scientific means. Patterns such as those you refer to can easily be found by those who chose to seek them out. Man is a pattern-seeking creature. Indeed, it is our nature.
The existence of such patterns, found either in some text or in nature, prove only that such patterns do indeed occur. They do NOT prove the existence of a creator, nor can "Intelligent Design" be proven by such means. Interpretation is NOT proof. If you truly possess an open, inquiring mind, I would refer you to Richard Dawkins' THE BLIND WATCHMAKER for strong, scientific evidence that would clearly refute your position, and your claim.
We receive an enormous amount of such claims and we cannot possibly devise a test that would confirm or deny the existence of any paranormal phenomenon by means of text interpretation, cryptic or otherwise. Such claims are commonplace in paranormal literature, and the JREF is NOT interested in pursuing such unverifiable claims. Your text interpretation proves nothing, and the JREF is only interested in scientific proof, via demonstration. submitted under proper observing conditions.
As such, your claim does not qualify for preliminary testing, and is hereby rejected.
Thank you for your inquiry. Should you be unsatisfied with our response, please refer to our website (www.randi.org) for the JREF prize rules and specifics thereof.
-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.
=============================================
We never heard from this applicant again, and hence, his file was eventually closed.
In response to the requirements of Rule #1 of your challenge.
The demonstration offered by myself consists of an 8 page document that proves a publication named THE BOOK OF THE LAW was dictated by a discarnate entity named Aiwass to the English magician Aleister Crowley in 1904. Verses in the book predict the discovery of such proof and include several cryptic puzzles that are accompanied by statements predicting someone will find a solution to them. It is my contention that through the application of a Gematria system to the text of the book, evidence is produced showing portions to the text of the book are deliberately constructed so as to both omit and include mathematical sequences of a peculiar nature, neither of which can be explained without acknowledging a deliberate effort on the part of the author to include them in the book. Furthermore, the described sequences are of sufficient complexity that an implementation of them in the text circa 1904 without the use of a computer is highly unlikely, while the discovery of them without a computer is is also practically impossible. Included as part of the evidence are a complete and cogent solution to all of the puzzles the book offers, one of which shows my name encoded, as well as the name of the true author of the book - Aiwass.
I also propose submitting a floppy disk containing evidence of gematric computations performed, along with a copy of the book text used in my analysis.
As for what constitutes a positive or negative result, what I bring to the challenge is a string of evidence that is uniform and exhibits clear signs of intelligent design. If expert analysis of the data produces evidence indicating the mathematical patterns isolated are random occurences (thereby rendering the solutions to the puzzles ipso facto random), I will accept the outcome as a negative result. On the other hand, if no counter-evidence can be produced, then the data as presented in my essay should be considered in and of itself a positive result.
-Tim Moss
============================================
Dear Mr. Moss,
Thank you for your letter and JREF Challenge application.
Such claims as yours cannot be verified by any known scientific means. Patterns such as those you refer to can easily be found by those who chose to seek them out. Man is a pattern-seeking creature. Indeed, it is our nature.
The existence of such patterns, found either in some text or in nature, prove only that such patterns do indeed occur. They do NOT prove the existence of a creator, nor can "Intelligent Design" be proven by such means. Interpretation is NOT proof. If you truly possess an open, inquiring mind, I would refer you to Richard Dawkins' THE BLIND WATCHMAKER for strong, scientific evidence that would clearly refute your position, and your claim.
We receive an enormous amount of such claims and we cannot possibly devise a test that would confirm or deny the existence of any paranormal phenomenon by means of text interpretation, cryptic or otherwise. Such claims are commonplace in paranormal literature, and the JREF is NOT interested in pursuing such unverifiable claims. Your text interpretation proves nothing, and the JREF is only interested in scientific proof, via demonstration. submitted under proper observing conditions.
As such, your claim does not qualify for preliminary testing, and is hereby rejected.
Thank you for your inquiry. Should you be unsatisfied with our response, please refer to our website (www.randi.org) for the JREF prize rules and specifics thereof.
-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.
=============================================
We never heard from this applicant again, and hence, his file was eventually closed.