ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF » Million Dollar Challenge
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags pavel ziborov

Reply
Old 25th August 2009, 06:26 AM   #321
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,095
Originally Posted by Gmonster2 View Post

Yeah your right Randi is running scared he always stops any preliminary testing when he realises that he has found a real paranormal claimant and not just a nutbar Randi is psychic like that
This part is dissapointing. I can see Pavel's point about being dismissed too quickly by Randi, but pulling out this tired old argument used by every failed claimant makes him look like just another woo.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 06:39 AM   #322
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
I may have mentioned this a few months ago somewhere in this long journey, but if a small number of people have the ability to see or predict what hidden pictures will be revealed, there's already the biggest test in the world out there for them: casinos.

If someone can know what a face-down card will be before it's turned over, even a tiny fraction better than chance, they can get rich, and lord knows there are enough people trying to do it, so it wouldn't be a dormant ability that humans haven't tried to develop.

If such an ability exists, why don't we see it among gamblers? Or do we? Are there any successful gamblers who have claimed or been accused of having that power?
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 06:41 AM   #323
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by Gmonster2 View Post
"

Again .. do the test somewhere else there are many skeptic groups through out the world , then you can show Randi to be the fraud you know he is, right?
I definitely will!

Originally Posted by Gmonster2 View Post
" Although Randi will send his vibes to any where you go his magic is as strong or maybe stronger than Yoda! Also Jeff wagg has no bladder so he would never have pee'd at all! Ask Vff she will confirm that...
Enough is enough!
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 06:46 AM   #324
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
This part is dissapointing. I can see Pavel's point about being dismissed too quickly by Randi, but pulling out this tired old argument used by every failed claimant makes him look like just another woo.
What do you want me to do? Just keep silent and not answer all this "jumps" at me?? Or just say.. JREF is fake.. end of story??
I am explaining my point, I though it is useful in making people to understand where it comes from...
I see it now just useless, cause some people just don't care about point, and all they do is just jump on others by comparing them to all the predecessors..

I have real issue with JREF, they refusing fair protocol and pushed me to the doomed one that guarantees their win.. and Its not only about me, it can happen to EVERY applicant as I said it before, every who is reasonable with his ability and conditions that it can be performed..! But you clearly understand it same as many other, its just more convenient to ignore it..

And I am not
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
every failed claimant
I never won same as never failed as I were simple refused FAIR chance to prove that my claim is real... and there is nothing to add isn't it??
FULL STOP!

Last edited by pavel_do; 25th August 2009 at 07:40 AM. Reason: spelling
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 06:55 AM   #325
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
I may have mentioned this a few months ago somewhere in this long journey, but if a small number of people have the ability to see or predict what hidden pictures will be revealed, there's already the biggest test in the world out there for them: casinos.

If someone can know what a face-down card will be before it's turned over, even a tiny fraction better than chance, they can get rich, and lord knows there are enough people trying to do it, so it wouldn't be a dormant ability that humans haven't tried to develop.
There is a point, and there is many reasons to explain it.. first of all, Casino does not give you chance to HOLD and think what you think the card is, they not let you cover your eyes and keep silence.. all the games happens to be very fast and not giving you chance to think or be reasonable as far as I know, plus all the noise that Machines make when drop coins or when they just make noise to attract attentions to slots ( both done on purpose) plus all people around you and camera, plus the emotions and though of people, plus brain that will start to assume that after 4 times black red have more chance to come up..( though i tell you, i have witnessed myself when Black came up 43! times in row at the Roulette table, and same number came up 4 times in row and people were angry and some of them start accuse casino ion trickery but in fact red or black or same number can come up all day long as every time ball been spin it has same chances to to come up again as any other number) and of course obviously GREED that screws up it all too... and I guess some others, depends on person ability and specifics of it..


Originally Posted by Pup View Post
If someone can know what a face-down card will be before it's turned over, even a tiny fraction better than chance, they can get rich, and lord knows there are enough people trying to do it, so it wouldn't be a dormant ability that humans haven't tried to develop.
Even if you can do it as you say with just tiny fraction... but a part of this ability you need some environmental conditions that i said before to illuminate many distractions that casino create on purpose.. plus you need patience and have to be ably cold control yourself and not to rush things..and of course have enough money with you in order to be able to gain from the "fracture" difference, bearing in mind that the ability works! but not 100 % and every game, spin, draw or what ever... if you have enough patience and money and time to invest I am sure you can get somewhere with it.. UNTIL casino ban you and since all the other casinos mostly have same networks.. you will be band from most of normal casinos..
People to greedy, no one come to casino to place let say 10$ gain 10$ and go home.. people come to win fortune battling odds that are against them..
You cant beat casino! That the fact! Unless you know what will come up.. there is no systems or any calculations its all useless for the reason I said above, cause every numebr has same chance to come up as all the others any time new game started...

Originally Posted by Pup View Post
If such an ability exists, why don't we see it among gamblers? Or do we? Are there any successful gamblers who have claimed or been accused of having that power?


I think casinos well aware if this possibility... and if there is a way try to find out from any big casinos maybe in Vegas, I am sure they though of it or maybe have some policy to protect themselves by banning person from playing..

Last edited by pavel_do; 25th August 2009 at 07:08 AM.
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 07:44 AM   #326
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
I definitely will!

Enough is enough!
Pavel, ask the JREF to re-open your file, if you see grounds that you have been treated unfairly or even fraudulent.

Sounding off to a bunch of non-believers in an internet forum proves nothing - besides your ability to sound off to a bunch of non-believers in an internet forum.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 09:56 AM   #327
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,095
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
What do you want me to do? Just keep silent and not answer all this "jumps" at me?? Or just say.. JREF is fake.. end of story??
There isn't anything I want you to do, really. You explained why you need more than 20 trials, and why a number of pictures have to be used, and I agree with you that Randi was too hasty and probably treated you unfairly.

I was merely explaining why a lot of us lost respect for you when you trotted out the "Randi is scared of me because he knows I have psychic powers" defense.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 10:01 AM   #328
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
ONLY 67%?! If Pavel can do that consistently, it would be phenomenal. I think the main problem may be that many Randi Forum participants, including Randi himself, think that the paranormal is an all or nothing thing. It should be thought of more like an athletic competition, where sometimes a great athlete is "on" and sometimes s/he is "off." However, over time, s/he performs at a much higher level than the average athlete does. That's why a 20-trial test is woefully insufficient to test Pavel's alleged paranormal ability, just as only a 20-trial test would be woefully insufficient to test a golfer's ability or a baseball player's ability.
In other words, it should be thought of as more like a crap-shoot, where one can have a winning streak. Why not just go to a casino?


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 10:08 AM   #329
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,095
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Pavel, ask the JREF to re-open your file, if you see grounds that you have been treated unfairly or even fraudulent.

Sounding off to a bunch of non-believers in an internet forum proves nothing - besides your ability to sound off to a bunch of non-believers in an internet forum.
Pavel perhaps you should request your file to be reopened, with a VERY brief explanation of why you require more trials and cards, and plead confusion because of the language barrier. Perhaps Starz or someone can edit it for you so the English is very clear. I know it's a longshot, Randi made his decision, but perhaps if someone like Allison is in sympathy with you she could plead your case to Randi.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 10:09 AM   #330
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,650
Or Pavel could spend the next year ensuring that the next application is well-prepared.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 12:26 PM   #331
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Or Pavel could spend the next year ensuring that the next application is well-prepared.
Pavel points seem:

1. He feels treated unfairly, unjustly or even fraudulently.

2. He does not agree that the JREF abandoned the 100 trial protocol when it worked for them all the time before.

3. He is ready to go now.

Hence it makes perfect sense to ask for a re-opening now, and not in about a year from now.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 12:32 PM   #332
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Moochie View Post
In other words, it should be thought of as more like a crap-shoot, where one can have a winning streak. Why not just go to a casino?
It's just the opposite: In a short test, an applicant could have a lucky streak, but that's highly improbable in a long test; i.e., a lucky streak might occur in a long test, but it would be cancelled out by the average or below average performance on the rest of the test, causing the applicant not to meet the specified performance criterion.

Last edited by Rodney; 25th August 2009 at 12:35 PM.
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2009, 06:03 PM   #333
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
I don't believe.. I can tell you from my tests (whether some one believe in it or not) I have about 70% some times a bit more some times a bit less, though some times as I said I "guess" 9 photos right out of ten but I cant say I have 90% success rate. S So the 70% figure of success rate its comes out if I sum up the results and will not make this conclusion on 1-2 tests. I can see where is your number 67% come from.. well I claim 67 correct photos out of 100 just because that the minimum I can claim in order to enter preliminary test as 67 correct will cover 1000 odds demanded by JREF as minimum...

Ok, good. Had you proposed a 75 trial straight up-down test (showing some good-faith effort on your part to simplify the protocol), the JREF would have probably required 52 out of the 75 trials to be correct to count as a successful test.

Do you think you could get 52 out of 75 trials? Remember, this would be after a pretest warm up, which should give you an opportunity to confirm things are working for you at that time.

With your claimed success rate, you'd have a 70% chance of getting 52 out of 75 trials. If your real rate is closer to 75%, then you'd have a whopping 93% chance of passing the test.

In the quest for a $1,000,000, those are odds tilted in your favor. Why not negotiate towards something like 75 simple trials?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 03:39 AM   #334
crashman
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16
I don't see why this isn't a slam dunk unless?????

As long as it is monitored by sharp reliable people, I see no reason why the amount of trials or pictures should be relevant. The time involved should be the limiting factor as concentration will diminish over time. I say figure out the statistical probabilities and the larger numbers will help ensure that there will be less of a chance that a lucky run (so to speak) would occur. Limit the time to say, four hours. I don't understand why this isn't a slam dunk for Randi to do unless??????
crashman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 04:58 AM   #335
IXP
Graduate Poster
 
IXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,395
Pavel,

I think you have a valid complaint. With a statistician as an expert witness, I think you could prove in court that the JREF is not giving a fair chance at a test.

It is a fact the an ability to predict a 50% chance occurence at a success rate of 70% CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials. If JREF is unwilling to test it, they should not have accepted your claim. They are in the wrong, and I think you should pursue action against them.

IXP
__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar
IXP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 05:05 AM   #336
Crundy
Critical Thinker
 
Crundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 475
* Dipping back in here *

I'm still confused about the whole thing. Pavel claims he can see a photo inside an envelope without opening the envelope. Therefore having 5 envelopes, one with his favorite photo in and the other with blank sheets in, and Pavel picking the right envelope should be enough (repeating a few times). If you can't pass this test then you can't see the contents of the envelope, sorry. Why do we keep having to get into 50/50 tests with hundreds of iterations?

The amount of hand-waving and changing of reasoning behind all this points to one thing: Pavel believed he could do something and is kidding himself in light of all evidence. I sincerely hope you do see the light and join back here as a reformed believer (along with several others in the same boat) because you seem like a nice guy.
__________________
"You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!" - Chiropractor
Crundy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 05:10 AM   #337
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by crashman View Post
As long as it is monitored by sharp reliable people, I see no reason why the amount of trials or pictures should be relevant. The time involved should be the limiting factor as concentration will diminish over time. I say figure out the statistical probabilities and the larger numbers will help ensure that there will be less of a chance that a lucky run (so to speak) would occur. Limit the time to say, four hours. I don't understand why this isn't a slam dunk for Randi to do unless??????
Doing 100 trials in four hours seems out of reach. It would likely force Pavel to make hasty decisions - the exact thing he likes to avoid.

Do a simple calculation of 10 sets with 10 trials each:

Guessing plus changing of the photos = 4 min. per trial

10 trials = 40 minutes per set.

10 sets = 400 minutes

Include 30 minutes minimum break time for Pavel and the volunteer staff and you are already looking at the limit - and that only if everything goes according to plan.

I may also add that four minutes per trial seems already rushed. I'd rather set the limit at ten minutes and count every trial running longer than ten minutes a fail; assuming Pavel would agree to that.

If Pavel would be faster, great. But I would plan for the test dragging on as described. And those plans always assume no ones screws up.

Alas, unfortunately we will see no test.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 05:14 AM   #338
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Crundy View Post
* Dipping back in here *

I'm still confused about the whole thing. Pavel claims he can see a photo inside an envelope without opening the envelope. Therefore having 5 envelopes, one with his favorite photo in and the other with blank sheets in, and Pavel picking the right envelope should be enough (repeating a few times). If you can't pass this test then you can't see the contents of the envelope, sorry. Why do we keep having to get into 50/50 tests with hundreds of iterations?
...
Because that's what Pavel said he could do and the MDC tests the claim of the applicant. No more, no less.

