Psychic Samurai applies for MDC...apparently...

[Azrael 5]

The_Animus it doesn't matter(to me anyway)wether voices are clear.it's wetehr they are paranormal(belnging to the dead).
How do you make that self evident?!

I have an idea based on a claim of TP's on Magic Cafe.He claim's to have contacted a dead NASA employee,and has ITC/EVP of said person.Have him summon this particular entity,I'm sure JREF can agree to a protocol for that.

Maybe if he could just produce this communication now,and how it was recieved,he could use that as a progression towards a protocol.

 

[The Professor]

For the record, The Professor and I have not discussed protocol since before Halloween. We did have a recent e-mail exchange, but it was about other matters. At this point, we have a claim, and that is all. We have nothing close to a working protocol.

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.


David Koenig to jeff
show details 9:28 AM (14 hours ago)

Reply

Jeff

I will take your questions one at a time.

1) "I understand that you've been contacting the JREF, and have told them that you've been in contact with me. I also understand that you're complaining that forum members have been checking up on you."

Yes, I have been contacting the JREF. I've spoken with Shaun, Randi and another nice lady who answered the phone a time or two. I've spoken with Randi and Shaun at least two time each and maybe more. I asked them several questions and got a few great answers. Very helpful.

In my last conversation with Shaun he said that "he" would contact you about my concern over JREF Forum members directly interfering in the JREF MDC Protocol as in their contacting the location's Police Department and telling them lies about me. (It appears that he did) They have publicly stated on the JREF forum that they told the Lake Helen Police Department that I was going to perform a MAGIC SHOW in their cemetery. I think that this would upset any authorities. Please show me where I claimed I'd perform a Magic Show. All of my conversations with the authorities have been on how meet in their cemetery in a respectful manner.

I have never stated that I've been in contact with you other than the times that I have. I may have said that I hoped to email you when I'd finished my protocol, but I've never stated that we had any other contact.

2) "First, you should not call the JREF. There is no one there who can help you".

I can't agree. I have found my conversations with James Randi and Shaun (Hope the spelling is correct) very enlightening. Being a magician, speaking with Randi was a privilege. I feel that direct contact is very efficient. I have learned a lot about the way things are run and what is expected of me. I would think that the more direct contact the more information that could be utilized to help in the negotiations and development of the protocol.

Are you now saying that I am "Prohibited" from calling the JREF?

3) "Second, forum members are private individuals. What they do is their business"

I've never said that Forum member's "Weren't" private individuals, but the JREF Publishes what they say and contributes to the information used in what they do. Are you defending Eirik (Not really sure that's his name or that he's a lawyer as claimed) and his direct interference with my proposed location for the JREF MDC?

What he's claimed is an obvious lie. I've never said I'd be performing a MAGIC SHOW in the Lake Helen Cemetery. NEVER!
But that is what he's claimed in his contact with them. (There are other problems with his attempted sabotage that I can go into later if you'd like to know the truth)

Do you support this lie?
Do you advocate his interference?
Do you have personal knowledge of him as a friend or acquaintance?

If they Directly Interfere with my proposed protocol and the procurement of the necessary location wouldn't this be "Our" business as well? Both myself and the JREF?

If not ... then why?

3) "However, because of your calling, I know that you've not been honest with us. You repeatedly say that you're in discussions with me, even though we haven't communicated since before Halloween. Also, if what I hear is true, you lied about getting permission to conduct your ritual in the cemetery."

I have been Totally Honest with you. The calls actually Prove that! I have never to the best of my knowledge said that I had contacted you since Halloween. I had said that Shaun was going to contact you on my behalf about the problems with the JREF Forum members confession and he apparently did.

I am working on my Protocol as instructed.

I am attempting to focus on the Self Evident portion of the test. It is difficult to say the least and it seems at one time you were happy that I delayed the test to allow you more time to get volunteers together ( One month was not enough), but now you appear to be "Pushing".

Bottom line ... I've never claimed to have communicated with you since Halloween.

Who has told you that I lied to the Lake Helen Police Department? I'd like to know the inside source for this information. Please give me their real name and contact information so I can defend myself from this slander. Lying to the Police Department is a big deal and I'd like to see your proof. (Just spoke with those authorities again last week, and they said nothing about it)

So you see, I have been totally honest in my protocol negotiations even contacting the JREF office for additional information, but you seem to be supporting the interference by unnamed sources. Please let me know if I'm wrong here?

4) " At this point, I have no reason to believe you are acting in good faith with the JREF. I will, however, give you a chance to explain yourself. This is it."

And now you threaten that this is my "Last Chance".

I am and always have been acting in good faith. I have invested my Time. Money, and Effort into this Application. I've developed my Application as requested, my Media Presence as requested, an Academic Approval as requested, and my Claim as requested. I am doing everything that the JREF MDC requires. I am preceding with my protocol as requested in a fair manner.

I would like you to name the sources of the lies perpetrated against me.
Also any proof that I am not acting in good faith.
If a JREF Forum Member is falsely accusing me of criminal activities involved in the JREF MDC protocol, I'm sure you would want to get to the truth of the matter. Where is the proof and who is the accuser?

I assure you that I honestly want to take the JREF MDC!
I always have.
You have offered the challenge and I am taking you up on your offer.
Thanks
David Koenig
- Show quoted text -
_____________________________________________________________

As you now see the protocol and people interfering in it is the topic of discussion!

 

[eirik]

Dave Koenig has posted his latest email correspondance with Jeff Wagg on the Magic Cafe forum, to prove his latest claim that Wagg has been lying to him.

I don't think this is actually helping Daves case. It could sort of sort of get on ones nerves when he calls everybody liars. I'm posting it here, as Koenig already made the correspondance public. I think it's only fair that Jeff Wagg and the JREF and the forumites know what they are dealing with.

All quotes are from the Magic Cafe forum:
Posted Nov 25 2008- 11:41 pm

Dave Koenig, aka Psychic Samurai wrote:

“Quote: Jeff Wagg; 4225967
For the record, The Professor and I have not discussed protocol since before Halloween. We did have a recent e-mail exchange, but it was about other matters. At this point, we have a claim, and that is all. We have nothing close to a working protocol. (end of quote)

Since this post is made at almost noon, I'll show you the email he recieved several hours earlier, just to prove that I'm telling the truth
And someone else isn't?


David Koenig to jeff
show details 9:28 AM (14 hours ago)

Reply

Jeff

I will take your questions one at a time.

1) "I understand that you've been contacting the JREF, and have told them that you've been in contact with me. I also understand that you're complaining that forum members have been checking up on you."

Yes, I have been contacting the JREF. I've spoken with Shaun, Randi and another nice lady who answered the phone a time or two. I've spoken with Randi and Shaun at least two time each and maybe more. I asked them several questions and got a few great answers. Very helpful.

In my last conversation with Shaun he said that "he" would contact you about my concern over JREF Forum members directly interfering in the JREF MDC Protocol as in their contacting the location's Police Department and telling them lies about me. (It appears that he did) They have publicly stated on the JREF forum that they told the Lake Helen Police Department that I was going to perform a MAGIC SHOW in their cemetery. I think that this would upset any authorities. Please show me where I claimed I'd perform a Magic Show. All of my conversations with the authorities have been on how meet in their cemetery in a respectful manner.

I have never stated that I've been in contact with you other than the times that I have. I may have said that I hoped to email you when I'd finished my protocol, but I've never stated that we had any other contact.

2) "First, you should not call the JREF. There is no one there who can help you".

I can't agree. I have found my conversations with James Randi and Shaun (Hope the spelling is correct) very enlightening. Being a magician, speaking with Randi was a privilege. I feel that direct contact is very efficient. I have learned a lot about the way things are run and what is expected of me. I would think that the more direct contact the more information that could be utilized to help in the negotiations and development of the protocol.

Are you now saying that I am "Prohibited" from calling the JREF?

3) "Second, forum members are private individuals. What they do is their business"

I've never said that Forum member's "Weren't" private individuals, but the JREF Publishes what they say and contributes to the information used in what they do. Are you defending Eirik (Not really sure that's his name or that he's a lawyer as claimed) and his direct interference with my proposed location for the JREF MDC?

What he's claimed is an obvious lie. I've never said I'd be performing a MAGIC SHOW in the Lake Helen Cemetery. NEVER!
But that is what he's claimed in his contact with them. (There are other problems with his attempted sabotage that I can go into later if you'd like to know the truth)

Do you support this lie?
Do you advocate his interference?
Do you have personal knowledge of him as a friend or acquaintance?

If they Directly Interfere with my proposed protocol and the procurement of the necessary location wouldn't this be "Our" business as well? Both myself and the JREF?

If not ... then why?

3) "However, because of your calling, I know that you've not been honest with us. You repeatedly say that you're in discussions with me, even though we haven't communicated since before Halloween. Also, if what I hear is true, you lied about getting permission to conduct your ritual in the cemetery."

I have been Totally Honest with you. The calls actually Prove that! I have never to the best of my knowledge said that I had contacted you since Halloween. I had said that Shaun was going to contact you on my behalf about the problems with the JREF Forum members confession and he apparently did.

I am working on my Protocol as instructed.

I am attempting to focus on the Self Evident portion of the test. It is difficult to say the least and it seems at one time you were happy that I delayed the test to allow you more time to get volunteers together ( One month was not enough), but now you appear to be "Pushing".

Bottom line ... I've never claimed to have communicated with you since Halloween.

Who has told you that I lied to the Lake Helen Police Department? I'd like to know the inside source for this information. Please give me their real name and contact information so I can defend myself from this slander. Lying to the Police Department is a big deal and I'd like to see your proof. (Just spoke with those authorities again last week, and they said nothing about it)

So you see, I have been totally honest in my protocol negotiations even contacting the JREF office for additional information, but you seem to be supporting the interference by unnamed sources. Please let me know if I'm wrong here?

4) " At this point, I have no reason to believe you are acting in good faith with the JREF. I will, however, give you a chance to explain yourself. This is it."

And now you threaten that this is my "Last Chance".

I am and always have been acting in good faith. I have invested my Time. Money, and Effort into this Application. I've developed my Application as requested, my Media Presence as requested, an Academic Approval as requested, and my Claim as requested. I am doing everything that the JREF MDC requires. I am preceding with my protocol as requested in a fair manner.

I would like you to name the sources of the lies perpetrated against me.
Also any proof that I am not acting in good faith.
If a JREF Forum Member is falsely accusing me of criminal activities involved in the JREF MDC protocol, I'm sure you would want to get to the truth of the matter. Where is the proof and who is the accuser?

I assure you that I honestly want to take the JREF MDC!
I always have.
You have offered the challenge and I am taking you up on your offer.
Thanks
David Koenig
- Show quoted text -
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff responded just a few minutes later, so his statement that we haven't discussed Protocol is SIMPLY FALSE since the protocol was mentioned several times (At least 8 times) in the above email and also many times in the next six or seven emails all before noon.

All before this post on the JREF Forum at 11:53.
Check the times to be sure!

What say you now DR. REZ?

When Jeff Wagg says we have not spoken of protocol since halloween he is LYING!!!!!!!!

And some other posts:


Posted: Nov 26, 2008 12:38am, Dave Koenig:

“Get it Jeff ... I'm not giving up even when you LIE!!!!!!”

Posted: Nov 26, 2008 12:42am, Dave Koenig:

“The protocol is mentioned EIGHT TIMES in ONE EMAIL and yet JEFF WAGG tells the JREF Forum that it was NEVER DISCUSSED!

BUSTED!!!!!!!”

And another:
Posted: Nov 26, 2008 12:42am, Dave Koenig:

“I have proven the lie and everyone who can READ sees it too!!!!!!


The time stamp proves it !!!!!

EIGHT TIMES!”

I know, this post is not directly related to the protocol, but it does show the challenges ahead in designing one.

 

[steenkh]

As I said before, if it is hissing and moaning it is not clear and intelligible speech.

Who decides if it is hissing and moaning, or clear and intelligble speech? Do you think TP would feel fairly treated if he produces something that he regards as clear and intelligible, but that the testers dismiss as hissing and moaning?

To answer, you can't know the 2 aren't right. You cannot know anything with absolute certainty. Science never has and never will deal in the realm of absolute certainty. If that was what was demanded for the $million challenge then the challenge would rightly be called a sham.

The MDC challenge is not about whether the paranormal really exists or not, but whether a claimant can perform an act that the JREF accepts as paranormal.

Science is based on probability or likelihood that a law or study is true. For many studies significance is based on a p<.05 or p<.01. Even with a 5% or 1% chance of type I error these studies are considered very likely to show a real relationship. I'm not certain but I thought the JREF required something like .001 for the preliminary test and final test. How do you know that each time that 1/1000 chance didn't happen? (And now to answer my own question!) You don't. It's just extremely unlikely.

This is a risk that the JREF accepts. However, the rules for the MDC are also made to eliminate any kind of judgement, which makes the MDC stricter than most scientific studies, and this rule may well prevent voice claims like TP's to be tested. Since TP has never submitted any protocol, we do not know the JREF position on this.

 

[Cuddles]

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.

Did you perhaps copy the wrong email? The one that you have posted does not contain any protocol discussion. Merely including the word "protocol" does not make it any kind of discussion about the matter. You claimed to be working on one, and complained about alleged interference with one (although you fail to provide any evidence of either), but at no point did you say anything at all about the actual contents of a protocol.

Protocol negotiations are really very simple. They go something like this:

Hi Jeff,

Here is a new version of my protocol including updates from your last email:
[insert protocol here]
Please could you provide any comments or criticism.

Thanks,
Applicant.

That's it. There are two important points to note here. Firstly, it involves actually having a protocol. Secondly, it involves actually showing said protocol to the person you're negotiating with.

It's also worth considering that ranting about everyone, including the person you're supposed to be negotiating with, being liars and then posting correspondence proving yourself wrong may not be the best way to get yourself taken seriously and actually progress towards a test. Of course, if you're only interested in stringing this out as long as possible until you manage to get rejected so that you can start ranting about how unfairly you were treated and how Randi is scared of your awesome powers, then you're doing it exactly right.

 

[rjh01]

Dave Koenig has posted his latest email correspondance with Jeff Wagg on the Magic Cafe forum, to prove his latest claim that Wagg has been lying to him.

I don't think this is actually helping Daves case. It could sort of sort of get on ones nerves when he calls everybody liars. I'm posting it here, as Koenig already made the correspondance public. I think it's only fair that Jeff Wagg and the JREF and the forumites know what they are dealing with.

I have deleted some of the above quote.

You forgot to include the links to the posts you quoted (the ones quoting Jeff are below)

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=285361&forum=251&start=78
AND
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=286063&forum=251&8



I always thought that to reach any sort of agreement both parties must show good faith and treat each other with respect. Then they can build trust between each other. How do the two parties (Jeff and the professor) measure up?

 

[Mojo]

As I said before, if it is hissing and moaning it is not clear and intelligible speech.

The problem, as far as any protocol is concerned, is that it is hissing and moaning that EVP enthusiasts claim can be interpreted as intelligible speech.

 

[The Professor]

I am pleased that everyone can clearly see that Jeff and I were discussing the "Location" as part of the Protocol. It is a very important part and one that JREF Forum members have been intentionally interfering with by telling the Lake Helen Police Department that I was performing a MAGIC SHOW in their Cemetery. A blatant lie.

Jeff made statements in the other emails that also support my claims.
Jeff refuses to name "Who told him" these things. Just that "He heard" but will not say just who. Curious?

The location is an important part of my protocol. It has been from the beginning and it has become the target of those who would prevent the JREF MDC from taking place.

Jeff must agree since he advises me NOT to post on the JREF forum any longer (But then HE does just a couple hours later)
Curious?

 

[Azrael 5]

I have deleted some of the above quote.

You forgot to include the links to the posts you quoted (the ones quoting Jeff are below)

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=285361&forum=251&start=78
AND
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=286063&forum=251&8



I always thought that to reach any sort of agreement both parties must show good faith and treat each other with respect. Then they can build trust between each other. How do the two parties (Jeff and the professor) measure up?

To add to post another begins:

Jeff Wagg is CAUGHT OUT!!!!

After an email in which The Professors claim was mentioned at least EIGHT TIMES Jeff Wagg claims it never was brought up......

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=271179&forum=251&147&start=120

 

[remirol]

More specifically I am concerned solely with whether or not it is fair to reject, as objective evidence of the supernatural, clear, intelligible speech not from a living person.

You are still avoiding the issue. As originally requested, can you define "clear and intelligible" in a non-subjective manner?

First of all I don't think the different languages issue would be a problem. If I speak to an entity in English, why would it respond in another language?

That is the entity's business, not ours. The possibility exists.

It would make no sense at all that an entity would comprehend the English language and decide to communicate back to this English speaker by then speaking in a different language.

For example: I can understand most spoken French, but not speak it.

Even so, if it is clear and intelligible the language it is in will be able to be determined.

First, you are again begging the question of what "clear and intelligible" is.
Second, simply hearing a language you are unfamiliar with is not sufficient to determine which language that is -- for example, could you identify spoken Sanskrit from hearing it alone? Of course you couldn't. I would wager that there are _many_ spoken languages on this planet you could not identify simply by hearing them. As such, it is not a safe assumption to make that anything which is said can be automatically identified.

As for a voice disguiser why would an entity have a voice disguiser?

First, "sounds like" is different from "has". Again, read what is being said to you.
Second, again, that is the entity's business, not ours.

That's just weird. Even so, a disguiser does not make what is said unclear,

In your opinion.

it alters the pitch or tone of the voice. Thus what is said is still identifiable while the voice of the person who says it is not.

In your opinion. See the problem with judgment, and how it's not "self evident", as required by the MDC?

More insults. You can discuss things respectfully or you will be ignored. Either is fine by me.

You have said nothing worth respecting, and you are an anonymous nobody on the Internet. If you can make a coherent argument while demonstrating that you can read what is being written, then that would be deserving of respect; at the moment, you strike me as someone who has very little understanding of either the intricacies involved in putting a million dollars on the line, or of what "self-evident" means.

Being ignored by an anonymous nobody doesn't bother me; others who read the thread can still see my responses picking apart your position, even if you try to bury your head in the sand.

To answer, you can't know the 2 aren't right. You cannot know anything with absolute certainty.

You have the correct answer, but then you lead right into a strawman. Nobody has demanded absolute certainty; however, if 2 people hear one word while 8 hear another, that is nowhere near the realm of certainty you yourself specify later:

For many studies significance is based on a p<.05 or p<.01.

Assume for the sake of this hypothetical situation, that measures have been taken to ensure that no cheating is going on.

This assumption is meaningless; that's the entire point of this discussion, to try to identify a way in which this claim can be tested while both ruling out cheating and providing a self-evident result.

What would be the odds of the EVP, picking up words and phrases, the words and phrases are answers to my questions, they are answered in correct order and always after I ask the question, and were understood clearly and intelligibly by 95 out of 100 independent listeners?

First: Not good enough. Again, you misunderstand the concept of "self-evident". I recommend reading up on it. There's a couple threads you might want to start with... I'm sure you can find them.

Second: Not the claim under discussion.

 

[remirol]

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.

There wasn't a single thing in that email regarding the actual protocol; on the other hand, there were many random accusations and rather a lot of whining on your part.

Professor, the contents of that email convince me that you are not acting in good faith; you are simply attempting to browbeat the JREF into accepting your magic trick as something paranormal, and the JREF is having none of it. From the start, you have employed classic "con-man" methods to try to secure agreement and acceptance of your trickery; unfortunately for you, we are all familiar with this type of thing, and are holding you to the actual facts, rather than the hand-waving and misdirection.



I see no reason to attempt discuss the details of this magic trick any further; the goalposts have been moving since Day 1, and the Professor vigorously resists any attempt to actually discuss the protocol proper, instead preferring to make as much noise as he can about unrelated issues. I would recommend that his file be closed, so all of us can move on and spend mental effort on someone who seems a bit more sincere, such as Natal'ya Voronikova (sp?) and the man-in-a-box claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<ranting snipped>
As you now see the protocol and people interfering in it is the topic of discussion!

The Professor, you've painted yourself into another corner with your claim and that was painfully demonstrated to you on Halloween.

The JREF won't consent to a protocol that breaks the law and yours clearly does by having you in the cemetary at midnight. That is your claimed ability, right? That you will make paranormal voices appear on magnetic tape at midnight on Halloween at the Devil's chair.

I tried to dissuade you from including that in your claim. Bites you on the behind now, doesn't it?

 

[Mojo]

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.

It uses the word "protocol" eight times. This is not the same thing as "talking about the protocol". To be discussing a protocol, you need to be discussing the protocol itself (i.e. the procedures and equipment you propose to use), not just mentioning it while raising other matters, or merely saying that you're working on it.

Let's have a look at the mentions of the word "protocol" (uses of the word in bold):

David Koenig to jeff
show details 9:28 AM (14 hours ago)

...

In my last conversation with Shaun he said that "he" would contact you about my concern over JREF Forum members directly interfering in the JREF MDC Protocol as in their contacting the location's Police Department and telling them lies about me. (It appears that he did) They have publicly stated on the JREF forum that they told the Lake Helen Police Department that I was going to perform a MAGIC SHOW in their cemetery. I think that this would upset any authorities. Please show me where I claimed I'd perform a Magic Show. All of my conversations with the authorities have been on how meet in their cemetery in a respectful manner.

A complaint about interference from forum members - not discussion of a protocol.

I have never stated that I've been in contact with you other than the times that I have. I may have said that I hoped to email you when I'd finished my protocol, but I've never stated that we had any other contact.

A comment about your contacts with Jeff - not discussion of a protocol.

I can't agree. I have found my conversations with James Randi and Shaun (Hope the spelling is correct) very enlightening. Being a magician, speaking with Randi was a privilege. I feel that direct contact is very efficient. I have learned a lot about the way things are run and what is expected of me. I would think that the more direct contact the more information that could be utilized to help in the negotiations and development of the protocol.

Are you now saying that I am "Prohibited" from calling the JREF?

A justification of your having phoned the JREF - not discussion of a protocol.

If they Directly Interfere with my proposed protocol and the procurement of the necessary location wouldn't this be "Our" business as well? Both myself and the JREF?

More complaints about "interference" from forum members - not discussion of a protocol.

I am working on my Protocol as instructed.

I am attempting to focus on the Self Evident portion of the test. It is difficult to say the least and it seems at one time you were happy that I delayed the test to allow you more time to get volunteers together ( One month was not enough), but now you appear to be "Pushing".

A claim that you are working on your protocol - not discussion of a protocol.

So you see, I have been totally honest in my protocol negotiations even contacting the JREF office for additional information, but you seem to be supporting the interference by unnamed sources. Please let me know if I'm wrong here?

A claim that you have been totally honest in your negotiations - not discussion of a protocol.

I am and always have been acting in good faith. I have invested my Time. Money, and Effort into this Application. I've developed my Application as requested, my Media Presence as requested, an Academic Approval as requested, and my Claim as requested. I am doing everything that the JREF MDC requires. I am preceding with my protocol as requested in a fair manner.

A claim that you are preceding [sic] with your protocol - not discussion of a protocol.

If a JREF Forum Member is falsely accusing me of criminal activities involved in the JREF MDC protocol, I'm sure you would want to get to the truth of the matter. Where is the proof and who is the accuser?

Another complaint about other forum members - not discussion of a protocol.

...

- Show quoted text -
_____________________________________________________________

As you now see the protocol and people interfering in it is the topic of discussion!

Nope. The alleged interference, yes, but the protocol itself, no.

 

[eirik]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited to remove issue that is not related to the protocol.

Can you please get on with your protocol instead? Is that too much to ask for? I'm betting you are this close to getting your file closed after your rather strange communications with Jeff.

 

[Azrael 5]

Professor,why don't you actually post a protocol? Or some previous results of an EVP experiment you must have performed(otherwise how do you know you can?)such as ITC with dead NASA launch controller(whose name I forget).

You have been asked soooo many times to provide evidence,you ignore it and jsut post more rants.
The JREF are have more intelligence than you credit them;they have been dealing with paranormal claimants for years.Your bullying tactics are not going to work.Jeff Wagg must have a high threshold of patience;I would have told you to [rule 8]months ago.
I claim no superiority on this forum but I'm sure everyone is bored with your nonsense now.There are two options:
1.Provide either a protocol or prior examples of EVP/ITC you have procured so a protocl can be suggested.
2.Go away,withdraw your claim and stick to The Magic Cafe with the other loons.

 

[The_Animus]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for topic.

The_Animus it doesn't matter(to me anyway)wether voices are clear.it's wetehr they are paranormal(belnging to the dead).
How do you make that self evident?!

There is no way to be absolutely certain. I guess I'm not sure what exactly the JREF considers paranormal. I would consider it to be something currently thought to be unnatural. By that I mean that there is no current scientific explanation for the event, or that the event is considered to clash with our observed scientific principles. Should evidence of ghosts be found it would no longer be considered paranormal, but a natural phenomenon for science to then understand. I'm sure someone could give a better definition. As I've said I'm not concerned with the cheating. I'm concerned about clear, intelligible words/phrases from a non living person or electronic device. Let's say upon completing the test there were words/phrases picked up, they are clear and intelligible, they answer the questions asks, they answer them after I ask them (correct timeline). And of course measures were taken to ensure no cheating. So the recording isn't some friend speaking from behind a tree, or transmitting a signal to the EVP or some sham like that. Ideally the location of the test would be tested beforehand to see if anything else is picked up by the EVP that would interfere with the test. Even so some on here have mentioned the possibility of picking up radio signals, or some other thing which could be mistaken as an entity. It's possible, but again I think the likelihood of such a thing producing the results of the basic protocol I've outlined would be very slim. Slim enough to meet the 1/1000 odds? That's debatable, but I think so.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I am pleased that everyone can clearly see that Jeff and I were discussing the "Location" as part of the Protocol. It is a very important part and one that JREF Forum members have been intentionally interfering with by telling the Lake Helen Police Department that I was performing a MAGIC SHOW in their Cemetery. A blatant lie.

Jeff made statements in the other emails that also support my claims.
Jeff refuses to name "Who told him" these things. Just that "He heard" but will not say just who. Curious?

The location is an important part of my protocol. It has been from the beginning and it has become the target of those who would prevent the JREF MDC from taking place.

Jeff must agree since he advises me NOT to post on the JREF forum any longer (But then HE does just a couple hours later)
Curious?

I've explained "who" several times in the e-mail I've sent you. The answer is Sean, a JREF employee who you talked to on the phone.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I have instructed RemieV to close The Professor's file, and I have sent him this e-mail:

Based on your recent posts on several forums, I'm am closing your application permanently. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have not acted in good faith, and we will not waste our time with you.

Jeff Wagg
JREF

 

[Paul2]

The biggest lack of good faith on the Professor's part, in my opinion, was his lack of answering fundamental and important questions directly, completely, or at all. He did this far more than he didn't.

When communication is not entered into in good faith, everything else will suffer.

 

[Darat]

Given there is now no potential protocol to discuss thread is closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat