A scientific test of paranormal ability, right here on sciforums!

@ Lakon,
I see your point. My method is new and untried until I developed it. I know it may look like beginners luck but if I do 1 drawing per week I always get 1,2,3, or 4 numbers. I have never gotten 5 out of 6 correct yet. If I started missing hits then your theory would make sense, but I can defeat the law of probabilities indefinitely. If someone could convince JREF to accept beaten probabilities...

If it averaged out over time then I would close my website and bury my nose in the sand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So have you gone through the JREF application process ? I hear it's extensive, but if you want to go further, you probably have little choice.

Alternatively, you could try a 'dry run' here as discussed earlier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. The JREF application process may be extensive, however I did apply 10 years ago and perhaps did not experience the whole of it. They made it c;ear that you needed a concise video or demonstration and would not accept weeks/months of defeating probabilities. Defeating probabilities can ALWAYS be considered luck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I predict that this thread will go nowhere.

 

I predicted that when James R started this thread.

 

Defeating probabilities - I never heard of that term before. Just did a google search on it - nothing. Just from the wording, I get an idea what it might mean, but could you elaborate ?

Anyhow, about the JREF application - yes, I see what you mean, but on the other hand, I can see their POV as well, and seeing as they are making the offer, and it's their money, I would say they can frame it any way the want to.

So you're left with the option of proving yourself here - or nothing. Have a go. Forget about 25. See if you can do just 10.

 

.. and if you got 10 out of 10, what would the odds be of that ? would one calculate it as 2.6 x 2.6 (a total of 10 times) ? That would be a pretty neat result.

 

It's quite simple, Kwhilborn: determine a lottery that we can keep track of on this thread, and post a prediction prior to the draw for a period of, say, 6 weeks.
If the odds are, as you say, 1 in 2.42 of picking at least one correct number then doing so for just 6 weeks will create a probability of at less than 0.5%.
Of course, if 200 people do this then you'd probably expect 1 person to do this successfully, but there may be quite a few more without being statistically anomalous.
And there are no extra prizes for getting more than 1 number... the test is "at least one number per week for 6 weeks (or 6 draws if the lottery is more frequent).

Others can also predict the numbers, and we can keep track of the results over the 6 weeks, and compare your results not only against your claim of being able to predict at least 1 number a week, but also against others on this site.

Have a go - just name the lottery? And personally I will predict that you will fail on the first draw.
But do give it a go.

 

@ Sarkus,
It takes hours (4-5) to predict even one draw. I have seen it work as I say it does. Nobody in history has been able to subliminally hide numbers inside pictures the way I have and had them presented via a computer program for voting based on intuition alone. My website is the first.
I believe I can demonstrate precognition with astounding results. Although I retired early I still have many projects on the go that take up much of my time.

Two problems with posting here would be a) These posts can be edited, and I could alter my picks after the draw (in theory) and b) I have no desire to engage in something that would take me 20-30 hours just to "prove" it to a bunch of skeptics. As if anyone on Sciforums would ever believe in precognition no matter how compelling the evidence.

I have spent too many hours staring at those choice pages and will likely not again unless I am inspired by recognition or money.

@ sarkus
Mathematics would be on your side, but I am not interested at this time.

 

You keep saying this stuff, but never do anything more.

You would edit your posts after the result ? Of course not. In any event, there are sufficient readers here to keep you honest. Screenshots and subscriptions to this thread could obviate any dishonesty on your part. For example, I got an instant email notification of this post before you edited it, where you mentioned the $20, etc.

You are inspired only by selfish motives ? That's fine, but why keep bragging about your abilities then ? You only end up with greater sceptics when you fail to prove your claims. You bring about the sceptisim you so much rail about.

Even your selfishness is odd, because I've read several of your other posts in other threads where you effuse magnanimity, altuism, etc, and where you critisise selfishness, money, etc.

In short, you have proved nothing - done nothing but invited heaps of sceptisism.

 

You keep saying this stuff, but never do anything more.

You would edit your posts after the result ? Of course not. In any event, there are sufficient readers here to keep you honest. Screenshots and subscriptions to this thread could obviate any dishonesty on your part. For example, I got an instant email notification of this post before you edited it, where you mentioned the $20, etc.

You are inspired only by selfish motives ? That's fine, but why keep bragging about your abilities then ? You only end up with greater sceptics when you fail to prove your claims. You bring about the sceptisim you so much rail about.

Even your selfishness is odd, because I've read several of your other posts in other threads where you effuse magnanimity, altuism, etc, and where you critisise selfishness, money, etc.

In short, you invite sceptisism.

Edit - last line changed

 

@ Lakon,
I keep saying that stuff because people keep saying to do it here. I will say it again. If I am to spend that much time working with telepathy/precognition/intuition/subconscious then it will be working with The Monroe institute or a similar organization, I would not just be doing it for skeptics on sciforums.
I would attribute more to laziness than selfishness. Imagine staring at a static television screen for 4-5 hours every week for 6 months, as this is what I am being asked to do. It is not only time consuming and boring, but it is a commitment. A commitment simply for other people as I have already been through this process before. It is easy for any observer to simply comment "do it again", but that is hardly inspiring faced with the work involved, and more selfish on their part. I HAVE NEVER NOT GOTTEN A NUMBER for the 6/49 draw using my method. Why not try my method yourself if you have so much time.

@ Lakon,
You need some SCIFORUM HISTORY: I had a telepathy thread on Sciforums where a timely experiment was proposed and I agreed. I entered into an arrangement with a member to be a telepathic receiver and I would broadcast images. We exchanged email addresses and then I never received the requested photo. Then the "receiver" said in the forum that he would laugh when I fail etc., and made it very clear that the "experiment" would not be as impartial as we had hoped for. I never did receive the requested photo either. So I have attempted to do a time consuming experiment simply for the benefit of others here before that got shoved in my face.
@ Lakon,
This thread was not started by me, but it was James Randi (our JR, not real one) hoping for a replication of the failed experiment or something. I gave a method for proving it to yourself and that was the entire idea of the thread. I think for the sake of an entire hour people can prove telepathy to themselves yet people spend more time arguing against it than trying it.

It was JREF that refused me. I had applied and would have proved my claim. The James Randi Educational Foundation is somewhat a fraudulent entity as they wont accept improbable probabilities as proof, and also want the application in the form of a short video he can poke fun at.

In short - I think I have provided methods for people to prove things to themselves concerning telepathy.

 

You need some SCIFORUM HISTORY:

You're only as good as your last serve, my friend.

I think for the sake of an entire hour people can prove telepathy to themselves yet people spend more time arguing against it than trying it.

When it applies to other people it's just an hour, but when it applies to you it's an untennable 4 - 5 hours weekly over six months. This is what it amounts to ? You will always get skeptisim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The onus is on YOU, the claimant.

Very well. Prove telephathy in an hour in real time here on this forum. Just nominate a predetermined time / date. Don't give a raft of reasons why you won't do it. Do it .. or not ..

 

I think it's just downright silly to stress over what a bunch of people on an internet forum or skeptics in general think. Henry Ford didn't need to spend hours/days/years arguing about the potential viability of an automobile. The Wright brothers didn't need to argue with anyone about the viability of heavier-than-air flying machines. If there were any substance to these telepathy claims, which have probably been made in various forms since the dawn of man, then it should blatantly manifest itself in the everyday workings of our world and its practitioners shouldn't have any difficulty amassing a bigger following than Jesus.

Who cares about James Randi and his million dollars? If you managed to win those million dollars you'd just make him more famous than ever, and it would be peanuts compared to what he'd make back with the fame he'd obtain from being the first person to bring paranormal phenomena into the scientific mainstream. If someone can manage to spend a few hours in a controlled setting performing a feat that would take 1000000000 tries on average to accomplish by pure chance, world leaders and billionaire businessmen would be making pilgrimmages and seeking audiences with them even if the only available time slot was while they were sitting on the toilet.

 

@ Lakon,
You are confusing Telepathy with Precognition. Telepathy is very simple, and here is the thread I started about that.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?63619-Simple-method-to-transmit-thoughts-that-always-works
Telepathy takes one hour or less, but how do you prove it? It needs to be experienced in my opinion.

vs

Precognition: Precognition is much more involved using my methods and involves several processes, one of which is selecting numbers from a screen that are hidden in auto-stereo-grams such as this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

These pictures cannot be reproduced/copied without permission of Kwhilborn author of this post. This is 8 different pictures shown in 1 second to a) help induce trance like state in viewer b) to help make pictures unidentifiable consciously. My website uses over 900 different auto-stereo-gram pictures.

Can you see what word or number is hidden in the above? Google auto-stereo-gram for solution. Now imagine voting on these without consciously focusing on the depth image, your answers would be pure intuition. Can You grasp the uniqueness of this concept?

 

@ CptBork,
I agree. This is not the place for it, and I have other projects underway at moment.
@ Lakon,
You have confused two different topics. Telepathy and Precognition are entirely different things. Telepathy is very easy although proving it would require the ability to measure whatever mechanism is involved in the process which is currently impossible. If you wish to send or perceive a message then it is very simple. See here.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?63619-Simple-method-to-transmit-thoughts-that-always-works
(This is what takes one hour or less)

vs

Precognition: Precognition is not as simple and requires more work. This is what takes 4-5 hours per week. You are confusing topics. I do wish to do this as suggested by CptBork, however I need a cleaner schedule that will not happen for a while. I am healthy and only 43. I am retired, but I am not dead and have a very active schedule. I offered you a free membership to my website to test it yourself, but will now retract that offer. Stick with quick picks.

 

Note: This was written when above 2 posts appeared lost to a sciforums bug.

I have written 2 lengthy posts lost to moderator approval bug.
Lakon has confused telepathy with precognition (1hror less vs 4-5 hrs on dif threads). Cpt bork is correct but not here/now is short answer. lets hope this one posts

 

How is this precognition??
You seem to be confusing precognition with subliminal viewing.
You might tell people "don't look at the depth image"... but the brain doesn't work that way... the eyes focus automatically on an image and will automatically adjust focus.
While it takes conscious effort to actually focus on the specific depth to give the answer that is says "NO" with a ball bouncing horizontally in the background, the eyes could quite easily focus on it accidentally without conscious effort, even if just for a split second. The brain then recognises the pattern subconsciously.

And another confusion I have is with you saying that the stereograms are designed to induce a "tranc like state" which most likely results in the eyes relaxing, and defocussing from the near to the far (a more relaxed position)... and in doing so it would shift focus through the "depth" that displays the image.
So on one hand you're saying that you shouldn't focus on the specific depth... and on the other hand suggesting that your eyes will do it naturally, even if for a split second... and then trying to claim some wonderful "intuition" by which people actually do recognise the "hidden" pattern.

There is no uniqueness of concept here.
There is no precognition here.

Precognition means knowing something BEFORE it happens.
It also doesn't mean "on the basis of probability we expect X to happen" - but you need to KNOW something happens and know it BEFORE it happens.
Merely interpreting an auto-stereogram is not, in any way, precognition.

Is it even "intuition"... no, for while you might not appreciate or understand how it happens, there is a logical and rationale explanation - as explained above.
Dressing it up as intuition, therefore, in my view is mere charlatanism.


Either put up or shut up, Kwhilborn.
Simples.

 

How can you be sure of this ? To some parapsychologists, telepathy is precognition, ie, cognition of something which the recipient later assumed he recieved telepathically. In any event, you seem to be quite assertive about all this, but continue to refuse rendering any proof.

I had a look at the page you linked above. OK - I'll be asleep between 1 AM and 7 AM Australian EST. Send me a mesage ! I'll bet you come up with a reason why you won't.

No, I cannot. All I got was a headache after staring at it for a few seconds - a state of mind the opposite of anything likely conducive to the task, I would think.

As another poster said, how is this precognition, ie, knowledge of the future ?

 

See my post just before this one (which seems to caught up in a mod review list, but should hopefully be up soon). Same comments apply.

Also, what is the point of telling us your age, health status, activity level, etc ? Is this some attempt to minify the growing perception that you're unable to offer any proofs of any of your claims ?

Do you suppose that everyone else here is unhealthy / idle / non retired and destitute / 13 or 83 ?