I have not received his paper application yet, but he sent me a copy via e-mail, which was a nice gesture. While this looks like an unusually straightforward application, we cannot accept it because he has changed paragraph 7. We cannot vary on our condition that no rules be changed or altered in any way. I
'm dissapointed in this, because I'd like to see more challenge applications handled as well as this one. -Jeff Wagg
The application reads:
'm dissapointed in this, because I'd like to see more challenge applications handled as well as this one. -Jeff Wagg
The application reads:
APPLICATION FOR JREF CHALLENGE<o></o
I started a thread in the JREF Challenge Forum on May 17 entitled A Lucid Proposal For A Preliminary Test. I have received a lot of helpful feedback from the members in developing parameters for a preliminary test.<o<o
<o
STATEMENT OF ABILITY: I will demonstrate the ability to read my wife’s thoughts via <U1:STOCKTICKER>ESP</U1:STOCKTICKER> symbols.<o
<o
My hypothesis is that when my wife enters a relaxed, alpha mind state, my intuition is more accurate.<o
<o
I propose the following testing criteria:<o
<o
(This test is based on the protocols used in the Achau Nguyen test that can be viewed at http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/nguyen.html. It will require a minimum of 6 observers, but more are welcome to participate.)<o
<o
My wife and I will be separated, and then scanned with a metal detector. We will remove our shoes, socks and any jewelry, belts, etc. during this check for transmitting equipment. You may examine our ears and the inside of our mouths, also.<o
<o
We can then be taken to separate rooms for the testing to begin.<o
<o
Testing procedures for observers:<o
<o
<o
- A set of fifty (50) <U1:STOCKTICKER>ESP</U1:STOCKTICKER> symbols will be used consisting of ten (10) each of the basic <st1
<o
- Out of my presence, the symbols will be mixed up by one observer and they will place ten (10) symbols face down in an unmarked envelope. This will be repeated five (5) times so there will be a total of 5 unmarked envelopes with ten (10) symbols each.<o
<o
- A second observer will select one (1) of the envelopes and take it to the room where my wife is located.<o
<o
- A third observer will take the envelope and place the enclosed symbols face down on one side of a two-section card tray. This tray will be on a table and in plain view of all observers in the room. My wife will not make physical contact with the symbols at any time. I will have no contact with the symbols, envelopes or observers.<o
<o
- When my wife states that she is ready, a fourth observer will radio the word “sending” to a fifth observer in the room where I am located. The third observer will then turn over the first symbol and place it on the other side of the tray. (This will be done in plain view of all observers so that everyone can verify that only one (1) symbol is being turned over at a time, and that no switches are taking place.) When the symbol is turned over, my wife will stare at the symbol and attempt to transmit her thought to me. A sixth observer will write down the symbol being transmitted. <o
<o
- Upon receiving her thought, I will write the symbol down and the fifth observer will then radio back “received” to the fourth observer. The process will then repeat itself for a total of ten (10) times to use all of the symbols in the envelope.<o
Based on a Binomial Probabilities calculator (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html), n=10 (number of tries), k= (number of correct symbols), p=.2 (% chance of getting it right) and q=.8 (% chance of getting it wrong).<o
- Upon completion of the test, the sent and received signals will be compared. All of the symbols and envelopes can be examined to verify that there were no more than fifty (50) symbols and that there were ten (10) copies of each.
<o
The percentage chance of getting the number of symbols correct:<o
1 or more 89.26%<o
2 or more 62.42%<o
3 or more 32.22%<o
4 or more 12.09%<o
5 or more 3.28%<o
6 or more .64%<o
7 or more .086%<o
8 or more .0078%<o
9 or more .00042%<o
10 exactly lots of zeroes after the decimal point<o
The one factor not considered in this scenario is that each time a symbol is revealed, there is one less chance for that symbol to turn up again. However, for the method we’re using, I don’t think it will have a significant impact on the results. I would welcome input from a mathematician on how to figure those percentages as it is not in my field of expertise.<o
As a result, would the organization consider 6 correct symbols (6 chances in a thousand) a successful test? I would assume that 7 correct symbols (8 chances in 10,000) would be considered a success.<o
A few comments on the testing procedures:<o
We will not require any observers of our own to be at the initial testing. We prefer not to know anyone that will be involved. It can take place in a location of your choice that is in the <st1
The test could be modified and use a sheet of 10 symbols instead of separate, random symbols, but that could be prone to accusations of collusion. By having the symbols shuffled and in an unknown order, there is no way that anyone will know beforehand which symbols will be sent. Using a random choice of 5 envelopes insures that a single person does not have control of the outcome.<o
No observer that is witnessing the symbols being revealed should be in contact with an observer that is witnessing the reception of the symbols. I would like to preserve the sterility of the testing procedures so that there can be no claim of collusion. I understood that results were compared after 3 attempts in the Achau Nguyen test, but I ask that no contact be made with the sets of observers until after the full test has been completed.<o
Unlike Mr. Nguyen, I will not require any type of caffeinated beverage. I will not emit any powerful energy nor will I attempt to put an image into anyone’s mind. Some ice water for my wife would be great, though.<o
I would like to use a Faraday Cage in a future demonstration to prove that no electronic signals are being sent or received by my wife or myself.<o
After reading the statements submitted by other claimants, I think that I have succinctly described the ability that will be demonstrated. Successful results under these tightly controlled conditions should be cogent evidence that I satisfied the preliminary test requirements stated in the Challenge Application. I welcome input on the testing criteria I have suggested.<o
I have made one change on the Application. In Paragraph 7, I added the terms that give me the same protection from litigation that you have asked from me. I think that is a reasonable request and hope that is acceptable to Mr. Randi.<o
<o
Drew