J ack, please don't read my mind. You will hate me.
^&^&^&^^&*^%%%%^$$%$#$@#@$&*%*%(*&(*&(*&^*(&

J ack I am duplicating your "test" on the other thread.....

and J ack really nobody believes if you could do it you wouldn't.

your looking for a lifeboat.

Tony your saying all tests in one way or another are subjective. That quite simply is a mentalists way out. You guys can't do it so you blame the test. "How can someone measure what I do?"

Most doctors don't have cancer but they sure can test for it.

IF J ack can do what he says he can do a test can be set up by someone besides himself to prove it. Really Tony your reaching.

Danny you tell me what is wrong with my test.

Really step up and do it. No one else has.

Tell me how to do it via a trick.

No answer I bet. Same reason Randi is worried about it.

The only thing about my test is that I am assured of getting the money if I am correct.

Jack

H.12/O.17A-X

I never once said I can RV etc. If Randi put an object in a box and asked me to name it I am about 99% sure I would be wrong. Now if I set up a test I have a fair shot, but that is not the point of the JREF is it?

Posted: Feb 15, 2006 9:54pm
Jack you still have not responded to jgravelle

Danny:
My statements on test validity are a fact. Take it from a teacher.
Here is a simple example:
How do you feel?
a. Good
b. Fair
c. Poor
When I see a question like that, I feel confused. But there is no option for that.
There are many variables that create problems is testing. It is impossible to remove them all. The best we can come up with is tests that derive a high probablity of the expected outcome. Probability is measured on a curve, not a straight line. Then complicate the matter by testing for the unknown (what we call outliers)and the situation becomes even more tenative.
Plus, what are you testing for? An unknown, or proof that the person is doing the known? The very notion of testing for something subjects the test.

Dan, I can do everything I say I can do, but I always try to do more.

Tony

Jack you still have not responded to Tony.

No he has not. But maybe he talked to the paperboy.
I think Jack understands my point.

Tony

I would hope Chi you might have let him know it is my challange not Randi's.

Also would assume he understood that for he seams so be a rather clever fellow.

I would also offer my posts are a rather compelling answer in themselfs.

Jack

H.12/O.17A-X

You think way to highly of your own test and your own posts. Tony's test is a joke. I get that. I don't think that jgravelle's is a joke. Why wont you take him up on it?

Chichi:
Did you read jgravelle's post? He is asking to split the prize money.
I can set my test up, but what will it prove? Would the results be valid?
These tests are not to prove anything, they are designed to disprove.
If the results indicate no fraud was found, there is still no proof, just an outlier, an unknown.

Tony

I have said many times that one test can't prove anything. I am sure we can have jack do his impressive moving paper under the cover of a plastic bowl. We can run a test on his "RV". We can do several different tests that all together would show if Jack is the real thing.

Posted: Feb 15, 2006 10:34pm
Oh lets not forget his nail bend. We will just put some things in there to avoid trickery.

Chichi:
You're missing my point, a test cannot prove the unknown exists, period.
If the proceedures are well structured, it could expose cheating, other than that, nothing. Pass, fail, immaterial, nothing is proven. The only outcome of a test other than "cheating" is, something was observed to happen, or nothing was observered (which does not mean that something did not happen). This in itself means little to nothing. It could be that the testing itself was the cause of success or apparent failure. There is no way to really test for the unknown. You might find factors that are outside the expected results, but this does not prove (or disprove) what caused them.

Tony

Fine lets just eliminate cheating then. That is all I want to test for anyways.

I can understand the motive for mischaracterizing the JREF study as a matter of self-preservation, but I'm curious what might be gained by misrepresenting my interest in the matter?

If Mr. Galloway is authentic, I want him to win. Sincerely. I also wanted Pons and Fleischman to suck cold fusion out of a beaker. But the world demanded that they replicate their purported feat in a double-blind replicable manner, and it demands the same of every extraordinary claimant. I applaud those who succeed. I even applaud those who try and fail.

Should you feel compelled to accurately represent any of the things I do want, here's a partial list:

- I want the gray-haired kid to win on American Idol;
- I want a decent microwave pizza;
- It's 2006 dammit... I want my flying car;
- I want telemarketers to take up quail hunting; and
- I want sincere questions like the one that spawned this topic met with honest straightforward answers, and not clouded by fanciful (albeit comforting) rhetoric.


Regards,

-jjg

Then your test is not to prove the existence of psychic phenomena, but to prove "x" is a fraud. That should be made clear to whomever you are testing. "I'm trying to prove you're a fraud, and if I catch you, you are." "But if I don't catch you, it just means that you were not caught yet, not that you are real."

Sounds like an excellent opportunity.

Tony you are starting to lose reason with some of your thoughts.

Jgravelle:
Please forgive me for casting you in the wrong light. I thought when you said:
"You'll perhaps be tempted to offer me a percentage of your winnings for my efforts" that you were making light of the whole thing. I had no idea that you were serious.
I was sincere in most of what I have written on this thread.
You don't have your flying car yet?



Chichi:
You essentially said that you want to test to see if "X" is cheatiing, "Fine lets just eliminate cheating then. That is all I want to test for anyways."
So I don't see how my last post does not relate.

Tony