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

@ skinwalker,
If you read the thread you just linked, you will see that I had predicted 3 out of 6 lottery numbers on my very first try in advance of the draw. How is that lying?
It was done in public and in advance of the draw. I also cannot "edit" or delete these threads so it is also I did not start 50+ threads to get this result.

How is it possible this was a lie?

I do maintain my website allows people to get higher than average clairvoyance efforts regarding lottery numbers, and if you say that is deluded I have no qualms with that. I have seen over a years results by many that agree with me. Your opinion is natural, and I would likely think the same thing if I was not more aware of the results.

In the Opening Post of that thread I said I was going to attempt to predict the lottery numbers for the Lottario 6/49 draw in Ontario, Canada. Before the draw occurred I suggested 6 numbers, 3-13-21-25-30-31. Of those 21,25,30 came up that night and I won $10. It is only a 52:1 odds so you should feel comfortable that it was pure luck. Or was it?

This thread was started by James R, and not myself. I have ZERO interest on whether sciforums members believe in this, as my interest with sciforums is mostly about science. I would like to see paranormal/psi topics moved into the realm of real science, but doubt that can happen until whatever device psi operates under can be measured. That will likely not be for many, many years.

I was motivated by skeptics who have said, "if clairvoyance is real then why does nobody predict the lottery?". This made sense to me so I developed a method that I hoped would win a lottery and answer that statement. I did get 3 out of 6 on that attempt, but 1 or 2 hits is average using my method, which is still above average. Getting one hit every time is not probable, and I have exceeded that rate for over one year in the past. I obviously cannot prove this has occurred, nor would it make a difference as it only suggests clairvoyance is probable. It can never be conclusive unless I had 100% hit rate 100% of the time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Coincidences happen. People lie. People are deluded. They suffer from confirmation bias and any number of other aspects of poor methodology.

Take the Randi challenge and get results better than chance and we'll believe you.

Until then, you're lying, deluded, or suffering from poor methodology. Or a combination of these.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no Randi Challenge. It was closed long ago, and they state it may re-open for celebrity psychics and such.

As for the prediction. How could that be a lie? It was published in advance of the draw.

Unsure what methodology has anything to do with it. You can fake a telepathy experiment but methodology cannot enter into clairvoyance (future predictions). There is no better double blind than time itself.

When the Randi Challenge did exist I did contact them about what percentage of probabilities they would accept as success. I will say their entire test was fraudulent in the fact that they basically only wanted 10-20 minute youtube videos they could poke fun at. Without accepting probabilities the test is unfair and therefore fraudulent in my opinion.

So Lying is not possible on that thread you linked. I am not connected with that website in any way, shape, or form aside from membership.

Methodology does not matter as I was predicting a future event. What can be more Double-Blind than that?

Deluded I can accept, as I would likely think the same in your shoes. I feel sorry for people who have not had the opportunities to witness psi events to the extent I have. It must be sad to have such a closed mind, however it does not affect me so Good-Luck with that.

The JREF website is saying the contest is open, so it either re-opened or I was misinformed. Either way it is a bunk challenge. I offered to get at least one hit on every draw in a 6/49 type draw for at least 52 draws or whatever number they suggested. They told me they were interested in short videos with proof of ability demonstrated on it (which they can poke fun at). I did go through the application process and spoke to their lawyers many years ago.

I have challenged them, but they were afraid to lose I guess.

I never knew James Randi was gay until just now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QLt6EO3k28

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Casual readers may not notice that you contradict this farther down the page.

The "One Million Dollar Challenge" (MDC) is alive and well. A few years ago there was some talk of ending it, freeing up the money for educational programs, but they decided to keep it going. They did revise the rules slightly, in order to reduce the volume of insincere applications (i.e., True crackpots, or people attempting to trick their way through to the million bucks.)

Was this during formal protocol negotiations, or just in the forums? There are quite a few JREF forum threads debating "acceptable probabilities", however, they have no official standing.

A video can be submitted as part of the application, but it is not required:

In order to establish the serious nature of the application, at least one of the three following items must be provided with this application:

1. A signed letter of reference from a medical doctor, a faculty member at an accredited university or college, or a professional research scientist (i.e., employed by an industry or government agency) stating that the person should be considered a serious Applicant and that the claim merits testing.
2. A copy of any article, book, television appearance (other than those published solely on the Internet), or other recognized independent media in which the Applicant and the relevant claim are featured. Self-promotional or self-published accounts do not qualify.
3. A video (made available electronically or delivered on physical media) in which the Applicant clearly demonstrates the claimed ability. Self-produced videos are permitted. Such video becomes the property of the JREF and the Applicant grants the JREF an irrevocable license to publish or otherwise use the video in any way. Submitting a video is the lowest standard of these three options, and Applicants who choose to provide a video instead of a letter of reference or media sample are not automatically considered for a Preliminary Test and are not entitled to a written explanation of their rejection. The selection of video Applicants for Preliminary Tests may be done by any method, at the JREF's sole discretion.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html​

When did you submit your MDC application? Is it mentioned in the forum's list of challenge applications?

The MDC rules state, "Incomplete applications will be ignored. If a complete application is rejected, the Applicant will be notified in writing with a brief statement of the reason."
If your application was rejected, what reason was given?

 

@ Pantaz,
I did speak to a JREF lawyer (identified hmself as) at the time (via email only). There was no contact with James Randi. I followed the application procedures. I also had looked for my name on list of applicants (twice earlier), but it is not there. I am sure the total applicants must be more than 6 pages worth as I also remember a few that were not on that list.

I was not notified in writing that my application was rejected unless you count email. They stated that they do not accept probabilities as proof of anything. This all took place about 15 years ago or I'd be able to quote from the various emails. They were looking for some sort of video demonstrating the ability (at the time) as well.

 

The most irritating thing with all of this, kwhilborn, is not the claim itself but your utter reluctance to demonstrate it any further than beyond those occasions from some 8 years previous.
You have been asked time and time again to put up or shut up... to make some predictions for us here... but every time you evade, harking back to some success years ago.

You could persuade us as to the legitimacy of your claim simply by demonstrating it: over the next 2 months, say, simply pick at least one number from a regular 6/49 lottery as you claim to be able to. And we'll all do likewise as the comparative, and then we can compare results as we go.

Why won't you do that?
You've said previously that it takes several hours each time, but you don't seem to realise that when you are proved correct yours would be among the most amazing talents on the planet, and so surely a few hours a day/week are worth that.

But instead, for whatever reason, you peddle your claims with nothing but a few successes 8 or so years ago as support, and the raest merely anecdotal.

So what is stopping you from demonstrating on this site? We won't pay $1m but I'm sure any success on such a forum as this would garner interest elsewhere.

 

This thread is pretty silly. First, predicting lottery numbers has nothing to do with telepathy. Telepathy is between 2 humans usually or at least between 2 living things, be them animals. Second, you guys don't consider the possibility that it can be stronger or weaker or non-existent depending on the people. It is possible that between twins the connection is way stronger than between 2 random strangers.

I read a Russian experiment where they took kittens away from the mommy cat. When the were 100s of miles away, they nicely killed them. At the exact time the mommy cat's brain waves showed considerable changes, like she sensed the loss of her babies. Explain that....

Similarly, dogs can sense when their owners are in trouble or they come at a different time than usual...

The topic is interesting, but please try to treat it with common sense and no more bullshit lottery numbers....

 

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-That-The...sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

"As an experimental psychologist who has closely examined claims of the paranormal (see "The Conscious Universe" here on Amazon.com), I wasn't sure what to think of Sheldrake's experiments with telepathic dogs. Then I had an opportunity to review and analyze the raw data in some of his controlled experiments. I was astonished with the results. There is basically no doubt that some dogs do indeed anticipate when their owners are about to return home, even at randomly selected times, and without benefit of any explicit or subliminal cues. For me, this significantly raises the credibility of some of the other "powers" of animals that Sheldrake discusses so clearly. "

 

@ Syzygys & Sarkus,
Despite the fact that I was the Opening post of this thread I was not involved in creating or naming this thread. It was created by a rare act of the website Administrator James R.
@ Sarkus,
Despite the name of this thread there was NEVER any intention of conducting experiments "right here on sciforums" except in the mind of James R.
@ Syzygys,
I am very familiar with all the work being done by Sheldrake, and have seen his Pigeon and Dog experiments. Those type of experiments will simply be written off as flukes by the majority on this website as you are fully aware. I had also seen excellent results from Sleep Telepathy experiments. Usure what your reference meant concerning "The Conscious Universe" aside to say it sounds like my type of thinking based on reviews.

I disagree that any amount of weeks of correct predictions will make me "famous", as I have already done it. Using my method I have never NOT hit at least one number in well over 100 tries. Although that beats statistical odds in every single draw, it has not won the lottery. I have many times endorsed attempting Telepathy as a means to prove it to yourself, as when the results come in or are experienced it is much more convincing than reading about probabilities of a study, however many here are too lazy or skeptic to attempt such a thing. Often a 1 hour psychic message can be sent and received when using popular dream times such as 2am-3am, and I was willing at one time (about 5 years ago) to conduct experiments on sciforums however the other participant would not return my emails and then admitted "I just wanted to see him fail", etc and was too heavily biased to continue. So I did at one time spend time and effort to do experiments here, but long ago.

The Topic of this thread was dictated by James R, so feel if you wish to simply discuss psi there is a myriad of threads on those topics. This thread might seem silly, but it was not created by me. View the unique method I use to get numbers from the subconscious below and you will see that it has both the novelty of never being tried before and is a valid way to get information from your subconscious. This thread OP was originally simply a complaint that there was too much trolling in the paranormal area of the forums.

I have never had the intention of bringing any proof to this website. The Lottery website I had posted predictions on before NOW has a Canadian prediction area where you can lock in your predictions via whatever method (mostly mathematical lottery wheels). I am considering doing predicting again, but not anytime soon as I am involved in dozens of projects. I am retired but stay busy as an Magician, Entertainer, Website Design, Writing, and a "to do" list that grows daily. Predicting lottery numbers on my website consists of making choices between two pctures that look like this for hours on end.

Does the picture below contain the word Pillow or Diamond? Do not focus on the depth image (if you know how). Simply use your intuition. This is not "mystical" as the pictures really exist in the depth images. What is Diamond, and What is Pillow between the two seemingly identical pictures below?

These pictures are not to be copied or reproduced without my permission or on this sciforums thread. Each picture contains 8 or more pictures, and are the property of Kwhilborn. Your subconscious can perceive the subliminal image even if your conscious cannot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There really is the words in the pictures above, although they are meant to be viewed subliminally. Even if you know how to focus in (instructions on youtube) it would be wrong to do so for our purposes.

I had put in Circle VS Square pictures as well, but the mouseover images could not be posted here easily. I would have to upload from another computer, or find a direct link, which I am not doing now.

In my website I even make sure I ask what pictures are which randomly. Sometimes it may say "Pick between these two pictures Triangle and Circle" or "Pick between these two pictures Circle and Triangle" depending on what shapes are visible on screen, but I randomize the order of shapes in the questions themselves so I don't give away anything in the question.

As you can see the pictures look similar, and quite honestly after a year of picking numbers at 2-3hours a sitting it is hard on the eyes. I have no desire to do this for another year plus straight and instead will just use it for lottery picks when I play. Obviously for lottery picks I use numbers instead of shapes in these pictures.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

EDIT:
I have decided to put in a link where you can practice your intuition. EVEN IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN PSI/CLAIRVOYANCE using this test is not either, this is a scientific valid way of using your intuition. You are MEANT to view these as static dots, and even if you are aware of how to see the pictures hidden within, you should not as then no intuition would be involved. It is in a free section of my website anyway.

http://choicedowsing.com/mind_research_institute/intuitivepractice/intuitiving.php

I think this is the ONLY way in existence to practice and get comfortable using your intuition (or tell me another). There really is images inside these auto-stereo-grams. Your subconscious can perceive the subliminal image even if your conscious cannot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram
See wikipedia to view how it works. For lottery number picks I present all of the possible numbers in this format and vote YES or NO for each, and they are presented as many times as you choose in random orders. Nobody else has ever used this method to extract subconscious decisions. I maintain it works. Believe what you like.

 

I stared at the pictures and visualized the words 'this thread is complete bullshit'.

Did I win?

 

@ Origin,
Obviously you have no clue what an auto-stereo-gram is because there is NO visualization involved. It takes practice and a keen mind to be able to view them.

Maybe someone can explain it to you.
[video=youtube;L8hXUrHEe-U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L8hXUrHEe-U[/video]

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgrUfUI0Y9g

If you cannot understand what auto-stereo-grams are then you should not pretend you know. It requires two good eyes, and even then many people cannot grasp (lack the intelligence) how to view them.

Visualize?

James R started this thread, bitch to him. All I said was the paranormal forums had too many trolls which you just proved yet again.

 

So I didn't win? I still am getting a subliminal message, maybe it isn't bull shit but bat shit, as in bat shit crazy thread?:shrug:

 

That's the kicker, kwhilborn. You spout again and again that you can do these things and, even if you never had any intention of conducting experiments here, why don't you?

Why do you keep evading?
Why not demonstrate your ability?

The longer you continue to make claims supported by nothing but a couple of 8 year-old achievements, to continue to peddle the snakeoil you do, and the longer you continue to avoid actually doing any semblance of experiment to help validate your claims to us, the more people will understand exactly what you are.

It should surely be such a straightforward thing for you to do, even if a bit time-consuming, but instead you refuse, evade and spout the same examples from 8 or so years ago.

:shrug:

 

@ Sarkus,
I did not create this thread. I never would have. I am not responsible for reviving it time and again. I'd be as happy if a moderator deleted this thread, as I have no interest in proving anything "right here on sciforums", and never have. I will always defend my position though even if I am spouting same old stuff. I am not offering new stuff, and never have. If you are tired of reading about it quit reviving this thread. Bitch to James R who started this thread.

 

i have a problem with this guy promoting gambling.
i can predict lottery numbers, come see at my website.
i can only imagine how many desperate people will buy into that.
yes, some people are better than others at "guessing" the next card.
i have never heard of ANYONE using that "skill" to win the lottery.
just a heads up to anyone that's wondering.

 

@ Leopold,
I have NO problem if this thread is deleted by a Moderator. This thread was created by James R (website admin) against my wishes, as I only was objecting to the amount of Trolls (like yourself) that hang around here. see Opening Post here..
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...of-paranormal-ability-right-here-on-sciforums!

Here it is. I did not create the Title or this thread. It was split from a trolling thread in Open Gov't. I was making suggestions on how a thread of the future will likely have the option to be moderated also by the person creating the thread, simply to remove comments like yours.

I do not hang around this section of Sciforums for good reasons, but I am also a retired Engineer and Computer Programmer so have science interests unrelated to Clairvoyance.

I have defended my claims from a long time ago, and have shown viable (if you understand what auto-stereograms are) subliminal choices for a subconscious that has never been tried before.

I did not start this thread.
I do not keep bringing it back up.
I could care less if it got deleted.

I have been with Sciforums for more than a decade and I realize that it is filled with fanatic skeptics unable to see the truth if it whacked them in the head, so I know it is futile discussing this type of thing here. Imagine if Tesla and Marconi were forced to talk in an Open Internet Forum while building the radio. Between each post of theirs would be a dozen posts telling them it was impossible. I know from experience that Telepathy and Clairvoyance are possible. I feel sorry for those who do not recognize this as truth. I think someday maybe Threads will be able to be moderated by the thread creator so they could get conversation on their tangent idea without trolls who would be cast off those threads. I just think individual thread moderation by the thread creator is a decent idea for the future.

@ Leopold,
Please Note: This is the Paranormal section of Sciforums. So if people discuss "guessing" the future it is called Clairvoyance. It is a "skill" that has been claimed by many throughout history despite your trolling.

I feel I have developed a method that may definitively prove Clairvoyance is real. I have used Auto-Stereo-Grams (if you know what they are) as perfect subliminal pictures. I have then presented them to a persons conscious randomly so the person can vote based entirely on intuition. This has NEVER been done before, and I am busy in discussions with people more open minded than this group about its uses and further experimentation.

Furthermore..

This link I gave to the shape test is completely FREE on my website.
http://choicedowsing.com/mind_research_institute/intuitivepractice/intuitiving.php
There is NOTHING supernatural or related to psi about using intuition to choose shapes hidden within depth images. Anyone with depth perception can see the correct answer subconsciously without focusing on the depth file consciously. This is the ONLY METHOD IN THE WORLD TO PRACTICE YOUR INTUITION PURPOSEFULLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY. A person may "practice" their intuition playing a game like Poker. With practice their minds become accustomed to the mathematics involved in Poker and have "hunches" based on previous experience. This is also a way to practice intuition, however my method is direct and constant practice.

To appreciate my method of intuition practice however you likely need a few things.
a) knowledge of what an auto-stereogram is.
b) The IQ necessary to figure out how to view them (if you have two eyes).
c) Some basic knowledge of how the mind responds and recognizes subliminal messages.

If you can think of any other way to practice using your intuition and learning to follow hunches then tell me. I honestly cannot think of any other method that has even been proposed, yet that link above is a scientifically valid method. There really is a shape hidden in each picture. You do not require telepathy/clairvoyance/psi to view shapes that are really there. This link is not woo (unless you are too slow to comprehend it).

If anything I should take this link to psychological areas of Sciforums. I have discovered a real method of hiding subliminal messages perfectly. I am the first and only person (so far) to use Auto-stereograms as subliminal messages, but they are perfect for my purposes. I have also used another method but it is not the easiest to implement on computers, and that is to have the words and background colours very, very, similar. A similarity only detectable by the subconscious mind. I have developed a third method of doing ths and that is using colours just outside normal visual range such as ultraviolet ink in the hopes that the subconsciousness can pick up on the UV colour (This method not tested fully, so unsure if people can subconsciously view UV yet).

Yet instead of Kudos I get insults from the shallow minds that Troll here to attempt to feel superior by quoting well known arguments against psi. My idea is rather complicated to some however, so many (Trolls likely) may not be able to grasp the concepts.

 

But you don't defend your position! You simply state it what your position is and then hark back to a thread c.8 years old as the only evidence. That is not defending - that is trolling.
And whether or not someone revives this thread, you fuel the flames by regurgitating the same unsubstantiated claims and snake oil. As with all claims, even if they are old, if you make them you should be prepared to support them, and with more than just a link to an old thread where you reported some success a number of years ago.
If you're not prepared to support your claims then either do not make the claims, or just don't reply. But instead you just spout the same claims again and again and again.

Basically, if you're not going to support your claims then you can help yourself and simply not respond to such threads. But if you continue to peddle then expect people to request support.

 

moi?
but didn't i just agree that some people are better at this than others?
did i not send you a PM about enigmas of psychical research?
calling me a troll just isn't kosher in this regard.

i don't know about the supernatural bit but intuition is indeed a valid concept.
"listen to your heart and proceed with confidence."

 

How do you reconcile the contradiction that science rejects superstition?

As a scientist/engineer/programmer, how do you propose that brain waves are transmitted/received? What is the medium? You needn't conjure an explanation by staring into someone's magic mandala. Just stay grounded, and be a realist.

Any inquiry into truth need only establish the axioms by any correct logic. It would seem that you could pose any paranormal phenomena in this way any quickly arrive at a negative conclusion. Most folks skeptical of your ideas have been through that process when they were young. Many of them are atheist for the same reason, having long since concluded that superstition is not a gateway to truth.

Name that fallacy. In order to argue with the logic and consistency of science and engineering, you have to be rigorous about truth. Part of that rigor is to avoid fallacy. Really, to stay with your train of thought, you are merely trying to establish that clairvoyance is true. Can you treat that with scientific rigor?

But you also know that every scientist needs to confirm his experience by seeking corroboration. Without that universal and repeatable character to the experience, it fails the first fork in the quest for truth. You further know that every good scientist seeks to eliminate subjective bias, to maintain objectivity. Personal experience is as subjective as it gets, so the alarm bells should be going off in every scientist's head when bias is detected. To go further and say to the person, whose mind is raising flags, that this is skepticism of the truth, is best cured by simple application of logic.

You will encounter the same inconsistencies trying to demonstrate that logically. The idea is to have a neutral observer, to lend objectivity.

I would call belief in clairvoyance superstition and counter to your training in science. Can you appreciate my point of view?

I understand you believe that. But how do you reconcile such a belief against the mountain of objections against it?

Poker is a game of chance, and the best skills are those of an algorithm that counts the cards. Otherwise, there is no skill, and any appearance of skill is necessarily a false judgment based on the random outcome in which the player happened to be lucky. But I see no logical connection between this and the person's belief that visual cues can open some invisible prophetic communication pathway into . . . spacetime?

I'm not sure the best experts understand how the mind responds to and recognizes anything, much less the subliminal. There is some very interesting work in measuring the limens of perception, such as the very beneficial visual and hearing acuity tests. But as soon as you start to investigate mental processes, you find that these kinds of observations (such as reports of clairvoyance) are elements of mental illness.

I think this is like choice experiments in psychological studies. Usually they show how frail and defective hunches are. If you set out with the presumption that hunches are to be relied on, then you have avoided the truth in that. This also seems closely tied to superstition, that is, the tendency to connect the dots with little more than random ideation, even to the point of avoiding evidence.

You actually want to demonstrate that people can see beyond the optical band? Have you considered looking into the biophysics of that? It could save you a lot of trouble.

The best way to avoid trolls is to apply logic and objectivity to the discussion.