"JAK" KEERAN, Astrologer

[KRAMER]

I John A. "JAK" Keeran, believe that I can show a correlation (better than chance) between celestial objects and human personailty traits. I will perform this feat using techniques attributed to the pseudo-science of astrology.

Enclosed are my test protocol and Million Dollar Challenge Application.

-"JAK" Keeran

*My proposed test will be composed of twenty (20) "family triads". Each triad will be composed of one student (age 18-25) and her/his parents (both mother & father). The total particpants will, thus, be 60 (twenty groups of three).

*All parents and students participating must entrust a photocopy of their birth certificate to a designated JREF official or JREF appointee who will control the test.

*The student and his/her parents will each fill out a form with 100 questions. This questionnaire will be a single, standard form for all 60 participants. No names will appear on the questionnaires, and the questionnaires will be randomly numbered and distributed to the participants. The JREF appointee will maintain the only list correlating names and questionnaires. Each question on the form will relate to the student's father (his personailty/character traits) and offer a range (strongly strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, don't know, somewhat agree, and strongly agree) or a comparison (more like, neither, etc.) or a "fill in the blank". These questionnaires will also be entrusted to the designated JREF official or JREF employee.

*After the collection of all 60 birth certificates and questionanaires, JAK Keeran will be provided a packet for each student which includes the three questionnaires of his/her family triad PLUS the birth data (date, time & location) for that student and her/his mother only. IT IS CRITICAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE TEST THAT NO NAMES APPEAR ON ANY MATERIALS GIVEN TO JAK.

*JAK will produce an astrological "natal" chart for each stuident and mother of the 20 triads (40 astrological charts). These will be filed with the JREF official.

*Next, the JREF official will send JAK a combined list of birth dates (date, time & location) for all of the sytudent's fathers (again, NO NAMES), and JAK will produce and "unknown fathers" astrological chart for each date on the list (20 charts). These, too, will be filed with the JREF official.

*DEMONSTRATION: For each triad, based upon the questionnaire and the student's chart, JAK will deduce which unknown father's chart is the best match. Given the match, JAK will record the birth date of the father with the matched family triad. At the end of the demonstration, JAK will provide a list of birthdays for each of the fathers of the 20 family triads.

*ANALYSIS: If there is no relationship between the astrological horoscopes and people, then the odds of a match should be roughly 1 in 20. If JAK matches two students correctly to their fathers, this will be considered lucky. Three (3) matches would be considered very lucky. Upon a 4th or 5th match, matching ability is at or exceeding 20%, and the test should be deemed successful. This should warrant acceptance into the next step of the Challenge. Failure to meet or exceed the 20% match threshold will be deemed failure of the test.

CONSTRAINT #1 - All questionnaires and birth certificate photocopies must be provided for each student triad to the JREF official. All birth certificates must provide three critical pieces of information: location of birth (lattitude and longitude for large cities), date of birth, and time of birth within 4 minutes.

CONSTRAINT #2 - No birth certificates (or photocopies thereof), and certainly no participant names, are allowed to be sent to or seen by the demonstrator, JAK Keeran.

KNOWN RISK #1 - There are no expected physical risks to any of the participants.

KNOWN RISK #2 - Psychological (emotional) risks might occur if the charts are interpreted as "true" for any participant. If participants want to have such "readings" of their charts, they must sign a waiver stipulating they understand that this is a study and that the information is likely flawed to some degree (and likely to a very large degree).

=============================================

Dear Mr. Keeran,

We are in receipt of your JREF Paranormal Challenge application.

We have several questions regarding your protocol proposal.

Firstly, how is it possible to determine that the birth certificate data is correct? How can an acceptable test be constructed around a questionnaire? That is, how can it be positively determined that the subject’s answers are true and accurate?

Also, we believe that you may misunderstand the nature of the Challenge in one vital area: The JREF cannot supply you with any data for your test.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to supply all that is necessary for the test to be carried out, and the test must be double-blinded in order to be acceptable. The JREF itself only acts as an observer. We do not actually conduct the test or take part in it in any way.

Finally, how do you propose to compile the data you need for the test?

Obviously, the first real hurdle in arriving at an acceptable protocol is the question of where/how you will find and secure the necessary test subjects.

We look forward to your reply. Also, if there is an email address we can use to correspond with you, it would certainly expedite matters.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 6-27-05 (addressed "Dear Mr. Keeran") wherein you asked a few questions regarding my JREF Paranormal Challenge application. I will address them in order below:

JREF QUESTION: "Firstly, how is it possible to determine that the birth certificate data is correct?"

JAK ANSWER: That is a potential anomaly working to my disadvantage. With a larger sampling of data, the impact of birth certificate errors should be reduced. My belief is that the accuracy of my techniques is significantly greater than chance. Thus, I can sacrifice some accuracy of sampling data and still show results which are greater than chance.

JREF QUESTION: "How can an acceptable test be constructed around a questionnaire?"

JAK ANSWER: Criteria of acceptance is in the discretion of JREF. If a questionnaire is not acceptable to JREF, some other approach will be necessary. The purpose of the questionnaires is to profile the father. With a father's profile, I will use astrological principles to deduce which father's birth chart (natal chart) best matches any father's profile. If astrology is useless, my attempt at matching should be no better than chance. If the principles have any substance, my accuracy of matches should beat chance.

JREF QUESTION: "That is, how can it be positively determined that the subject's answers are true and accurate?"

JAK ANSWER: This is the reason for having 3 questionnaires for each family, one from the father, one from the wife, and one from the offspring. With three questionnaires asking identical questions, I can reduce the "weight" of conflicting information and increase the weight of corroborated information. Nevertheless, this is another weakness in the test working to my disadvantage.

JREF RULE: "The JREF cannot supply you with any data for your test. ... the test must be double-blinded in order to be acceptable."

JAK RESPONSE: My intent was to give as much control to JREF as possible to ensure that the test is double-blinded. If JREF does not want to act in that role, we will need to discuss who would be acceptable to JREF for such a role. I would suggest assigning one of your advisors or an interested university professor.

JREF QUESTION: "Finally, how do you propose to compile the data you need for the test?"

JAK ANSWER: I'm not sure what you are asking. "Compile" as in collect? "Compile", as in analyze? "Compile" as in ensuring a double-blind result? "Compile" as in ...?

JREF QUESTION: Where/how will you find and secure the necessary test subjects?

JAK ANSWER: My expectation is to involve university professors (local or remote) in various fields. Mathematics students might use this test as a project in applying statistical methodology or chaos theory. Astronomy students might use the test as a project to learn about sideral time and computing the motion of planets. Philosophy students might use it as a test of formal logic (truths, fallacies, etc.). Psychology students might use it in conjunction with learning about Jung (who used it). Psychology students might also recognize and appreciate my contention that, even if astrology is completely wrong, it helps a therapist ask penetrating questions, and the answers may prove beneficial.

Best regards,
JAK

 

[KRAMER]

Hello JAK,
Thank you for your speedy and most thoughtful reply to my letter.

The "weaknesses" you refer to within your protocol proposal work not only to your own disadvantage, but also to the extreme disadvantage of the validity of the test results overall, whether they be positive or negative. The JREF always strives to achieve a test protocol whose results will be conclusive. A test that may or may not prove the vailidity of the claim cannot be accepteable to us. We must mutually agree to a test protocol whose results are NOT open to interpretation, and the one you have submitted does seem to be "full of holes", so to speak.

One of the most basic problems in testing astrology is the variance in recorded birth data. Birth certificates often contain imprecise birth times, and, as the exact time of birth is imperative in constructing an accurate "natal chart", this really tosses a Wild Card into the proceedings, and we cannot be sure how to solve this conundrum to the satisfaction of both the applicant and the JREF.

Please do not take this as a reluctancy to test your claim. Nothing would please us more than to see an acceptable test of astrology carried out.

Regarding your confusion over the word "compile", allow me to re-state the question:

Where will you find the proposed data? How will you procure it? Are you aware that all test-related costs are the responsibility of the applicant? I understand from your subsequent answer that it is your hope to involve a various departments at a University to help you. Have you actually investigated this possibility yet?

Please understand that the procuring of all the ingredients necessary for the testing of your claim are your own responsibility. Are you amenable to a test that would be more cost effective and less logistically strenuous?

It is our conviction that an acceptable test of astrology can be much simpler than the one you offer us here. The questionnaire aspect of your proposal is highly questionable (no pun intended), leading us to believe that the matching of family members based upon the aforementioned questionnaire has little if anything to do with astrology. Indeed, one could simply ignore the natal charts entirely and make the determination via the questionnaire alone. This, of course, would prove nothing about astrology. Hence, we feel that any acceptable test of astrology should include charts alone, ideally, if astrology has any validity to it at all.

However, if you insist upon incorporating a questionnaire into the protocol, the test could be as simple as this:

12 subjects, each born under a different astrological sign. Match 11 out of 12 subjects to their correct "signs", and you will have passed the preliminary.

Thusly, the problems with the exact birth time is eliminated (as are the enormous logistical barriers encountered in administering a test according to your proposal), and the family triad determination is no longer necessary. Simple claim, simple test.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

Let me try to address some of the issues you raised:

A.) "One of the most basic problems in testing astrology is the variance in recorded birth data. Birth certificates often contain imprecise birth times, and, as the exact time of birth is imperative in constructing an accurate "natal chart", this really tosses a Wild Card into the proceedings, and we cannot be sure how to solve this conundrum to the satisfaction of both the applicant and the JREF."

a. I'm not sure how this would negatively affect the JREF. A bad birth certificate would make the astrological analysis worse (than it already is). The likelihood of an error improving the performance of astrology is not likely.

b. As with true sciences, astrology has "ranges" of validity. For instance, a chemistry experiment will have "plus and minus" symbols to indicate acceptable variances. On a grosser scale, water is liquid between zero degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Celsius. Similarly, a variance in a birth certificate may have an impact, but the degree of impact directly relates to the degree of variance. I was taught to request a birth date within 4 minutes. However, even 1 minute can be significant, or 30 seconds, for that matter. Even so, 4 minutes admits to the "range" issue. As the variance increases, so does the impact.

i. I know that the JREF isn't interested in the "hows" and other technical details of astrology, but the time is only critical if a "planet" is on the border of one of the 12 astrological "houses". If it sits at the end of one house, it is read for that house and the next house. A variance of 4 minutes or an hour could throw it into the next house and alter the reading. Yet, for planets that are well inside of an astrological "house", being plus or minus 10 minutes or even an hour may not have any appreciable effect. I am aware of how time variances affect an astrological chart. As a result, if I find a planet sitting "early" in an astrological chart, I will realize that the birth time may be off, and that I should allow an alternate analysis with that planet sitting late in the previous "house".

ii. In other words, my analysis will allow, and compensate, for birth time variances.

c. If I fail the JREF Challenge, it is not likely to be due to faulty data. There are far more serious problems with astrology, as well as my expertise, that are more likely to cause a failure. As an analogy, around the turn of the
19th-20th century, many aspired toward human flight. Failures were abundant. But, finally, 2 guys from a bicycle shop got it right. It wasn't elegant, it wasn't a regularly scheduled airline, but it got us off the ground. My hope is to do the same for astrology. It won't be pretty. I only hope to get this off the ground. If I "crash", I won't be the first in JREF annals.

B.) "Regarding your confusion over the word compile, allow me to re-state the question: Where will you find the proposed data?"

i. The data will come from the questionnaires and the birth date/time/locations.

b. "How will you procure it?"

i. Where will I find willing subjects? I have a wealth of college students around the country to entice. Given the collateral subjects that astrology intertwines, I may find various professors willing to have students participate to learn more about these other subjects:

1. Astronomy/astrophysics; calculating planetary positions (useful for NASA launches to Mars and other celestial bodies).

2. Psychology; history of psychology (Carl Jung);

3. Sociology/Psychology; research: "does astrology hold strong appeal to the masses? If so, why?"

4. Mathematics/Statistics; sampling, deviation, chaos theory (Mandlebrot Set, Julia Sets, fractals)

5. Economics research: "how does astrology relate to chaos theory and economics?" (among other predictions, astrology predicted the stock market crash of 2001-2002, predicted its recovery, and predicted the oil price increases in 2004-2005).

6. Philosophy; truth/logic, research: "knowing that planets cannot affect people, is astrology worth investigating?"[/B]

C.) Please understand that the procuring of all the ingredients necessary for the testing of your claim are your own responsibility...It is our conviction that an acceptable test of astrology can be much simpler than the one you offer us here. Are you amenable to a test that would be more cost effective and less logistically strenuous?

a. Yes. What do you propose?

D.) "I understand from your subsequent answer that it is your hope to involve a various departments at a University to help you. Have you actually investigated this possibility yet?"

a. Yes. I easily attract interest in astrology. I can offer people a robust, integrated, verifiable theoretical framework explaining the brain, mind, and emotions based upon thermodynamics, neuroscience, and economics, but given a choice of that or having their "chart done", they always seem to choose the latter. I attract interest in astrology whenever I bring up the subject. A theory of the mind, however, only brings yawns and glazed looks. So, yes, I have investigated the marketability of astrological charts. I can find parents through students or students through parents. I have many groups through which to network as well as two local universities.

b. And No. Even though I have many contacts with professors in a number of fields, I have not approached them with a request for student participation in an astrology test. I have been waiting to see if JREF would be amenable to the challenge before expending more time and effort laying a logistical foundation for the test.

E.) "The questionnaire aspect of your proposal is highly questionable (no pun intended), leading us to believe that the matching of family members based upon the aforementioned questionnaire has little if anything to do with astrology."

a. On the contrary, the purpose of the test is to show that principles within astrology have verifiable correlations to human personality traits. The questionnaires will focus on traits that astrology denotes. By looking at the "blind" charts of the fathers, and matching them to questionnaire traits, I will be verifying that astrological traits are predictable and systematic; the hallmarks of a true science.

F.) "Indeed, one could simply ignore the natal charts entirely and make the determination via the questionnaires alone."

a. I believe that this is incorrect. The questionnaires will have no birthday information about the father, so you cannot determine the birth date/time/location of the father. It would be a guessing game with about a 1 in 20 chance of success. The intent of having college students is to ensure that all fathers were in the same general age bracket. (My expectation will be that the parental birthdays will all fall within a 20 year period - generally "baby boomers" born about 1945-1965). By having their birthdays within one generation, it significantly reduces my ability to compare fathers' birthdates against wife/student birthdates and make matches based upon likely age groupings - they are all in the same age grouping.

G.) "We feel that any acceptable test of astrology should include charts alone"

a. A test using astrological charts alone does not seem possible.

b. If you are suggesting that I provide some test of prediction, the personality traits can be predictive. If testing shows a strong correlation, then at birth, the personality traits (including strengths and weaknesses) will be uncovered.

c. Other forms of prediction are greatly misunderstood. If the expectation is that I will predict that someone will win the lottery or crash their car, then the expectation is too great for the strength of this pseudo-science. At best, astrology is akin to medicine in the 15th and 16th centuries. To expect a physician from that time to perform successful open-heart surgery would be hopeless. Similarly, to expect astrology to perform great feats of prediction today is also hopeless.

d. Again, if you have an alternate test, what do you propose?

a. 12 subjects, each born under a different astrological sign. Match 11 out of 12 subjects to their correct astrological signs, and you will have passed the preliminary.[/I]

i. Are you talking about their "Sun sign" (as featured in daily newspapers) or their Ascendant? People show more traits matching the sign on their Ascendant than their Sun sign, and you need to have your chart made to find your Ascendant. If your Sun is in your 4th house, it represents your mother. If it is in your 10th house, it represents your father. If it is the 3rd house, it represents your siblings. If it is in the 7th house, it represents your co-workers. If it is in the 11th house, it represents your friends. True astrology is far more complex than most people's superficial understanding.

ii. Again, your Ascendant is more representative of you than your Sun sign. However, it represents "how others see you". In other words, a questionnaire asking someone, "How do you think others view you?", is not very useful or accurate.

iii. Does the person declare their "Sun sign"? I use sidereal astrology which relies upon accurate astronomical positions of planets.

iv. Matching 11 out of 12 subjects is a high degree of accuracy - far above chance. It is your prerogative to "set the height of the bar", but that seems very high. This is a pseudo-science akin to medieval medicine - not a shrinkwrapped, high-tech tool.

b. What are your thoughts on this?

i. My initial reaction is not favorable, but I may warm up to it after thinking it over. Give me a few days.

ii. In the meantime, what are the odds of matching 11 out of 12 - strictly chance?

Thanks,
JAK

 

[KRAMER]

Hello JAK,

Thank you for your extensive reply. I regret that time does not allow me to respond in kind.

When I asked, "Where will you find the data"...what I meant to ask was the following:

WHERE WILL YOU PROCURE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATES?

As regards your reticence to make direct requests from Universities until you have assurance from the JREF that we would be amenable to a test, rest assured that we are quite entirely amenable to a proper test that is conducted under controlled conditions, the results of which would be wholly apparent and NOT subject to interpretation.

Another conundrum that arises within your protocol proposal is the following: Although we can be reasonably sure that the birth certificates will verify the identity of the mother, how can we be certain that the father of record is actually the biological parent? In order for the test to be truly verifiable, some sort of DNA proof of parenthood would be required, would it not? Are you financially able to assume the cost of DNA testing for dozens of test participants?

Regarding the JREF's suggestion for an alternative test, we have already proposed a very simple one in my previous email, to which you replied in a manner that only confuses the issue and further supports the lack of any scientific basis by which astrology itself can be tested, and it is only by mutually arriving at an agreeable protocol that your claim can be tested under the rules of the JREF Challenge. We are not confident that this is possible, in this case, but we continue to be open to any subsequent suggestions you may have. This is always the responsibility of the applicant.

Regarding "setting the bar high" for what the JREF would consider a successful demonstration of your claim, well, yes, we do set the bar high, but not inappropriately so (in our opinion), considering the Million Dollar Prize we offer in return.

I know this may appear as though we are being "difficult", but I assure you that we are anxious to test any and all Astrology-related claims that are submitted to us, under proper conditions, of course.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

Let's explore your earlier suggestion:

"However, if you insist upon incorporating a questionnaire into the protocol, the test could be as simple as this:
12 subjects, each born under a different astrological sign. Match 11 out of 12subjects to their correct signs, and you will have passed the preliminary."

If I understand your proposal correctly, the 12 subjects will fill out my questionnaire. (Of course, no names or other means of identification will be on any of the questionnaires.) From each questionnaire, I will determine the correct "Sun sign" of the subject. Further, I must match 11 out of 12 subjects correctly.

Since I will have no names of the subjects, may I be given the 12 birthdates (with times and locations) to create 12 natal charts (again, no names)? From the charts, I will match each chart with, what I believe to be, a corresponding questionnaire. From the matching, I will declare the "Sun sign" for each numbered questionnaire. The "Sun sign" will be according to the American Ephemeris for the 20th Century 1900 to 2000 at Noon.

Is the above agreeable? - JAK

==============================================

Hello JAK,

We would first need to see the questionnaire. Obviously, if one of the subjects believes in astrology, the answers given could easily direct you to the correct answer. For example, if, according to astrology, Capricorns are notoriously unfunny (without an appeciable sense of humor, that is), a Capricorn could answer in ways that are consistent with the alleged attributes of a Capricorn.

So the answer to your question is that we would be agreeable to this sort of test, IN PRINCIPLE, but we would first need to go over the questionnaire with a fine tooth comb. Perhaps the next step would be for you to forward to us the questionnaire you have in mind to use.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

Hello JAK,

How's that questionnaire coming along? Should we be expecting something soon?

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

============================================

Hi Kramer,

I've been delayed a bit by two issues. First, my business has been sprinting to the finish-line on a project. Second, my computer is sick, and I may be out of commission while my laptop goes to the Computer Hospital.

I've got about 40 or 50 questions complete, and I am limiting myself to 100 questions. The questions are setup with a "strongly agree", "agree", "not sure", "disagree", and "strongly disagree" structure. (I've attached the questions that I've completed, not that you will open them due to JREF policy on attachments, but to use this email to transfer them to an office computer at Deer Creek.)

JAK

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

My computer is back from the doctor (no viral infections, just a hard drive suffering a slow death). And I'm back on-line with a new hard drive.

I know you can't open attachments, so I placed my astrological questionnaire on a website:

http://www.creativitygame.com/questionnaire.html

Let me know if it "passes muster".

Thanks, JAK

==============================================

Hello JAK,

This questionnaire really is quite nebulous. Your conclusions thereof would not prove anything conclusively.

Any test of astrology that would be acceptable for the JREF Challenge must be far more "scientific".

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

The questionnaire may seem nebulous, but each question directly relates to one of the 12 principles (planets/constellations/houses) of astrology. For instance, stubbornness relates to Venus/Taurus/2nd House. "Laughing on the outside but crying on the inside" relates to Sun/Leo/5th House. Strong Saturn/Capricorn/10th House factors are "practical" or "methodical". The questions are not haphazard nor without reference. For instance, the first ten questions reference astrology as follows: #1 Taurus, #2 Cancer, #3 Scorpio, #4 Virgo, #5 Sagittarius, #6 Aries, #7 Cancer, #8 Scorpio, #9 Aries, #10 Capricorn.


If you wish, I can resubmit the questionnaire with references to the planet/constellation/house which each question. On average, I have about 8.3 questions for each of the 12 zodiac signs (no less than 8 and no more than 9). By virtue of the answers, I hope to get a solid indication of the zodiac signs affecting the participant, his/her spouse, father, mother, and boss. Further, Saturn/Capricorn/10th House relates to the father, husband, and boss. By finding similarities between those three, I can deduce the likely Saturn/Capricorn/10th House combinations. With the astrological charts created, I will then match them based upon their closeness to the Saturn/Capricorn/10th House combinations I am looking for. My ability to accurately make such matches is the crux of my success or failure.

As for scientific, the questionnaire is similar to psychological and sociological questionnaires. The question in my mind is now, what do you mean by "much more scientific"? Are psychology and sociology not scientific? If they are, then what separates their questionnaires from mine? If theirs has a systematic basis behind the questions, then my questionnaire meets that criterion. It, too, has a systematic basis behind the questions. Again, each question was designed to uncover an astrological effect. Please qualify "much more scientific". Or is producing the correlation between questions and astrological effects sufficient?

Thanks, JAK

=============================================

OK, JAK, let's see a revised questionnaire and I will present it to Randi for review.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to avoid testing your claim. The opposite is true.

We simply cannot agree to a test that is full of holes. It needs to be as air-tight as possible.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

The astrological questionnaire is built in an Excel spreadsheet, and the columns on the right-hand side pertain to the astrological planet/sign/house corresponding to the question. The legend for the numbers follows:

1. Mars/Aries/1st House - "How others see you" or "looking in the mirror"; strengths include taking the initiative and leadership; weaknesses include acting on impulse and without a plan ("Fire, ready, aim").

2. Venus/Taurus/2nd House - Money and money handling; strengths include steadfastness and a focus on quality; weaknesses include being self-indulgent and stubborn.

3. Mercury/Gemini/3rd House - Communication (fast & transient - mostly oral); strengths include a quick mind and handling multiple tasks; weaknesses include "too many irons in too many fires" and being the hare - not the tortoise.

4. Moon/Cancer/4th House - Comfort and Safety; strengths include nurturing and protection; weaknesses include not taking action and hyper-sensitivity (being emotional).

5. Sun/Leo/5th House - Showy; strengths include self-expression and teaching/mentoring; weaknesses include pride and "all play and no work".

6. Mercury/Virgo/6th House - Communication (slow & permanent - mostly written); strengths include attention to detail and service to others; weaknesses include "not seeing the forest for the trees" and being a worrier.

7. Venus/Libra/7th House - Beauty and Order; strengths include organizing and creating harmony; weaknesses include being "wishy-washy" and critical.

8. Pluto/Scorpio/8th House - Sacrifice to Create; strengths include being tenacious and powerful; weaknesses include being ruthless and insensitive.

9. Jupiter/Sagitarrius/9th House - Expand and Grow; strengths include understanding general principles and having vision; weaknesses include being careless and lazy.

10. Saturn/Capricorn/10th House - Restrict and Focus; strengths include being practical and responsible; weaknesses include being stodgy and rigid.

11. Uranus/Aquarius/11th House - Sudden Changes; strengths include being creative/innovative and tolerant; weaknesses include being scattered and not following through.

12. Neptune/Pisces/12th House - Hidden and Unknown; strengths include imagination and spirituality; weaknesses include deviousness and lack of focus.

The first column of numbers in the spreadsheet (to the right of the questions) has a number (from above) which corresponds to the question on its left. The rightmost 12 columns are merely tallies for the questions and summed at the bottom. These allowed me to ensure I was asking about the same number of questions for each planet/sign/house.

NOTE: Some of the questions may not seem to relate to the legend above, but that is because the legend includes only a taste of what's included. For example, Neptune rules all liquids, so questions regarding drugs, alcohol, oil, gasoline, blood, milk, water, lakes, oceans, saliva, bilge, sewage, hair shampoo, eye drops, fruit juice, and all other liquids (as well as creatures inhabiting them) have a Neptunian influence. This is why the question about working for the navy is marked with a 12 (Neptune rules the oceans). But naval ships also have guns and missiles which are ruled by Mars/Aries (military, weapons and fire). I would expect both Mars/Aries/1st House and Neptune/Pisces/12th House to be prominent in the chart of someone working for the navy. Reading an astrological chart is far more complex and difficult than one would suspect. As a result, I will attest that my questions are born of the various signs and astrological principles. If necessary, I can divulge the relationships of all questions and astrological principles just as I have done for Neptune and the navy. However, my understanding is that the JREF is not concerned with such information:

"PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration."

Again, I have placed the updated astrological questionnaire on my website:

http://www.creativitygame.com/questionnaire.html

Let me know if it "passes muster".

Thanks, JAK

=============================================

OK, JAK, I will try to get Randi to read this upon his return to Ft. Lauderdale tomorrow, and I hope to have a reply for you by Monday as to whether or not this will be sufficient for a preliminary Challenge test of astrology.

 

[KRAMER]

Hello JAK,

Randi has approved the questionnaire. The only sticking point now is this: HOW will the 12 subjects be chosen?

Obviously, the subjects must have no knowledge of (or interest in) astrology. How will the subjects' impartiality be determined conclusively? It would be quite simple to locate 12 skeptics, but this would stack the deck in the JREF's favor. Have you considered this problem? And if so, what is your suggestion?

There has been much talk in the JREF forums regarding your motives in applying for the Challenge, and I myself have wondered about this, considering the statements you have made that clearly show your disdain for pseudo-science and your placement of astrology into that category.

The official JREF position on this is as follows:

We are not concerned with what you think. We are solely concerned with the question of whether or not there is any substance to your claim, and Randi feels that the proposed test is an acceptable one.

And by the way, 10 "hits" out of 12 attempts would suffice.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

Let me respond to your last email -

Hmm... Let's see. I have to match 11 out of 12.

Seems kinda "stacked" in the JREF's favor already.

Yes, I have considered the problem. Skeptics are ideal candidates. Not only are they unlikely to know much (if anything) about astrology, but the staunchest skeptics should harbor no need to dishonestly answer the questionnaire. They would be confident that astrology is hogwash, and being devious would not be necessary for them to quash astrology. Further, their attention to detail and high value of critical thinking and should add to their integrity in answering the questionnaire. The only downside would be the potential of "clustering" - charts of similarly minded people tend to have similar charts (identical twins are the worst situation). Thus, I would NOT want 12 professors or 12 bankers or 12 mathematicians. (Nevertheless, if that ends up the case, I will deal with it.)

KRAMER: There has been much talk in the JREF forums regarding your motives in applying for the Challenge, and I myself have wondered about this, considering the statements you have made that clearly show your disdain for pseudo-science and your placement of astrology into that category. The official JREF position on this is as follows:

We do not care what you think. We only care if there is any substance to your claim.

I had not entertained ideas about submitting a challenge until the thread "A New Angle for the JREF Challenge" (from your post of 4/8/05 @ 10:36 AM) opened the door:

quote: Originally posted by KRAMER
...
I have just consulted Randi; Although it has never happened before, there is absolutely no Challenge rule or moral imperative that would preclude us from accepting a Challenge application from someone whose goal was to prove that an allegedly paranormal phenomenon does NOT exist. Anyone from either side can apply for the Challenge.

Why on earth didn't I think of this before?

An applicant does NOT need to actually believe in his claim in order to apply for the Challenge.

My motives are simple. I believe that logic is paramount. If any paranormal or "woo-woo" phenomena is to be given any credence, it must withstand scientific scrutiny.

Based upon passed experience with astrology, I encountered what appeared to be "predictability". Knowing that the known laws of physics would not support such predictability, I was beside myself trying to find my error or some other cause. To date, I am still without an explanation. The Challenge provides an opportunity to allow others to look at the "mirage" which I have been seeing. Hopefully, a test involving others will cause the mirage to disappear.

Yet, if by some remote quirk the "mirage" has some shred of truth which is seen by others, then the discovery will be quite startling. (Yeah, hold your breath.) In such case, ensuing investigations may prove quite stimulating (and even lucrative). Thus, if I win the Challenge, I am immediately rewarded for being a kook. If I lose the Challenge but provide results which are significantly greater than chance, I win again.

On the other hand, if I fail and my results prove to be no better than chance, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Plus, this challenge can be referenced by others as an honest test. (I would LOVE to have a$trology with$tand $cientific $crutiny!!!! Why would I purposely "shoot it in the foot"?)

KRAMER: Randi feels that the proposed test is an acceptable one. And by the way, 10 "hits" out of 12 attempts would suffice.

Oh darn. The only way to get 11 out of 12 is if I am allowed to submit the same chart for two questionnaires. That would be handy if I was confident in 10 matches of charts & questionnaires and had only two that confused me. I could then submit one of the remaining charts with both questionnaires knowing (yeah, right) that one set would have to match. But now, only having to correctly match 83% of the charts & questionnaires, the challenge is "in the bag" - you guys are toast.

Okay, what's the next step?

=============================================

Hello JAK,

Once again (as you neglected to answer the question, but rather offered comment instead):

How do you propose to chose the 12 subjects? THAT is the next step.

p.s. Although you feel that skeptics would be the perfect subjects for such a test, this would allow you an "escape portal" if you failed (as in, "The subjects gave answers they knew would throw me off track"), and Randi is traditionally reticent to allow such excuses to be available and ready-for-use by applicants following the test. Hence, I fear we must seek an alternate gene pool for your test subjects.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

I would always have an "escape portal" regardless of who was in the test. I have a plethora of excuses. Randi could not possibly cover all of the excuses I can dream up. But excuses and "escape portals" are irrelevant. Who cares why it failed? Who cared why all of the initial attempts at human flight failed? What mattered was when someone finally succeeded. THAT was of interest to many and worth caring about. If my test crashes and burns, and I cry like a baby, so what? It doesn't matter. It will only matter if I succeed.

And for me, I don't have to win the Challenge in order to succeed. You are focused upon protecting the $1M. I am focused upon beating chance. I am betting that any ability to beat chance with astrology will be worth more than $1M in the long run. And if I ever beat chance, I need objective witnesses. The Challenge is providing that.

We, first, need an intermediary (or facilitator) to hold the information and to pass me the pieces which I am allowed to see. A JREF Forum member could perform this task. (Any bias on the part of the JREF member is of no consequence if the collection and dissemination of information is his/her only task.) I can solicit interested parties from a new thread. (My preference is that a JREF intermediary be a professor as well.) Is this acceptable to the JREF?

The other alternative I find favorable is having a local professor as the intermediary. This would also ease the logistics of the test. Would a local Colorado professor be preferable to the JREF?

Once the intermediary is chosen, the 12 participants need to be selected. This can be done by the intermediary or by me. However, my involvement may taint the test. The intermediary gathering participants is my preference. Thoughts? Suggestions?

Finally, does the JREF need to screen the selections?

Thanks, JAK

=============================================

Dear JAK,

You couldn't be more wrong when you state that the JREF's focus is on "protecting the Million Dollars."

Our focus lies solely in determining the Truth of the matter.This is the true spirit of the JREF Challenge, sir, which is desgined to determine whether or not paranormal phenomenon actually exists. Clearly, your purpose in applying for the Challenge is entirely other. No matter.

We are not in favor of using the JREF forums for locating test subjects.

We would suggest that Jim Alcott of PSICOP in Canada chose the 12 subjects and administer this end of the preliminary test, as he has Randi's confidence, as well as having much experience in such matters. The JREF itself would NOT need to screen the subjects. We only need to agree with you on the choice of "intermediary", and we see no need to have someone within your vicinity acting in this capacity. In fact, the entire test could easily be conducted via email & fax. Hence, all you would receive are the completed questionnaires. This is not a demand, but rather only a suggestion.

If you find yourself amenable to this, we will forward Mr. Alcott's email address to you, from which point you and he can easily make the necessary determinations.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

I believe I have multiple options:

a.) Advertise locally and get a scattered representation of the local populous as participants. A local intermediary to control the test would also need to be identified. The intermediary could be garnered from those responding to the advertisement.

b.) Allow an interested JREF Forum member to be an intermediary. Again, advertising anywhere (either locally or remotely) to attract participants would be feasible.

c.) Focus on having a college professor (local or remote), intrigued or amused by the test, become an intermediary passing data between student participants and me.

d.) I am open to your suggestions.

My experience has been that many people are interested in having their "chart read". For me, finding 12 willing subjects is not the difficult part. Finding 12 willing subjects who meet JREF criteria might be.

I am flexible in the choice of participants and willing to accept suggestions offered by the JREF. My inclination is toward college students with a professor working as an intermediary. What would be the JREF preference?

Thanks, JAK

=============================================

Hello JAK,

By now you may have received my email in which I mentioned Jim Alcock of Canada's York University. If you are amenable to his participation, please contact him at the following email address: J******@****.****.YORKU.CA

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

I was thinking it over, and though students were my preference due to the ease of the logistics, they are not well suited for the questionnaire. Students are less likely to be married than the general population, and they are not likely to have established a career. All of the questionnaire's questions have factors regarding marriage (spouse) and a career (boss). As a result, I am falling back to the advertising approach whereby I get a random sampling of the general population.

As for the intermediary, I still prefer a professor (hmm...or even a grad student). The Challenge definitely has educational benefits regardless of the success or failure of my test, and someone within an educational institution is more likely to see, appreciate, and utilize those benefits.

Thoughts?

- JAK

==============================================

Hello JAK,

I have cc'd this to Jim Alcock in the hopes that it will serve to jumpstart matters.

I agree with your assessment therein. Students are indeed a poor choice.

 

[KRAMER]

From Jim Alcock, Investigator

Hi Randi and Kramer -

I will be delighted to be involved in this. At the moment, I have just arrived in Vancouver, and will be back in Toronto a week from now. I will have limited access to email this week (at the moment I am using a Mac for the first time in my life -where are all the usual buttons?) So, I hope a week's delay won't matter. Then, I will happily dig into this in great detail.

Cheers, Jim

Professor James Alcock, PhD, C.Psych.
Department of Psychology
Glendon College, York University
Toronto

==============================================

Hello Jim,

Thanks so very much for your speedy reply.

I look forward to working with you on this.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

Regarding your suggestions:

"We would suggest that Jim Alcott of PSICOP in Canada chose the 12 subjects and administer this end of the preliminary test - the entire test could easily be conducted via email & fax. Hence, all you would receive are the completed questionnaires."

This is most agreeable. Please forward Jim's email, and we will get started.

One note, however, not only will I be getting the questionnaires, but I expect a single email from Jim with the birth data (birth date, birth time, birth location) and no other information. There should be one line of birth data for each questionnaire I receive. Jim will need to keep track of with line of birth data corresponds to which questionnaire.

Thanks, JAK

P.S. My intent in the matter is also to determine the truth of the matter. Plus, because I am hopeful of the outcome, my test will be an honest one. If I fail, it will not be for lack of trying nor for lack of earnest hope for success.

==============================================

Hello JAK,

I am pleased to hear that you are welcoming Jim Alcock into the preliminary test.

We have received an email from him in which he agrees to help with the test, so I am certain that you will hear from him within a week, upon his return home. Please be sure to "CC" me on all correspondence you share with him.

 

[KRAMER]

The Preliminary Test Protocol, Pending Randi's Approval

Hi Jim,

I have been given your contact information by "Kramer" of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF).

I have applied for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge attempting to prove some merit for astrological principles and techniques. (I will not be proving nor disproving the cause for any of the techniques should they be successful.) I expect that Kramer has given you an outline of the proposed test as well as your purpose. I will reiterate them here so that we all are on the same page:

1. An intermediary (Jim Alcock) will me assigned to ensure the controls of the test and to coordinate the flow of information.

2. The intermediary will be responsible for choosing 12 participants for the test, ideally one born under each astrological month.

3. Each of the 12 participants should download/print a copy of the questionnaire from the website:

http://www.creativitygame.com/questionnaire.html

4. The intermediary should also download/print a copy of the questionnaire to be used as a master ensuring that it is consistent throughout the duration of the test.

5. The intermediary will also collect birth data from each participant. The birth data should come from a source document (a birth certificate) to show authenticity (test verification).

6. The intermediary will keep track of which questionnaire belongs to which birth data.

7. Upon collection of all questionnaire and birth data, the intermediary will mail/email/fax all questionnaires as well as a single list of the birth data to the tester (JAK).

8. The tester will create an astrological birth chart for each line from the birth data list.

9. Comparing the information from the questionnaires against the astrological birth charts, the tester will deduce which chart corresponds with which questionnaire.

10. The tester will then create a list identifying the matching and noting the Sun sign for each of the 12 participants. This Sun sign will be from the American Ephemeris for the 20th Century 1900 to 2000 at Noon (ISBN 0-917086-20-1).

11. Success will be determined by the tester correctly matching at least 10 of the 12 questionnaires to the corresponding birth data.

12. All questionnaire, birth data, and astrological charts will be sent to the intermediary for conclusion of the test.

Let me know if this meets your understanding of the test. If not, let's have Kramer clarify whatever I may have misunderstood.

Thanks,
JAK

============================================

Hello JAK (and Jim),

This protocol looks good, but we have some small refinements. Firstly, the 12 subjects will not dowload the questionnaire from your website. The questionnaires will be printed out by Jim Alcock and he himself will deliver them (via fax or mail) to the subjects. Also, and this is a minor tweak, the birth data Jim Alcock delivers to JAK should be submitted in a list that is assembled chronologically, as we see this to be an acceptable method of randomization.

If you are amenable to these refinements, we can move forward.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

This is fine with me. As long as the questionnaires can be correlated to birth data by Jim, and as long as the chronology of questionnaires (as I receive them) is not in any way related to the chronology of birth data (again as I receive them), then we should be fine. However, the chronologies of everything sent to me should be tracked for test verification purposes.

One last note: my tools are only good for the northern hemisphere; I cannot create astrological charts for anyone born south of the equator or north of 66 degrees latitude. Additionally, most of the work I have done has been for people born between 60 degrees west longitude and 140 degrees west longitude in the U.S. and Canada. I am not confident in my system for other areas (or other cultures). As a result, for the preliminary test, I would prefer participants who live in the continental U.S. and Canada. The cultures of these two neighboring countries are very, very similar, and I would be comfortable using my system for people born in these countries.


Thanks, JAK

===========================================

Hello JAK,

We have no problem restricting the subjects to American and Canadians only, but we cannot understand the meaning of the first paragraph in this email (pertaining to the chronology/randomization issue). Please clarify.

 

[KRAMER]

Hi Kramer,

Sorry for being obtuse. The chronology issue is just an emphasis of an issue we all intuitively know already. If Jim receives the questionnaires and numbers them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., then the lines of birth data should be thoroughly shuffled so that the first line of birth data is not for the first questionnaire, the second line of birth data is not for the second questionnaire, etc. Variations of this would be easily deciphered encryption codes - codes which could be deduced from the information and lead to an easy correlation of questionnaires and birth data. I trust that Jim and you naturally would not do this unless by accident. And I would expect both of you would be cognizant of the issue and ensure that the data does not correlate in any fashion. Thus, this issue is a "given", and needs no further discussion. My intent, though, of presenting it was to lead into the last sentence:

"However, the chronologies of everything sent to me should be tracked for test verification purposes."

If I am able to win the Challenge or even show results which are significantly better than chance, I am sure that the data sent to me will be (and should be) carefully scrutinized. Part of that analysis will undoubtedly be looking for "hints" given by the format or sequencing of the information I receive. Regardless if the integrity of the test and the integrity of all parties involved, any correlations ("hints") that are found will taint the test. I only wish to avoid anything which might taint our test. By tracking the order of the lines of birth data and the sequence of questionnaires as sent to me, we will have evidence to show randomness in the presentation of information. This evidence will help quell questions about the integrity of the test.

- JAK

==============================================

OK JAK,

Yes, you are right; this IS rather obtuse and convoluted, and we think rather unnecessary.

Jim Alcock is a very proficient, experienced researcher, who knows how to randomize. We would ask you to discuss your concerns on this matter with him and trust his extensive experience in this regard. We know how to conduct these types of tests, and you really have no need to be concerned over this.

We trust that you and Jim will come to mutual agreement.