• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Raymond Edward Powell protocol

CynicalSkeptic

Master Poster
CynicalSkeptic
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,608
If it works for Raymond, we will use cards 2-10. The card to be transmitted will be chosen by rolling a die, which will be purchased specifically for the test.
Click to expand...
Uhh, where you gonna get a 9-sided die?
 
I have no clue if a 9-sided die is impossible or whatnot, but a 10-sided die will do the work just fine. Simply pick a number, let's say "1", that will result in the die being re-rolled. *shrug*
 
Oualawouzou said:
I have no clue if a 9-sided die is impossible or whatnot, but a 10-sided die will do the work just fine. Simply pick a number, let's say "1", that will result in the die being re-rolled. *shrug*
Click to expand...

That was the plan ;)
 
I don't understand the use of a die at all. Random number tables are available, easy to use and take far less time than throwing a die.
 
Do we have another test forthcoming?
Finally, a claimant says he can do 100% accuracy. No ands, ifs or butts.

The only thing striking me is of course that Mr. Powell does not bring his own "receiver". That was the breaking point e.g. in the Paul Carey test, since it would have provided him an "out". How is this different now?

However, if Mr. Powell has agreed to this, it should satisfy the need to meet the claimant's requirements, shouldn't it?

(Again keeping in our very cynical minds that Mr. Powell simply wants to take the test, fail and say "I would have succeeded but they wouldn't let me bring my own receiver." or any other excuse.)
 
Is there any particular reason only cards 2-10 will be used? The ones will be feeling all left out.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Do we have another test forthcoming?
Finally, a claimant says he can do 100% accuracy. No ands, ifs or butts.

The only thing striking me is of course that Mr. Powell does not bring his own "receiver". That was the breaking point e.g. in the Paul Carey test, since it would have provided him an "out". How is this different now?

However, if Mr. Powell has agreed to this, it should satisfy the need to meet the claimant's requirements, shouldn't it?

(Again keeping in our very cynical minds that Mr. Powell simply wants to take the test, fail and say "I would have succeeded but they wouldn't let me bring my own receiver." or any other excuse.)
Click to expand...

Scratch that.

Mr. Powell's representative sent another e-mail today. Mr. Powell has changed his mind and would like a buffer.
 
RemieV, what is this "Mr. Powell's representative" horsepockey? Why is JREF not negotiating with Mr. Powell himself? What does the rep add?
 
SezMe said:
RemieV, what is this "Mr. Powell's representative" horsepockey? Why is JREF not negotiating with Mr. Powell himself? What does the rep add?
Click to expand...

And why has the JREF apparently changed its policy dealing directly with applicants? This also seems to be the case in the VEDI ASSOCIATION application.
 
SezMe said:
RemieV, what is this "Mr. Powell's representative" horsepockey? Why is JREF not negotiating with Mr. Powell himself? What does the rep add?
Click to expand...

You've got me. Some applicants prefer to have a liaison. As long as the applicant signs off on anything that is done through their representative, we're willing to communicate in a way they are comfortable with. In some cases, using a representative is preferred, especially in cases where English is not the native tongue, like with the Vedi Association.
 
I've said it before and it went unaddressed: Why does Mr. Powell not bring his own recipient? I realise the JREF probably caters to his claim.

It's a perfect out for him, since he can claim no of the five people worked for him and he had to settle for the one who seemed least improper.
 
Because the JREF wants to ensure that there is no form of prior communication, listening devices, etc. We want to ensure that every possible means of communication is completely eliminated.

He has agreed to use volunteers. In fact, he says that not only will the subject receive his image, but so will everyone in the building. His power is that good.

~Remie
 
I still question why only 9 cards are used. Surely it would be easier to use 10 cards and not worry about having to reroll the die?
 
RemieV said:
Because the JREF wants to ensure that there is no form of prior communication, listening devices, etc. We want to ensure that every possible means of communication is completely eliminated.

He has agreed to use volunteers. In fact, he says that not only will the subject receive his image, but so will everyone in the building. His power is that good.

~Remie
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I assume you have this statement in writing.

Will everyone - at least: someone else - in the building keep score? Just for the heck of it?
 
In a previous assessment, that of ACHAU NGUYEN, Hawaiian Psychic on 07/16/05 the following protocol occured....


;snip:: After the first three words had been sent, we requested a brief pause so Jerry could bring them to Dennis on the stairs. Matt C. brought Dennis the first 3 words received by E. Dennis examined both short lists, and sent word upstairs with Jerry that we should proceed. This was our early warning system to alert us in case we were being deceived. None of the first three words matched, so we suspected no cheating at that point, and continued until all twenty words had been transmitted. ::snip:


Might it be pertinent to include something like this in Mr Powells test?
 
vidiviciveni said:
In a previous assessment, that of ACHAU NGUYEN, Hawaiian Psychic on 07/16/05 the following protocol occured....


;snip:: After the first three words had been sent, we requested a brief pause so Jerry could bring them to Dennis on the stairs. Matt C. brought Dennis the first 3 words received by E. Dennis examined both short lists, and sent word upstairs with Jerry that we should proceed. This was our early warning system to alert us in case we were being deceived. None of the first three words matched, so we suspected no cheating at that point, and continued until all twenty words had been transmitted. ::snip:


Might it be pertinent to include something like this in Mr Powells test?
Click to expand...

I was not around for this protocol, and I'm off to bed just now, so I will research it tomorrow.

However, from simply reading this one part, it appears that if we added a section of the protocol that read this way, we would be saying that success = cheating.

If Mr. Powell missed the first three, he would have already lost the Challenge. In his set, he can only miss one.

He will not know the subject, or have any contact with them except a brief introduction so he can choose the individual he feels the strongest connection with. There is no reason to believe that he would be cheating, or that he would have any way to.

I will, of course, run this by others at the JREF but again, even if all ten of the transmitted images match, that is not in itself indicative of cheating.
 
Two minor suggestions

From the proposed protocol:

If there is a setup or technological problem, or if for any reason the test must be halted due to extenuating circumstances rather than trickery, the test may be conducted up to two additional times.
Click to expand...


1. It seems to me this should read "other than trickery" instead of "rather than trickery".

2. Suppose the test is halted three times for for reasons other than trickery. Not a likely outcome if everyone plays fair, I agree. But if it happened what is the result of the test? Would the JREF and Mr. Powell agree? Nailing it down is easy. Just add a sentence to the "Successful Test" section, something like, "Any other outcome constitutes a failure."
 
A Question

Does the ban on cameras, camcorders, etc. mean that the JREF has decided not to record the preliminary test?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom