Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.
I've explained the page and line number 5 times!
This is a NEW simple protocol because none of you would read the 10 STEP BY STEP protocol.
After a week of explanations you 'can't proceed' then it won't go anywhere.
I only joined because I read your request to review paranormal experiment write ups.
Apparently this is just a ghost town forum, true I only need a few people to cooperate but I'm not playing by skeptics rules.
What step are you stuck on with the 10 STEP protocol?
Here is STEP 1.
THE MINDREADING VIA BIBLIOMANCY TEST IS CONDUCTED IN 2 PHASES.
QUESTION & ANSWER PHASE
The Tester writes down 10 yes or no questions that he has a genuine interest in finding out the answer to, not just an interest in whether I can give the answer for test purposes. The questions should cover different topics and use various formats, not all of the same type like whether something will happen in the future on all 10 questions.
I've been listening to Australian Skeptics say "TELL US THE CLAIM" 20 times for 10 YEARS!
I've reworded my claim and test protocol 20 to 30 times and never got any feedback apart from insults.
If you don't give me SPECIFIC feedback on the numerous explanations so far I'm not going to go through everything I've posted here already and condense it for you in a never ending cycle.
What do you think the random page and line number you tell me are for?
I'm not falling for your demand for never ending legally tight specifications, if I do that you just whine, if I simplify it you just find an excuse to knock back the protocol.
What exactly don't you follow with the example TRIAL given above?
FOR THE TENTH TIME, YOU GIVE ME A RANDOM LINE NUMBER AND THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU WERE THINKING.
NOW YOU WILL GO OFF ON A PERMANENT TANGENT ABOUT SUBJECTIVENESS.
LOAD OF CRAP
lets learn on the fly
provide the 100 numbered questions
Hi G. Adam,
I really think people are just trying to understand what you are doing. I do not see a need for all the abuse and anger coming from you. It seems to me that people are just confused for the most part. I do not think it helps to call them liars or insult them or post in caps.
I admit I am also having trouble understanding the methods myself. I think part of my confusion stems from the different tests or protocols being proposed. The discussion seems to be switching back & forth between different methods in different threads and it is hard to keep track of which one is being talked about. The explanations you have given are spread out in different threads and posts and I have made an honest attempt to go through them all and put it together, but I did not have much success. At this point, I just do not know what you want from us.
May I suggest that you choose one type of experiment you wish to perform, and take the time to type out a detailed, step-by-step procedure that includes an explanation for the purpose behind each step? I think it would help people to understand what you are doing. For example, I was utterly confused when you first mentioned the encryption method. It was not that I was against it, I just did not have enough knowledge about it to understand what you were asking us to do. I literally could not comply with that step given the lack of information provided. A couple sentences on the topic would have helped immensely.
Even if you consider this forum to be a waste of time, creating such a procedure would still be worth it if you intend to make this offer in other venues.
I personally would love to participate in your experiment, but I would also like to have a good understanding of what is going on while I do.
I hope this is helpful to you. It is all meant sincerely.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
Yes, I agree, before it seemed that the two different protocols were part of the same experiment. Forget about the first one. Let's do the second one. You give us the hundred questions. One of us will choose a question a PM it to the others. You give us your guess. How many trials do we need to do for it to be statistically significant?
Can't you WINZIP your text file with the number and post the file data. It should only be 128 characters of HEX.
Nobody on Earth can hack a WINZIP file with the latest encryption and a 50 digit password.
------- FILE TRIAL1.TXT ---------------------------------------------
Question 42 - Will I remarry?
PAGE 123 LINE 32
WINZIP FILE DATA A2 10 34 9E 3A 38 9F FF 00 EE 13 ... 99
PKI stands for Private Key Identifier!
I'm just not interested in putting that kind of work into this, and I don't know why it's needed. If you don't trust us to PM each other honestly our choices and honestly voice the results, then perhaps this is the wrong place to do this trial.
And we don't want to do the page number one. We want to do the other one, where you give us a list of 100 questions. We pick one at a time that we mentally send to you, then you guess which of the 100 questions we picked. I plan on using a RNG to choose my question.
Are we on the same page here?
no. The best and possibly only way the channel will work is to tele-ask me the question like so.
TRIAL 1 PAGE 123 LINE 23
ENCRYPTED FILE - xyz
I lookup the quote, say it's "the wind and the willows".
I go through all 100 questions and select 20 or 25 that ASK that type of answer.
Say you selected
Question 42: Will it be clear tomorrow?
I give my 25 answers: 1 2 4 10 12 20 33 35 41 42 55 56 62 64 66 68 70 71 72 77 78 79 81 82 99
You would reveal the password to the number, and that would be a hit, as I matched 42.
Anyway, doesn't sound like anyone will budge on a more rigorous protocol by encrypting the number I have to guess.
Saves me working on the 100 questions today!
If you WINZIP the number you are thinking of, and some basic extra data
and upload the WINZIP file with a 50 digit password, then all you have to do is give the URL to the WINZIP file.
TRIAL 1 PAGE 123 LINE 23
Takes all of 2 minutes.
This protocol allows for great room for interpretation. That's not a good test of psi. We'll spend eternity arguing whether it is a "hit" or not. I'm not interested in that. I'm also not interested in encryption.
We're willing to go with the simple protocol you set out:
It's simple, and there is no ambiguity.
It's the same test but you encrypt your number to guess.
OK, I'm out, hundreds of skeptics and magicians test out mindreading online by encrypting what is to be mindread.
It's just writing down the answer and putting it in a safe and you guess what's in the safe.
If you can't do a basic mindreading protocol I don't think you could test much at all in a forum.
I've been flexible on the protocol and the easiest way possible to encrypt the answer and the skeptics just continually throw up objections demanding WHAT NUMBER AM I THINKING OF?
When a skeptic actually listens to the claimants protocol maybe things will move along.
How is this ambiguous?
You select a number, tele-ask me that question, I guess your number. AS AGREED!
Sounds like you're throwing smoke over my simple objective test.
Every time a skeptic sees a psychic channel they cry 'SUBJECTIVE'.
You' keep on shifting gears! You've set out two tests. One that requires us to ask a question, give you a page and line number of a book, and then you'll guess the answer. The other, where we pick a question number and you guess it.
The ambiguity is not with "You select a number, tele-ask me that question, I guess your number. AS AGREED!" that's fine. We're cool with that. You give us 100 questions, we pick one, you guess. We do this an agreed number of times (say 20) and see what your results are. I want to establish in advance what we'll consider a successful test, so we'll need someone to calculate what is statistically significant. I can get help with that, if we can agree on the rest of the protocol.
Let's see if we can agree on that, then we'll revisit the encryption.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests