Notice from Randi re Yellow Bamboo [Archive]

Linda

2nd October 2003, 03:17 PM

There are so many threads in this forum on Yellow Bamboo, I figure it's best to start a new one. Randi has responded to the questions and covers it both below and in his commentary to be posted tomorrow.

From: Randi
To: Linda
Post this on the forum in response to the YB objections….

Briefly, in response to YB, referring to www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=27804&referrerid=5

(1) The press release, claiming that YB has won the prize, has been all over the Internet.

(2) The document Joko Tri signed September 14th stated this condition. It supercedes the previous one.

2 a, b, and c, were my instructions to Joko Tri, not to you. He agreed to those stipulations.

(3) Where did you get the idea that I wanted to, intended to, or was expected to, go to Bali? I have no such intention. If any formal test were ever to take place, you would be coming here, where conditions would be in our control.

(4) You write that Joko Tri "was knocked down by Mr Serengen." No, Mr. Tri fell down, but we have no evidence -- yet -- of how or why he fell down. Much more is to come on that, believe me. You write that YB "are the first to pass the preliminary test and become claimants this must be very distressing to you." No, you have not passed that test, for reasons that will be outlined in detail on my October 3 web page. And don't flatter yourself that I'm at all distressed. I'm not.

See tomorrow’s web page….

James Randi

arcticpenguin

2nd October 2003, 03:35 PM

In his column, Randi states that no agreement was in place between himself and Yellow Bamboo. This is clearly in contradiction to what Yellow Bamboo states in their press release and in a thread on this forum.

He also states that Joko Tri di not go as a representative of JREF.

I told him that though he appeared to have the right qualifications, and that I would normally accept him to do the preliminary test, I'd officially severed my connections with them. But, I told Joko, he was quite free to go there and see what happened, if they'd let him do so.

He decided to go, on his own,...
This is in contradiction to what Yellow Bamboo has stated.

Yellow Bamboo has yet to produce the contract they claim to have for the test. Perhaps they would care to produce that document, or comment upon it.

Zep

2nd October 2003, 04:00 PM

In another thread I believe I have shown with a modicum of certainty that this announcement is a hoax by a person associated with YB but not necessarily supported by YB. A loose cannon, if you will...

CERDIP

2nd October 2003, 04:32 PM

arcticpenguin - what column are you quoting from ?

Pyrrho

2nd October 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by CERDIP
arcticpenguin - what column are you quoting from ?
arcticpenguin knows a sooper-sekrit way to read tomorrow's news today. :re:

Lord Kenneth

2nd October 2003, 05:57 PM

Randi does not believe Joko Tri is a plant.

Kimpatsu

2nd October 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Randi does not believe Joko Tri is a plant.
No, he's a kangaroo... :p

CERDIP

2nd October 2003, 07:08 PM

Pyyrho - thanks - I figured it out, all on my lonesome!

last week's: http://www.randi.org/jr/092603.html

tomorrow's: http://www.randi.org/jr/100303.html

Patricio Elicer

3rd October 2003, 12:55 AM

From Oct 3rd Commentary:

On August 11th, 2003, a Mr. Joko Tri Lestari, on the island of Java, wrote me volunteering to go to Bali and go through the Yellow Bamboo rigmarole that they'd put forth(Emphasis mine). OK, we have a dark and meaningless video recording of the test, and the subject who volunteers was unknown to Randi. All this sounds suspicious to me, though Randi is giving him the benefit of the doubt. We'll see.

I also told him that he [Tri] should use a small bamboo stick, not a weapon, and simply walk forward and tap Serengen on the leg, then walk awayI seem not to understand the reason behind this demand on Randi's part.

Most damning of all: the report that Joko Tri gave me regarding what he experienced, is congruent with another modus, one that is not at all new, strange, nor unusual. I'm gathering data on this right now, and I'll report on it. This modus was offered by several readers with experience in the subject. Well, this is really intriguing. I'm looking forward to knowing more about it.

davidhorman

3rd October 2003, 03:31 AM

Pyyrho - thanks - I figured it out, all on my lonesome!

last week's: http://www.randi.org/jr/092603.html

tomorrow's:

Randi has asked before that we don't post links to "future" commentaries - although if I remember correctly he doesn't mind too much if we figure it out for ourselves and keep it on the QT ;)

David

Kimpatsu

3rd October 2003, 03:56 AM

I've figured it out now. Piece of cake. No more waiting that extra 24 hours for me. :D

arcticpenguin

3rd October 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by CERDIP
Pyyrho - thanks - I figured it out, all on my lonesome!

last week's: http://www.randi.org/jr/092603.html

tomorrow's: http://www.randi.org/jr/100303.html
Ha ha! It's not tomorrow's anymore.
:)

Randi seems to feel Joko Tri is not a co-consiprator, but I am doubtful fo that. A few points already raised by various people in other threads:

Joko did not follow Randi's protocol with regards to time of testing, quality of video, and method of attack.

Joko's description of the demonstration diverges severely from what is seen in the video (i.e. lunged with a pole instead of tapped with a stick, no mention of unconsciousness or spasms)

I wonder if Randi is considering the use of a Taser, and if so, how a person could be hit with such and not know it.

BTW, the Swift is not always available a day early. Sometimes it's available a couple days early (like before a holiday), sometimes only a few hours, sometimes not at all until the links go live. But nothing prevents you from trying.

Kevin_Lowe

3rd October 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Randi seems to feel Joko Tri is not a co-consiprator, but I am doubtful fo that. A few points already raised by various people in other threads:

Joko did not follow Randi's protocol with regards to time of testing, quality of video, and method of attack.

I too believe that the available evidence points to Joko being a plant.

But it's not watertight. One alternative explanation of the above facts is that Joko is hopelessly underqualified to conduct proper tests of supernatural claims.

Joko's description of the demonstration diverges severely from what is seen in the video (i.e. lunged with a pole instead of tapped with a stick, no mention of unconsciousness or spasms)

Again, if Joko is an incompetent he might not have been alert for trickery and he might have written his report down a day or three after the events took place, giving his memory plenty of time to lose important details.

If he was conditioned to expect a push, and got a taser in the back, I'm coming around to the point of view that it's not inconceivable that after a day or two to muddle things up in his head he recalled it as a push.

Randi has posted tales of equally serious failures to remember Randi's act amongst the general public.

I wonder if Randi is considering the use of a Taser, and if so, how a person could be hit with such and not know it.

Depending on how well informed Joko is about non-lethal weapons technologies, he might never have heard of a taser.

Java isn't exactly the boonies, but it's not totally inconceivable that Joko was sufficiently unfamiliar with modern electroshock weapons that he couldn't figure out what might have hit him.

If he didn't feel a violent downward force, just a very brief zap, someone whose grasp of English is imperfect might describe the experience as a gentle push causing terrible dizziness. I suppose.

Randi is certainly privy to more details than you or I and has been dealing with similar affairs for a long time. I argued against the taser story before, but I'm now an agnostic on this one until more evidence is released.

T'ai Chi

3rd October 2003, 12:40 PM

Silly quuestion here, but I know that general darkness is good for concealing things, but do tasers, stun guns, etc., emit either sparks or bright lights?

LeFevre

3rd October 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Silly quuestion here, but I know that general darkness is good for concealing things, but do tasers, stun guns, etc., emit either sparks or bright lights?

I think it was Ravenwood last night in Paltalk who said he got a taser and TESTED IT ON HIMSELF!!! HAHA that was funny. Anyway, he said it did make a spark.

Dont test tasers or stun guns on yourself!!

Ravenwood

3rd October 2003, 01:49 PM

Yes, in the interest of science, I attempted this...There was a bright blue spark & I can say that Joko's reaction did not match the extremely distateful experience of getting hit with 275kv. there was a sharp jolt of electricity, sort of like touching the flyback on a TV set, times fifty followed by about what seemed like 10 minutes of feeling buzzed, sort of like having 7-8 beers. There was a noticable blue arc before the lights went out...(NOTE: this was using the taser in contact mode through a leather bike jacket. I am not sure how much worse it would have been against the skin & I am sure as hell not going to shoot myself with it. The little "harpoon" probes look like they would really hurt...)

LeFevre

3rd October 2003, 01:59 PM

I'll pay $5 if you zap yourself again! If others pay up some cash, you could make a good amount of money. How much would it take for you to do it again :D ?

Sherman Bay

3rd October 2003, 02:01 PM

My first WAG was a trip wire was used; this would be invisible in a poor video, but a taser is an even better guess. Any spark given off is unlikely to show on a video if it occurred between 12 second exposures.

I think the reason Randi suggested a walk and tap instead of a wild-ass charge and wack was that any chicanery would be more readily detectable and there would be more time to be observant. Also it might throw off the Bambooers, who undoubtably expect a fierce attack. In this case, it played right into their hands.

Ravenwood

3rd October 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by LeFevre
I'll pay $5 if you zap yourself again! If others pay up some cash, you could make a good amount of money. How much would it take for you to do it again :D ?

No amount of money...that was not fun
For the record, the device was an Air Taser, Model # 34000 (this is the 7 watt model, I understand that there is a Law Enforcement only version that is 18 watts)

I do not think a Taser was used, Firing the probes is a pretty dramatic event (big plume of released gas followed by a big blue arc about 3" across & an audible zzzzap!, not to mention the fact it fires two 1 1/2" harpoons...IIRC mine has a range of about 12' if fired, or you can use it in "contact" mode-which I foolishly experimented with.) There are other non lethal electroshock devices out there, one of which, the MYOTRON does not give off a visible electric discharge. Most other "stun guns" tend to have a bright blue arc.

Ravenwood

3rd October 2003, 02:42 PM

In fact, Joko's reaction might be more consistant with a hit from a Myotron type device: http://www.myotron.net/how_myotrons_work.htm
& No, LeFevre, I am not getting one & trying it out....I already took my hit for the JREF team...:D

arcticpenguin

3rd October 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Ravenwood
In fact, Joko's reaction might be more consistant with a hit from a Myotron type device: http://www.myotron.net/how_myotrons_work.htm
& No, LeFevre, I am not getting one & trying it out....I already took my hit for the JREF team...:D
Thank you for that, you're a braver kitty than I am.

T'ai Chi

3rd October 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by LeFevre

Dont test tasers or stun guns on yourself!!

Um, don't worry! :) I wouldn't even test running in the sand by myself. I could trip and land on a shell or jellyfish.

I guess a tripwire is a possibility, especially if the attacker was at the head of the group the whole time.

Pyrrho

3rd October 2003, 05:08 PM

Was the ground wet? Isn't it possible to pass a current through wet sand or ground, enough to affect the leg muscles? This would also account for the twitching once the person is on the ground.

If the attempt was made on a sand surface, what's to keep the perpetrators from burying a grid under the sand, through which to pass an electrical current?

No sparks required...

michaellee

3rd October 2003, 07:29 PM

From stills taken from the 12 second video, enlarged then enhanced, am I imagining things or am I one of just a few out there who distinctly see an arm, and its hand holding a tube shaped apparatus which is making contact with the attacker?

If it is not someones arm and hand holding a device which is contacting the attacker, then someone please tell me what else it could possibly be.

Brown

3rd October 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Was the ground wet? Isn't it possible to pass a current through wet sand or ground, enough to affect the leg muscles? Differential ground voltage (i.e., different voltage at one spot in the ground with respect to a nearby spot) is one way that passersby get electrocuted if a piece of equipment (such as a crane or a backhoe) comes in contact with a high-voltage power line.

Can current go through the dirt? If the voltage is high enough, you bet it can.

arcticpenguin

3rd October 2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Brown

Can current go through the dirt? If the voltage is high enough, you bet it can.
This was on a beach. It would depend on how close they are to the tide line.

michaellee

3rd October 2003, 08:07 PM

Here is a contrast, brightness adjusted black and white still of one of the frames from the 12 second video...I eliminated some of the other bright areas of the photo...

http://66.120.79.93/images/image2.gif

uneasy

3rd October 2003, 08:12 PM

Something still bothered me about this, so I looked back at the James Randi commentaries.

July 4, 2003
Volunteers needed! After months of back-and-forth, the "Yellow Bamboo" martial arts group has finally agreed to a protocol for a preliminary test re the JREF million-dollar prize. We're now looking for someone in their area to supervise that test.

- 12 second video is shot -

September 19, 2003
A man who visited Bali to test the "Yellow Bamboo" group, who make supernatural claims that they can knock down an attacker just by shouting, has reported to me that he actually fell to the ground during the test!

September 26, 2003
Just recall that my protocol required that Mr. Joko Tri simply walk up and "tap" their "superman" Nyoman Serengen on the leg with a small bamboo stick, which was not the protocol followed, for some reason or other.

October 3, 2003
I told him that though he appeared to have the right qualifications, and that I would normally accept him to do the preliminary test, I'd officially severed my connections with them. But, I told Joko, he was quite free to go there and see what happened, if they'd let him do so.

First JR talks about a "protocol for a preliminary test". Then after the 12 second video, JR again mentions "the test" and the "protocol". At this point, I thought JR was talking about the preliminary test, and I think it's reasonable for people to think this. He said he was talking about the preliminary test when he started talking about it, and he never said otherwise.

Then after the 12 second video was circulated for a week, JR says he had really terminated involvement with the Yellow Bamboo group, and the test was not a test but to "go there and see what happened".

I'm not saying JR is lying or that Yellow Bamboo can do what they claim. I'm just saying that I think JR didn't release information on this matter very well. I think JR left himself open for criticism with the appearance of changing what he is saying after someone claimed to pass the preliminary test. Maybe he was having a little fun with us all, but I think he caused needless confusion. I mean this as constructive criticism.

Sherman Bay

3rd October 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by michaellee
Here is a contrast, brightness adjusted black and white still of one of the frames from the 12 second video...I eliminated some of the other bright areas of the photo...
I don't understand what that "enhanced" photo means to you, and just why converting from color to B&W does anything useful, but to me, it looks like the glass tower on the Moon that Richard Hoagland claims exists. Or maybe the Face On Mars.

Send it over to the Anomoly Hunters (http://www.dreamwater.com/nesjim/UltimateList/full_list.html) for an expert analysis. But be sure to tell them it is a Loch Ness Monster photo first so you don't lead them astray. :roll:

michaellee

3rd October 2003, 08:58 PM

I don't understand what that "enhanced" photo means to you, and just why converting from color to B&W does anything useful, but to me, it looks like the glass tower on the Moon that Richard Hoagland claims exists. Or maybe the Face On Mars.

The photo is really of a Green Bay Packer fan who lost his head of cheese while attempting to do the "wave".

Pyrrho

3rd October 2003, 09:17 PM

A few critical frames:

In frame 1, Mr. Tri approaches.

In frame 2, something other than a person appears behind Mr. Tri.

In frame 3, the object is quite evident. Looks like a fabric tube of some kind, possibly a sleeve?

In frame 4, immediately after this object appears, Mr. Tri falls.

Pyrrho

3rd October 2003, 09:20 PM

A larger view:

arcticpenguin

3rd October 2003, 09:24 PM

Cthulhu!

Patricio Elicer

3rd October 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
In frame 3, the object is quite evident. Looks like a fabric tube of some kind, possibly a sleeve?

In frame 4, immediately after this object appears, Mr. Tri falls. Seems to me that the "sleeve" is already visible in frame 1, maybe it's there from the beginning

Pyrrho

3rd October 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Seems to me that the "sleeve" is already visible in frame 1, maybe it's there from the beginning
No, actually, it's only visible in frames 2 and 3. There are background objects visible in earlier frames; this thing is bigger and closer to the camera.

arcticpenguin

3rd October 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

No, actually, it's only visible in frames 2 and 3. There are background objects visible in earlier frames; this thing is bigger and closer to the camera.
I think it's difficult to be conclusive about that, as Mr. Tri is directly in front of the 'object' in frame 1, and it would be at least partly off-frame to the left in frame 4. The low chronological resolution of the video makes it very difficult.

T'ai Chi

3rd October 2003, 11:51 PM

Now is that object an arm, or a leg? It seems that some possible opinions are:

1. arm, and hand contained some stun/shock device

2. leg, whose foot kicked the attacker hard in the back which caused muscle spasms/twitching

Pyrrho

4th October 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Now is that object an arm, or a leg? It seems that some possible opinions are:

1. arm, and hand contained some stun/shock device

2. leg, whose foot kicked the attacker hard in the back which caused muscle spasms/twitching
Eh, it looks like an anomaly to me. No use speculating, I guess. There's only so much you can see in a 160x112 pixel image.

Patricio Elicer

4th October 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
No, actually, it's only visible in frames 2 and 3. There are background objects visible in earlier frames; this thing is bigger and closer to the camera. I agree with arcticpenguin that it's hard to be conclusive, but anyway I stand by my perception that the "sleeve" is a bit visible in frame 1, behind Mr. Tri, close to his left elbow.

Edit: It's notable however, that in frame 4 it seems to have disappeared.

Torlack

6th October 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Eh, it looks like an anomaly to me. No use speculating, I guess. There's only so much you can see in a 160x112 pixel image.

A few days ago I ran the video through some simple image processing filters. I just adjusted the contrast and brightness to try to avoid any filter induced errors.

In the filtered video it is obvious (IMHO) that it is the person's leg kicking him from behind. With the improved video, you can actually see much more of the leg dressed in black. Gee, a dark environment, yellow shirt to focus your attention and dark pants to hide the legs. Wow, what a plan.

Of course, this still doesn't prevent me from seeing what I want to see.

CFLarsen

6th October 2003, 11:03 AM

Torlack,

Can you post the images/movie so we can see it?

Torlack

6th October 2003, 02:47 PM

Sure, but it will have to wait till I get home :/

Torlack

6th October 2003, 06:13 PM

http://www.torlack.com/images/yellow/yellow.avi

Sorry, 1.4 meg AVI file. I thought I could convert back to MPEG. :/

Zep

6th October 2003, 08:21 PM

Given Torlack's video, I can definitely see what looks to be a standard karate-style sidekick happening. It's the right foot, with the heel facing the camera. Whether it actually contacts "Joko" I'm not sure, but he seems to react to being kicked in the ribs at that point.

Note that a common martial art "fighting style" in Indonesia is silat (or possibly selat), which uses such strikes.

Patricio Elicer

6th October 2003, 08:25 PM

Looks like and arm and fist, or maybe a leg, hits him in the back.

Torlack

6th October 2003, 09:55 PM

Oh, BTW, if someone wants to say that I doctored the video, all I did was run it through a +50% brightness and 200% contrast filter. Tomorrow I will get the name of the program (which I think is open source). Unlike paranormal sham artist, we WANT people to be able to recreate our observations on their own.

As far as it either being an arm or a leg, I don't think it matters if the test was being interfered with by a 3rd party. However, I do have questions as to if the 3rd party was even close enough. But given the lighting and our possibly incorrect tendency to assume everyone in the video is about the same height, I personally feel it is impossible to tell.

Pakaran

7th October 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by LeFevre

I think it was Ravenwood last night in Paltalk who said he got a taser and TESTED IT ON HIMSELF!!! HAHA that was funny. Anyway, he said it did make a spark.

Dont test tasers or stun guns on yourself!!

It would not make a spark if it was switched on after it hit. For example, if it were triggered by a mercury bead switch to go off after it stopped against his back, such a device could be put in a dart fairly easily.

Sparks are caused by electricity going through the air, and ionizing it; there's a region of ionized air some of which basically de-ionizes and that gives off light. If there is no current path through the air, or the current path is very short, there will be no visible light.

With a mercury bead, the problem would be to keep the taser from going off in your hand - but that could be dealt with by just keeping it tilted slightly up.