I took me a while to get that in my head, too.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 05:14 AM   #339
IXP
Graduate Poster
 
IXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,395
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
...
I may also add that four minutes per trial seems already rushed. I'd rather set the limit at ten minutes and count every trial running longer than ten minutes a fail; assuming Pavel would agree to that.
I guess the wooons that carry the information from inside the envelope to Pavel's brain must travel at sub-light speeds then!

IXP
__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Last edited by IXP; 27th August 2009 at 05:15 AM.
IXP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 05:23 AM   #340
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,546
Originally Posted by Crundy View Post
I sincerely hope you do see the light and join back here as a reformed believer (along with several others in the same boat) because you seem like a nice guy.
*waves*
I'd certainly welcome Pavel into this club.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 07:46 AM   #341
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,234
Originally Posted by IXP View Post
If JREF is unwilling to test it, they should not have accepted your claim. They are in the wrong, and I think you should pursue action against them.
They haven't accepted his claim. AIUI (and a quick check of the application form seem to confirm my understanding) an applicant becomes a claimant only when a test protocol has been agreed, at which point JR signs the application form and returns it. As it has proved impossible to agree such a protocol, Pavel's application has effectively been rejected as untestable.

You may think JREF gave up too soon, and I regret the way this application has ended myself, but I can't see how he has any case for action.

Last edited by Pixel42; 27th August 2009 at 07:50 AM.
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 09:28 AM   #342
IXP
Graduate Poster
 
IXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,395
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
They haven't accepted his claim. AIUI (and a quick check of the application form seem to confirm my understanding) an applicant becomes a claimant only when a test protocol has been agreed, at which point JR signs the application form and returns it. As it has proved impossible to agree such a protocol, Pavel's application has effectively been rejected as untestable.

You may think JREF gave up too soon, and I regret the way this application has ended myself, but I can't see how he has any case for action.
I didn't say he had reached the status of "claimant". They accecpted his claim, which was stated in his application as being appropriate for the Challenge. If they believed it was infeasible to test, they should not have accepted the application.

It only proved impossible to reach a protocol because the JREF imposed a limit on the number of trials which was too low to test the ability as stated in the application. JREF's proposed test would only give Pavel a 25% chance of passing if he indeed had the ability he claims. A test with 100 trials is not unreasonable. If JREF believes it is, they should state this up front.

I have been a big fan of Randi and the JREF until now. Every other claim of unfair treatment was unfounded, but Pavel's is justified. He did everything right and even negotiated a workable protocol with a JREF representative, only to have it summarily rejected by Randi. All the woos that have claimed the test was a fraud now have a case that a reasonable person would agree with. I think he should sue JREF for a chance to prove his claim.

IXP
__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Last edited by IXP; 27th August 2009 at 09:31 AM.
IXP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2009, 01:13 PM   #343
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,650
Originally Posted by IXP View Post
I didn't say he had reached the status of "claimant". They accecpted his claim, which was stated in his application as being appropriate for the Challenge. If they believed it was infeasible to test, they should not have accepted the application.
You are talking about legal action: can you, or preferably Pavel, present a contract that has been signed by a JREF representative?

Quote:
He did everything right and even negotiated a workable protocol with a JREF representative, only to have it summarily rejected by Randi.
Have you not followed the long history of negotiation with JREF? Pavel did not do everything right (but better than most), and he certainly did not have a workable protocol in place when he was rejected. On the contrary, just when negotiations seemed to reach a result, he wanted to present a new protocol and start all over again.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 09:59 AM   #344
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
Last thing its in JREF own power to let some one really show what he claim he is capable to do or dismiss and refuse him/her and doesn't matter how accurate and real claim is.. and they will do it until they decide other wise and I guess they have there own reasons for it that unknown to the public.
I doubt that it is anything sinister, but rather pragmatic. It is in the JREF's best interest to hold some preliminary tests. It gives the appearance that they are acting in good faith, and it gives them some failed tests to refer to when performing the Education component of their mandate. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the JREF, but it is my impression that they are more concerned with education than they are with testing, at this point. And I personally think that this is reasonable. It is fairly clear by now that holding Challenge tests is not the way to go about discovering people with true paranormal abilities. The purpose of the testing is now educational - to demonstrate to others the powerful effect of expectation and how blinding influences this sensation, to demonstrate the practical aspects of setting up a test, to enhance the recognition of the JREF through entertainment, etc. So rather than testing all comers, the Challenge applicants serve as a pool from which to draw subjects for the purpose of education. Pavel, I think that you simply weren't needed. The JREF has already done several tests this year, some in quite public venues, and your test was likely to give them a poor return for their effort (it wouldn't be public, they would assume that you would fail, they already have the appearance of acting in good faith as they recently completed a test with Connie Sonne). I don't think this is deliberate. I think it simply sets up a situation where Randi has a very low threshold for abandoning a test. If there had been no promising Challenge applicant for 6 months or a year, if the test was entertaining or weird, if there had been some celebrity attached to you, I think Randi's threshold would have been higher and he would have had a little more patience with your protocol.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 04:55 PM   #345
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by IXP View Post
I didn't say he had reached the status of "claimant". They accepted his claim, which was stated in his application as being appropriate for the Challenge. If they believed it was infeasible to test, they should not have accepted the application.

It only proved impossible to reach a protocol because the JREF imposed a limit on the number of trials which was too low to test the ability as stated in the application. JREF's proposed test would only give Pavel a 25% chance of passing if he indeed had the ability he claims. A test with 100 trials is not unreasonable. If JREF believes it is, they should state this up front.

I have been a big fan of Randi and the JREF until now. Every other claim of unfair treatment was unfounded, but Pavel's is justified. He did everything right and even negotiated a workable protocol with a JREF representative, only to have it summarily rejected by Randi. All the woos that have claimed the test was a fraud now have a case that a reasonable person would agree with. I think he should sue JREF for a chance to prove his claim.

IXP
Thank you very much IXP, you can see my point.
Sue JREF as you can see now I guess and from Steenkh post.. "You are talking about legal action: can you, or preferably Pavel, present a contract that has been signed by a JREF representative?" its not that easy, they protected very much I think they though of any possible outcome. So officially we had sort of negotiation BUT we have no signed contract.. I mean they have an application signed by ME as any other applicants but I don't have anything from them that been signed... very smart for them.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Have you not followed the long history of negotiation with JREF? Pavel did not do everything right (but better than most), and he certainly did not have a workable protocol in place when he was rejected. On the contrary, just when negotiations seemed to reach a result, he wanted to present a new protocol and start all over again.
Steenkh, I am sorry I might misunderstand you but.. Do you mean ME by... “just when negotiations seemed to reach a result, he wanted to present a new protocol and start all over again.”?
As I didn't want to present any new protocols since we discussed 100 pairs one for past 8 months at least... and I had no intentions to start anything all over again!
And why "and he certainly did not have a workable protocol in place when he was rejected. ??
I had a workable protocol in place when I was rejected! And JREF have discussed it with me for passed 8 month as I said and most of THEIR wimps (using Randis;s language) I have satisfied accept the last one, to cut it to 20 trials test! They didn't even reasoned it out, their reason sort of “too
complicated” I guess its not very good reason to reject when we talking about 1.000.000$ on stake..
__________________
When there is wile, there is a way...

Last edited by pavel_do; 28th August 2009 at 05:03 PM.
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 05:11 PM   #346
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Pavel:

1. You feel treated unfairly, unjustly or even fraudulently.

2. You do not agree that the JREF abandoned the 100 trial protocol when it worked for them all the time before.

3. You are ready to go now.

Correct me, if I am wrong on any of those points and please answer the following question:

Will you ask the JREF to re-open your file?
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 05:26 PM   #347
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by fls View Post
I doubt that it is anything sinister, but rather pragmatic....

Linda
Thank you very much Linda, you have a great point and I guess that is sort of “excuse” for JREF there educational purpose etc.. BUT I think...its unfair the way they play there games! As they PRESENT them self as FAIR challenge, giving EVERYONE equal opportunity to be tested and prove there claims, ( as suppose they looking for any real prove that it is possible and exist). In reality.. let say my case.. if some one come to JREF forums and read my “Applicants page” by the way its end, everyone who would not have time or would see the other forum threads like this one.. they will assume that YE.. the guy is just one of them.. fakes who just didn't wanted to be tested..and refused many of JREFs offers and chances...
That way they are Ridiculing me in a way, and misrepresent the facts as it was in reality!
They not letting me post any notes in that thread, other wise the letter that I have posted on forum after there threat to close file if I don't agree to 20 trial.. I would post it in THAT thread so who ever read it will be able to see what happened in reality.
Just as you say, I wasn't needed by JREF cause for INTERTAINING and PROMOTIONAL purposes they need clearly some ridicules claims and tests where claimant will fail 100%!
If only I would say OK 20 trails agreed! They would find time and place and effort to show all the world another fail for “educational” purposes.. In the same time one more time, “shout” everywhere that NOTHING PARANORMAL EXISTS as they never seen any.. ( obviously they didnt, as they don't want to see it in fact) that is not acting in Good faith, at least some people now can see it!
__________________
When there is wile, there is a way...

Last edited by pavel_do; 28th August 2009 at 05:31 PM.
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 05:30 PM   #348
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Pavel:

1. You feel treated unfairly, unjustly or even fraudulently.

2. You do not agree that the JREF abandoned the 100 trial protocol when it worked for them all the time before.

3. You are ready to go now.

Correct me, if I am wrong on any of those points and please answer the following question:

Will you ask the JREF to re-open your file?
1. YES

2. YES

3. YES

Obviously!Its is clear and its not what I feel, that the fact!


I am going to write a letter to JREF and will post it here too and lets see what they will reply if they reply at all.. as so far as you can see they said NOTHING at all a part of post about “giving me last chance” and closing the file.
__________________
When there is wile, there is a way...
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 05:36 PM   #349
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
*waves*
I'd certainly welcome Pavel into this club.
I am flattered But sorry guys in my life I witnesed more than enough evidence that paranormal EXIST! And I ( my gift) is one of the prove.
__________________
When there is wile, there is a way...
pavel_do is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 06:23 PM   #350
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
1. YES

2. YES

3. YES

Obviously!Its is clear and its not what I feel, that the fact!


I am going to write a letter to JREF and will post it here too and lets see what they will reply if they reply at all.. as so far as you can see they said NOTHING at all a part of post about “giving me last chance” and closing the file.
Great.

You do remember the JREF will not agree to a test longer than eight hours, right? Will you sign an agreement with the JREF that you can do 100 trials successfully in less than eight hours, without feeling rushed or something like that?
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 06:37 PM   #351
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
1. YES

2. YES

3. YES

Obviously!Its is clear and its not what I feel, that the fact!
...
Do you really consider it a fact that the JREF acted fraudulently in your case?
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2009, 11:46 PM   #352
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
I am flattered But sorry guys in my life I witnesed more than enough evidence that paranormal EXIST! And I ( my gift) is one of the prove.
Be patient and persistent, then.
GzuzKryzt is giving you advise and orientation which seems quite prudent.
In any case, have you considered hammering out a protocol with any other investigative group? (sorry if this idea has been discussed before)
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2009, 12:37 AM   #353
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,546
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
I am flattered But sorry guys in my life I witnesed more than enough evidence that paranormal EXIST! And I ( my gift) is one of the prove.
Well I used to say that too about my psychic ability and my healing 'powers'.


I applaud your efforts to get to a point of testing though, and please remember, if you ever get to that really horrible and difficult place where your beliefs become shaken by a new understanding of certain things (such as confirmation bias, cold reading, etc) - please remember that there are some here who will support you through that too.

I am watching your application with interest.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2009, 06:36 AM   #354
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,560
I'm somewhat torn here. On the one hand, it does seem that Pavel's application has been rejected rather suddenly and unfairly, at a point where he was genuinely trying to negotiate and delays were due almost entirely to the JREF themselves. In addition, it appears to be due solely to a quick decision by Randi who has not been involved in the negotiation at all and presumably knows very little of the details. Indeed, I'm not even sure why Randi would be involved at all. While the challenge may have started as a personal one by him, it is now a challenge by the JREF foundation, and Randi is no longer in charge, Phil Plait is. Certainly Randi would be a valuable advisor, but I don't see why he has the power to overrule months, or even years, of negotiation, with apparently little thought put in to the statistics and their relevance to the claim.

On the other hand, the history makes it clear that the blame cannot be laid entirely at the JREF's door. The first thread discussing Pavel's claims was started in May 2007. That's over 2 years and 3 months ago. I'm not sure exactly when he applied for the challenge, but he was certainly involved in protocol negotiations by June 2008, 1 year and 2 months ago. By the end of August 2008, Jeff Wagg was already ready to throw in the towel due to the constant changes and complications added by Pavel to the test, as well as the apparent lack of knowledge of what he can actually do. In fact, even now he still cannot clearly state what he thinks his success rate actually is:
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
I don't believe.. I can tell you from my tests (whether some one believe in it or not) I have about 70% some times a bit more some times a bit less, though some times as I said I "guess" 9 photos right out of ten but I cant say I have 90% success rate. S So the 70% figure of success rate its comes out if I sum up the results and will not make this conclusion on 1-2 tests. I can see where is your number 67% come from.. well I claim 67 correct photos out of 100 just because that the minimum I can claim in order to enter preliminary test as 67 correct will cover 1000 odds demanded by JREF as minimum...
It might be 70% or 90% or 67%, except when it might be something else.

It's also interesting to look over how the claims have changed. The original claim that brought him to forum members' attention was Zener cards. In one of his first posts here he specifically said that coloured Zener cards were easier than photos. A year later, it turns out that actually photos are easier for him than Zener cards.

Then there's the time required, which appears to have been one of the major problems for the JREF. We go from:
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
it take from 10 second to 2 minutes..
to needing 8 hours for 100 sets. Even assuming the maximum time for every set, allowing for a short time between each one and maybe a break at some point, I'm struggling to see how this could take more than 4 hours.

In the end, it all comes back to what Jeff Wagg said, almost a year before this application was actually shut down:
Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg View Post
This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.
When someone applies for the challenge, they need to say exactly what they can do, under what conditions, and with what success rate. Over two years after coming to this forum, Pavel still has not managed any of those. He probably has a success rate somewhere between 70-90% that varies depending on how he feels and what point of the test he is, that may or may not be affected by stress and that is either better with Zener cards or photos. This is not the point an application should be at after 2 years of negotiation. This is not the point an application should be at before it's sent to the JREF in the first place.

Sure, Pavel is much friendlier and more coherent than most applicants, but that does not excuse the fact that he simply hasn't done what he was required to do. It's a shame how it has ended, and I think it reflects badly on the JREF that the rejection came after months of delay on their part, and at a point where it appeared the negotiations were finally getting somewhere. However, have a look at the last paragraph of the same post by Jeff Wagg quoted above:

Quote:
The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.
That was last August. Can anyone really argue that Pavel has been treated unfairly when he was only rejected year after he was given a final chance?
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2009, 07:36 AM   #355
Startz
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
That was last August. Can anyone really argue that Pavel has been treated unfairly when he was only rejected year after he was given a final chance?
It might be useful for Alison to post a chronology or even the complete correspondence.

I have incomplete records, but here's what I have. A part of the delay was waiting for an independent statistician to render an opinion. This took a while because the person I asked to look at the protocol is a volunteer who has many other duties. I wanted it to be this specific person because he has a great deal of familiarity with the Challenge.

Following this, my records show that the protocol was submitted last Nov. 6. JREF responded with their revision on January 12. There followed a brief correspondence over issues such as what kind of table Pavel would sit at and whether he could have a bottle of water. The were complete by January 13 and the protocol was posted on the forum by JREF.

Pavel heard back from JREF on May 14. There was a very brief discussion, the details of which I have lost, but my memory is that there were no important changes. JREF staff posted on June 11 that they had forwarded a revised protocol for review. JREF responded on August 20.

As I said, JREF might have more complete records of the correspondence than I do. They've always said that such correspondence can be made public if JREF wishes. Perhaps that would be useful here.

But even with my incomplete records, I'm confident that the bulk of the delays in the last year have been at JREF's end. The one signficant recent delay was from seeking outside statistical verification, which was my decision, not Pavel's (which JREF was notified about.) I also confident that formal protocol negotiations in the past year have been a handful of emails.

Last edited by Startz; 3rd September 2009 at 07:39 AM. Reason: typos
Startz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2009, 05:46 PM   #356
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
In fact, even now he still cannot clearly state what he thinks his success rate actually is: It might be 70% or 90% or 67%, except when it might be something else.
Sort of like Tiger Woods' driving in a round of golf: He might hit the fairways 70% of the time, or 90%, or 67%, or something else. So, it's a good thing the JREF doesn't sponsor the "Golf Driving Challenge" -- Woods wouldn't qualify to be tested.
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2009, 09:23 PM   #357
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Sort of like Tiger Woods' driving in a round of golf: He might hit the fairways 70% of the time, or 90%, or 67%, or something else. So, it's a good thing the JREF doesn't sponsor the "Golf Driving Challenge" -- Woods wouldn't qualify to be tested.
I don't think that's a valid comparison.

Alas, Woods could do his thing - whatever it might be - on any pro course in the world, right? He need not feel bound to perform on one course only.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2009, 09:26 PM   #358
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Picking up on the golf analogy, it seems we're spectators who did not see the entire game. We saw a tee here, a drive there, and that was pretty much it.

Unless we get to see more of the game, I feel hesitant to draw a conclusion, except: Why would a pro bother with hacks on the training range?
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2009, 12:07 AM   #359
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,650
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Sort of like Tiger Woods' driving in a round of golf: He might hit the fairways 70% of the time, or 90%, or 67%, or something else. So, it's a good thing the JREF doesn't sponsor the "Golf Driving Challenge" -- Woods wouldn't qualify to be tested.
So if Woods wanted to qualify for the Gold Driving Challenge, what do you think he would state as his rate of success?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2009, 03:25 AM   #360
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Sort of like Tiger Woods' driving in a round of golf
No, not actually like that at all. The point of stating the success rate is that you're supposed to say what you're confident you can actually do. Since I know very little about golf, let's go with running instead. I can run 10km. I've done it several times and I'm pretty sure I can do it again. Now, how fast can I do it? Well, I can easily run it in under 50 minutes without even doing any training. If I put in a bit of effort and have a good day I can probably manage under 40 minutes. On the other hand if it's a hard course and I'm not feeling great even an hour might be a struggle.

So what do I say if I want the JREF to test my ability to run? 60 minutes. Because I know that it would be very unlikely for me to fail. I don't say that it might be 40 minutes, because it's quite likely I'll fail. I don't say 50 minutes because even though I'd be fairly confident, there's not much room for having a bad day. I certainly don't dither around for 2 years without ever actually giving a solid time I think I can run it in.

It would of course be open to negotiation. If the JREF says that they don't think 60 minutes would be paranormal but 55 minutes would be, then I'd happily agree to that instead. There's not as big a margin for error, but I still know that I've beaten that time plenty of times before and would happily try to do so again for a million dollars. On the other hand, if the JREF say that they'll only accept a time under 30 minutes, I simply wouldn't do it, since even though I may be able to with some effort, I've never done it before.

You see how simple this is? Well, of course you don't, but hopefully the more sensible people do. It doesn't matter that paranormal abilities aren't perfect all the time, it should still be just as easy to know what you can do and how reliably as any mundane ability. Knowing how reliable your ability is is just about the most important aspect of a claim after being able to state what you can actually do. It's just not good enough to spend years trying to get someone to test you and still not have any idea.

In fact, it's even worse than that, since Pavel not only doesn't know how reliable his ability is, as far as I can tell he hasn't even tried to work it out. All the numbers I've seen have been taken from a few self-tests that were trying to work out how to get the best results. The 67% he seems to have settled on was simply mentioned as the average of all those tests, including several where he clearly couldn't do anything at all, and he's just picked it up from there. 70% isn't what he thinks he can do, it's simply the cumulative success rate from four or five tests that were so different in protocol that the results aren't really comparable between them at all. That's like me claiming to run 10km in under 40 minutes based on my results in a couple of 2km runs, a bike ride and a sack race.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF » Million Dollar Challenge

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.