Test Protocol Negotiation Idea

[rasolfg]

New to the forums, but have been lurking for a long time. I've read many of the exchanges between Kramer and numerous applicants and am constantly frustrated.

There has also been a lot of talk recently about 3 affidavits from witnesses being required. Not a bad idea. However, one thing that I'm surprised hasn't been suggested, let alone implemented, is the request for a video demonstration of the claim as part of the application process. Or at the very least, part of the protocol negotiation. It could certainly save time and make things a lot more clear than arguing over whether you need to spin the yo-yo "topwise" or whichever other definitive direction. The claimant could submit a short video - on tap, cd, dvd, avi. Lets be fair: If a drunk redneck who has the brain power to drive a golf ball into a retaining wall directly in front of him can figure out how to operate a video camera, put said video tape into a package and mail it to americas stupid people video awards, then these claimant people can hussle up a video tape recorder and produce a small demo of their claim.

Sure, it could be faked. However, the point of the video wouldn't be to prove anything, but to establish what it is that is meant to be tested.

Thoughts?

 

[petre]

Someone will be along shortly with a link to where it's been discussed before.

In the meantime, the short answer is that video evidence can be faked quite easily, and as such has no evidentiary (that's a word, I think) value to JREF.

If an applicant wanted to, a video could be included in the application to give a clear idea of what was planned. A full description of it would still have to be included in the application though, since a video can't really be notarized.

 

[drkitten]

In the meantime, the short answer is that video evidence can be faked quite easily, and as such has no evidentiary (that's a word, I think) value to JREF.

I think this may be somewhat narrow-minded of them. I mean, yes, video evidence can be faked quite easily, but so can people be fooled quite easily. I'm fairly certain that Randi himself, for example, would be able to vanish a pigeon in such a way as to appear convincing on camera -- but would also be able to vanish it well enough that I'd be inclined to sign a statement that I saw the pigeon vanish and have no idea how it happened. Setting the bar to include eyewitness testimony but to exclude video evidence at the protocol negotiation stage may not be that helpful. Obviously the circumstances would be different at the actual tests.

If an applicant wanted to, a video could be included in the application to give a clear idea of what was planned. A full description of it would still have to be included in the application though, since a video can't really be notarized.

It's not that difficult to notarize video tapes; video-taped depositions happen all the time. You simply sign (and notarize) a statement that the tape represents an accurate depiction of what's going on, that the contents are true, &c. &c. There's probably even a standard phrasing.

The problem is with the proposal details itself. If I claim to be able to make monkeys fly out of my armpits, simply showing a video of it happening doesn't define how long it takes, how many I can make, what kind of monkeys they are, &c. Those would still need to be hammered out -- but again, that's not that much different than any other protocol negotiation.

 

[Ririon]

Kramer could ask for a video of the demonstration that resulted in the affidavits. That would give the application log a higher entertainment value (and serve to clarify what the applicant means with his/her gibberish.)

 

[ChaosEngineer]

The problem is that poor Kramer would get stuck watching the video tape. At least with a letter or an affadavit you can skim through it pretty quickly and skip over the irrelevant stuff. Watching a video tape takes a lot longer, even if you make liberal use of the fast-forward button.

Brett Seres and his Fruit Flies gave us a practical demonstation of the problem. (See the second message in the thread)
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive//showthread.php?t=34193

 

[rasolfg]

The point of the video would not be to provide evidence that the person REALLY can do what they claim and that Randi should endorse the million dollar cheque and mail it off. The point is to avoid situations EXACTLY like what is occuring in the Kramer vs the Yo-Yo guy protocol negotiation. The claimant says what he wants to do but can't explain it to save his life.

So that claim has dragged on now because no one can figure out exactly what he's proposing to do. Its something almost certainly visual in nature, and so could be recorded and demo'd on camera.

The fact that it could be faked is not a good reason to not request/require this. An affidavit could certainly be faked. As well, if you can make a demo that fools someone into signing an affidavit, you can certainly get it on tape and it will likely look convincing. It doesn't matter though, because nothing is riding on the video OR affidavits. However, You could see what is meant by a linguistically challenged claimant. And start the "what the hell are you going to do" discussion from that point.

As for that Brett Seres guy - that was a funny claim. And yes, they got to waste some time watching it. To be fair, had it shown some ghosts or something resembling ghosts, or whatever it was he was claiming, it probably wouldn't have been mocked so much (I know...thats probably not true). It could at least have given everyone an idea of exactly what this guy is going to try to do. And...if the person can't make a video of it...why should the JREF both investigating further (assuming its something that can be video taped).

 

[Flange Desire]

re OP:

A video proves zilch these days.

And to suppose that a video might 'clarify' a claim is wrong -

$US 1 million should provide enough incentive for clear communication.

 

[rwguinn]

re OP:

A video proves zilch these days.

And to suppose that a video might 'clarify' a claim is wrong -

$US 1 million should provide enough incentive for clear communication.

Excuse me?
Yo-Yo guys says he can do something. He films himself doing it. We now know what it is he says he can do. We can now design a protocol for it, and, in many (OK, nearly all) cases, look for the trick. Some of these guys are so obvious...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1148012#post1148012

 

[webfusion]

I loved the Kruse10 exit line:
"if I dont succeed I will never post to this forum again.'

And that was the end of that...

 

[drfrank]

I loved the Kruse10 exit line:
"if I dont succeed I will never post to this forum again.'

And that was the end of that...

Well, bless him, at least he was honest, which is a lot more than can be said for many

That video's great - it's a very good demonstration of how people can fool themselves completely in ways that are obvious to observers.

 

[pmurray]

In the meantime, the short answer is that video evidence can be faked quite easily, and as such has no evidentiary (that's a word, I think) value to JREF.

Certainly is has no evidentary value, but it might help clarify what is claimed.

 

[Hoss]

Lets be fair: If a drunk redneck who has the brain power to drive a golf ball into a retaining wall directly in front of him can figure out how to operate a video camera, put said video tape into a package and mail it to americas stupid people video awards, then these claimant people can hussle up a video tape recorder and produce a small demo of their claim.
QUOTE]
I have tried to teach my old mum to be able to be able to transfer family videos to the VHS for about 15 years now....so not sure you are spot on here.

Besides - you have seen some of the applications - hardly capable of stringing a coherent sentence together - is that reason alone to refuse an application. And as for video evidence as being proof of anything - where is the quality control...remember the yellow bamboo fiasco? Yet to be convinced. I am sure it would just open up the foundation to accusations of placing another hurdle for honest applicants just wishing to be tested.

 

[Gayle]

rasolfg wrote:

The point is to avoid situations EXACTLY like what is occuring in the Kramer vs the Yo-Yo guy protocol negotiation. The claimant says what he wants to do but can't explain it to save his life.

So that claim has dragged on now because no one can figure out exactly what he's proposing to do.

rwguinn wrote:

Yo-Yo guys says he can do something. He films himself doing it. We now know what it is he says he can do.

Ryan Whisler, the yo-yo dowser, originally claimed the ideomotor effect, with a yo-yo as his pendulum. There's no problem figuring out his claim. Even after he threw in "quantum" dangers. This is what he wrote originally:

I will demonstrate by holding a pendulum, Yo-Yo or any similar item given annd control its swinging movements by thought and commands. I will then let anyone hold the swinging item while holding my hand as I will control the swinging movement with no problem. And even use it to answer (Yes and No) questions by witnessing the direction the object moves toward while hovering over a piece of paper which has the answer options printed. Answers such as "Yes" or "No" or similar which the object paranormally moving by my influence will direct to.

That's a clearly articulated example of the ideomotor effect:

What is the ideomotor effect?

Ideomotor actions are unconscious, involuntary motor movements that are performed by a person because of prior expectations, suggestions or preconceptions. The classic example is that of dowsing.

...snip...

The same effect is achieved by asking a pendulum to swing north-south to answer "yes" and east-west to answer "no" to a question. It is the subconscious moving of the person's hand that dictates which way the pendulum will swing.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php

KRAMER had no trouble understanding the claim. And neither should we. It's one of the easiest paranormal claims to explain rationally.

KRAMER said no, Ryan couldn't hold the yo-yo. Ryan has to put the yo-yo on a stand and move it with paranormal ability.

KRAMER has demonstrated no confusion in understanding the yo-yo guy at all. What he's doing is patiently trying to get the yo-yo guy to clarify.

Video would not help.

If the guy sent in footage of himself holding a swinging yo-yo, Kramer would still have to go through the entire process he's going through now. Plus he'd have to watch the video. And then another video as the application was refined. And then maybe another. And what makes anyone think people would send in videos that were succinct and time-saving?

Just because KRAMER asks many questions, repeatedly asking an applicant to simplify and clarify, it does not mean KRAMER is lost. It's usually the applicant that's lost and KRAMER is trying to help the applicant refine out a claim from a hodgepodge of superfluous information.

As if applicants wouldn't hodgepodge with video ... this is my dog and my cat and my grandkids and I have this really interesting growth under my left armpit that looks a little bit like Rosanne Barr ... count on it.

How would video applications benefit the mission of the Challenge and the overall mission of the JREF? That's the most important question.

If video applications were accepted it would be just a matter of time before they were all over the 'net and even on TV. Skeptics would find it hilarious, but most audience members are not skeptics. To people who have not yet learned to think critically, especially children, a video of Ryan asking his yo-yo yes and no questions could be compelling evidence of the paranormal.

Hell, when I was a girl and went to baby showers, a thread and needle pendulum was held over each girl's hand in order to predict future motherhood. Iif the needle went in a circle, it meant you'd have a girl and if it went back and forth, it meant a boy. It would start and stop, circle and swing, to show you how many children of which gender you would have.

Would it benefit the JREF's mission statement and the mission of the Challenge to be linked with allegedly paranormal videos that would probably end up making the rounds on the 'net and who knows where else, labeled as the video that Randi refused to test?

 

[RobT]

evidentiary value

I thought that the Kruse film had enormous value as evidence, it proved definitvely that it was ideometric.

Rob

 

[Reno]

Video of the claimed ability would have no evidentiary value, but wouldn't a video of the week make a fun addition to the website?

 

[rwguinn]

rasolfg wrote:




KRAMER had no trouble understanding the claim. And neither should we. It's one of the easiest paranormal claims to explain rationally.

KRAMER said no, Ryan couldn't hold the yo-yo. Ryan has to put the yo-yo on a stand and move it with paranormal ability.

KRAMER has demonstrated no confusion in understanding the yo-yo guy at all. What he's doing is patiently trying to get the yo-yo guy to clarify.

Video would not help.

If the guy sent in footage of himself holding a swinging yo-yo, Kramer would still have to go through the entire process he's going through now. Plus he'd have to watch the video. And then another video as the application was refined. And then maybe another. And what makes anyone think people would send in videos that were succinct and time-saving?

It was after Kramer said no that the comprehension problems began.
I was anticipating the video as an assist into adopting a protocol, after the notorized application and affidavids are accepted...
Before, or as an addition to the application would be waaayyyyy tooo much information to wade through, you're quite correct.

 

[petre]

Once you put any value at all to a video, everyone will want to send one. Then they'll claim the video alone should be enough to win the prize, and demand a check. Too many applicants lack the ability to identify the difference between, "video may help describe what you are attempting to explain" and "send in a video and win $1 million"

 

[xargs]

While it would provide some amusement for the skeptics, I agree that everyone would want to send a video and claim that the video 'evidence' would be enough on its own. As an amateur videographer/cgi effects person, I could make all kinds of unlikely things happen on video...

No, video submissions would only make poor Kramer's life even harder.

 

[batman]

The video is of me not holding the swinging objects. Read my replies on the other thread. Making an object move is the power to move reality. I did do it and the ground began shaking and lights flickered. I'll be able to do it easily very shortly. Knowledge is power.

 

[Flange Desire]

The video is of me not holding the swinging objects. Read my replies on the other thread. Making an object move is the power to move reality. I did do it and the ground began shaking and lights flickered. I'll be able to do it easily very shortly. Knowledge is power.

Fantastic!
Look forward to seeing your claim application.
How quick can you get it together?
US$1 million dollars is waiting for you.