Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.
What odds do you want me to break?
We could have done 50 trials with MD5 and 50 with PMs by now. I offered to do PMs after a few more MD5 results but you refused my pleas for cooperation.
Instead we spent 2 days with you explaining to a computer scientist of 20 years about "unsuitability of encryption to conceal data."
Like I said, I won't play by skeptics rules. The skeptics methodology is seriously flawed.
Jeez you're exhausting. When you use quotes in a reply to me, you are implying that I wrote what's between the quotes. I didn't write that, nor did I say anything like that. This has taken longer because you put forward so many wasted posts. This is a collaborative process. I'm not a scientist and not an expert in methodology. I'm trying to play ball with you but you for some reason want this to be as unpleasant as possible. Try to have some fun with it, relax, and maybe we can get something done here!
Haha, ok quotes can mean "not exactly" too, although that's basically your argument.
BTW, that's going to be my legal angle, I never actually figured that out and I've been defending myself against being misquoted for 9 years.
Anyway I'm going to have a breather for a day or two.
It's "difficult" to read a mind with nothing to go on, but if you send the encryption it seems to work.
THINKING FOR 2 MINUTES about a STAR is probably not going to work.
is impressive your level of tolerance arouet
you are indeed a true skeptic
i dont have your level of patience
heh, well I've never participated in an actual parapsychological test before and thought this could be fun. I'm making some amature mistakes though. I shouldn't have started one trial without a full protocol established. I got caught up, and this causes problems.
G.Adam, after your break, come back and propose how many trials you want to do, how many hits will be considered a success, I'll run it by some folks that know these things and maybe we can continue. But I'm telling you: you had better play nice, because its not worth it if you're just going to be a jackass about it all. I'll look a bit more into that encryption thing. It's obviously real encryption, but from what I've seen, its vulnerable and not recommended. I see all these sites with reverses and while I plugged mine into one and indeed it didn't get it, I don't know enough about this to know whether there may be a site that's better than most, that can do it. You can't blame a person for being suspicious. I hadn't heard of MD5 before you brought it up.
Ok, I've figured out his scam. I actually caught a hint of it the other day but then forgot about it for some reason.
While it's true that if you use just any Md5 reverse generator one is unlikely to find the original string, from what I can tell. But if you do it on the site that you generated the hash on it reverses it no problem. Given that there are only so many of these sites and OP knows that I'm likely to find a site listed on a google search, all he has to do is try the reverse hash on a bunch of sites and he'll eventually find the one I used.
I can't believe I didn't lock onto this earlier.
Anyhow, nice try G. Adam.
Well then.... that certainly explains this:
Thank you Arouet. Now I can also understand why all the vitrol was directed at me when I requested that he keep it to one thread and locked the thread. It's also good to know that it wasn't only me who had some confusion with the explanation of how this works.
lol. Notice that his tone softened and he said he was taking a couple days break right after I made a post that showed I was pretty close to figuring it out. He must have thought that might get me to lay off. I guess he goes around from site to site until someone figures it out. I told you the other day I was sure the encryption was part of the thing. I'm mad at myself for taking so long, I did almost get it the other night, the thought had popped into my mind and for some reason I forgot it. Stupid since its so obvious in retrospect!
How the heck do I know if G.Adam was trying to fool anyone? As I see it, the bottom line is that Arouet found fault with his protocol. Not only did he find a fault with it, Arouet presented his findings in an intelligent and respectful manner. He took the time to understand the information and asked solid questions for complete verification of the required information.
I do NOT know if G.Adam knew that the MD5 encryption could be reversed. I do NOT know what G.Adam expected as an outcome. I do know that I enjoyed this intelligent and informative exchange of information and collaborative effort in the persuit of the current outcome.
There is very little chance that someone who has worked with these md5s for years and is a computer scientist (at least that's what he says) would not realize that it could be reversed on the site one encrypted it. He's been bringing this scheme from site to site for a long time. His insistence on the encryption was weird to say the least - it smelled wrong from the beginning. I've never heard anyone include such a thing in a test like this before. Most of all, when I was getting close, his tone mellowed and he backed off - why was it that post (where I suggested he might have a site that would reverse it) that lead to his backing off, when every other post was met with belligerence? He knew the jig was up. I will be surprised if he comes back.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests