Stun Guns and Yellow Bamboo

[Patricio Elicer]

On today's Commentary we read that a "Stun Gun" is a likely solution to the Yellow Bamboo claim.

I'd never heard of these devices before, so I wanted to read more. http://home.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun.htmThe basic idea of a stun gun is to disrupt this communication system. Stun guns generate a high-voltage, low-amperage electrical charge. In simple terms, this means that the charge has a lot of pressure behind it, but not that much intensity. When you press the stun gun against an attacker and hold the trigger, the charge passes into the attacker's body. Since it has a fairly high voltage, the charge will pass through heavy clothing and skin.

It does dump a lot of confusing information into the attacker's nervous system, however. This causes a couple of things to happen:

The charge combines with the electrical signals from the attacker's brain. This is like running an outside current into a phone line: The original signal is mixed in with random noise, making it very difficult to decipher any messages. When these lines of communication go down, the attacker has a very hard time telling his muscles to move, and he may become confused and unbalanced. He is partially paralyzed, temporarily.
.....

One popular variation on the conventional stun-gun design is the Taser gun. Taser guns work the same basic way as ordinary stun guns, except the two charge electrodes aren't permanently joined to the housing. Instead, they are positioned at the ends of long conductive wires, attached to the gun's electrical circuit. Pulling the trigger breaks open a compressed gas cartridge inside the gun. The expanding gas builds pressure behind the electrodes, launching them through the air, the attached wires trailing behind. (This is the same basic firing mechanism as in a BB gun.)

The electrodes are affixed with small barbs so that they will grab onto an attacker's clothing. When the electrodes are attached, the current travels down the wires into the attacker, stunning him in the same way as a conventional stun gun. (emphasis mine) I find it as a very likely explanation indeed.




[edited to add the quote]

[yellowbamboo]

A couple things wrong with this explanation:


1. The test was supposed to take place in daylight. *Joko* and *the journalist* were the ones late, making it take place in failing light, NOT YB.


2. The journalist was only 1 meter or so from joko, you can see him in the video. If a taser was used, surely the journo would have seen it.

As to the journo- if he did not support the yb claim joko was knocked down, surely randi would be screaming about it, no?


3. Most importantly- it is *illegal* for any civillian (IE non law enforcement) person to have a taser. The penalties are SEVERE.


Bottom line- next test MUST have randi present and controlling all so he can have no excuses when his rep is knocked down.


YBS

YBS

[CFLarsen]

Yellow Bamboo,

Randi stated in his recent newsletter:
"As I've pointed out here, Joko did not properly carry out my instructions, so the demo was not acceptable."

Demo. Not test. The demo was not acceptable.

"I regret that as of this writing, Joko has been subjected to suggestions of legal actions by YB."

Could you explain what this is about? What are the legal actions?

Was a stun gun used? Yes or no?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by yellowbamboo
A couple things wrong with this explanation:

1. The test was supposed to take place in daylight. *Joko* and *the journalist* were the ones late, making it take place in failing light, NOT YB.

Then you were foolish to continue the test, knowing that the test conditions had already been violated.

2. The journalist was only 1 meter or so from joko, you can see him in the video. If a taser was used, surely the journo would have seen it.

There is no proof that your statement above is true. We have no way to know which person in the video was the journalist. It is not necessarily true that the journalist would have seen a taser or stun gun. Such things are easily concealed.

As to the journo- if he did not support the yb claim joko was knocked down, surely randi would be screaming about it, no?

3. Most importantly- it is *illegal* for any civillian (IE non law enforcement) person to have a taser. The penalties are SEVERE.

The fact that something is illegal does not prevent a person from performing an illegal activity. This does not preclude the possibility that a stun gun was used.

Bottom line- next test MUST have randi present and controlling all so he can have no excuses when his rep is knocked down.

YBS

YBS
Why? Surely if you follow the simple instructions, an acceptable demonstration can be conducted without the need for Randi to be present.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by yellowbamboo
2. The journalist was only 1 meter or so from joko, you can see him in the video. If a taser was used, surely the journo would have seen it. So, do you upfront deny that a stun or taser gun was used?

This is part of Mr. Tri's account of the demo: Joko Tri:
I had some others behind me (Mr Ananda and Suardana) who also walked towards Mr Serengen after I started. May I ask you who those people are, and why they were running along behind Mr Tri?

[yellowbamboo]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yellow Bamboo,




Could you explain what this is about? What are the legal actions?



First I ever heard of it.

I do know that 60 minutes and ny times are doing an expose on randi and how his million dollar challenge is a total hoax and how he will do anything to evade paying it. I know they have contacted joko to get info etc.


Was a stun gun used? Yes or no?


NO, NO the idea is totalyl ridiculous. This is a prime example of cognitive dissonance at work.

YBS

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by yellowbamboo
NO, NO the idea is totalyl ridiculous. This is a prime example of cognitive dissonance at work.What idea is totally ridiculous?,.. the legal actions against Mr Tri, or the use of a stun gun in the demo?

Again, did you use a stun or taser gun in the demo?... yes or no?

[Patricio Elicer]

yellowbamboo: I do know that 60 minutes and ny times are doing an expose on randi and how his million dollar challenge is a total hoax and how he will do anything to evade paying it. I know they have contacted joko to get info etc.It would be a hoax if somebody had actually passed the test and yet Randi had refused to pay the million. But that hasn't happened.

It's very simple, just take Mr. Serensen to Florida so that he can show his powers to Randi. The million bucks will be yours.

Would you agree to travel to Florida to be tested?

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Yellow Bamboo

I do know that 60 minutes and ny times are doing an expose on randi and how his million dollar challenge is a total hoax and how he will do anything to evade paying it. I know they have contacted joko to get info etc.


Interesting. As defined by the American Heritage dictionary:

HOAX 1. An act intended to deceive or trick

EVADE 1. To escape or avoid by cleverness or deceit

Boy, it will be something to see when 60 minutes and the NY Times (both pillars of accurate reporting:roll: ) show the world how James Randi and the JREF:

a. created the JREF challenge, complete with simple, clear instructions and requirements, only as a means to trick and decieve tricksters and decievers.

b. plan on a daily basis what clever methods of deception to use to escape from paying the million dollars upon a successful demonstration of supernatural powers.

I have read the Million Dollar Challenge rules several times, and the one part that stands out the most is rule #1: (as posted at the JREF website)

1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

Nothing in the remaining rules overwrites or supercedes this rule, so I await this expose with eager anticipation- especially the part when Mike Wallace or Morley Safer attempts to twist and spin rule #1 into being nothing more than a clever deception.

Will it go something like this?

Possible 60 Minutes show exposing James Randi and the Million Dollar Challenge:

Mike Wallace(directed to a non-skeptic believer being interviewed):
"Regarding rule #1, I see that an applicant must state clearly in advance what paranormal power or ability will be demonstrated. Clearly this requirement, in itself, is impossible to meet, is it not?"

Believer:
"I'm glad you saw right through the deception and trickery contained in that paragraph, Mike. I mean, how can anyone possibly define exactly and clearly ANYTHING, let alone their paranormal ability. Paranormal powers, as you well know Mike, are not something that can be completely controlled, and when these phenomena occur cannot be exactly predicted either."

Wallace:
"Right. How can the JREF, supposed experts on the subject, be so blatantly ignorant of these facts? If this challenge were for real, the applicant wouldn't have to pre-define anything, just demonstrate some paranormal activity should be good enough. It would be good enough for me!"

Believer:
"Correct once again Mike! And were talking about the first part of the first rule! Have you read further? Randi actually expects the applicant and himself to agree on what will constitute a negative and a positive result! Have you ever read anything more deceiving or cleverly written?"

Wallace(nodding and drinking from glass of water):
"I am so glad someone besides myself and Morley picked up on that! I actually missed it the first time I read through the rules. But boy do I see it for what it really means now! I mean, how can Randi have the gall to force an applicant to state what constitutes failing the test... I mean in case the spirits or whatever are simply on break... really unfair, just plain unfair...and mean too!"

Believer:
"And negative, negative, negative. Thats what gets me. This guy Randi is supposed to be a critical thinking guy, open to new discoveries, and all he can come up with is looking forward to an applicant failing the challenge- so much so that he even tries to trick the applicant into defining his own failure! With all the negativity surrounding just the first part of the application and rules, its no wonder that not one person has passed even the preliminary test."

Wallace:
"Thats exactly what Morley said to me right before we came on the air! How can any paranormal activity be expected to occur with all of Randi's negative vibes flailing about? Don't these skeptics get it? GEEEEZZZ."

Believer:
"Well said Mike. Even if we assume that rule #1 could possibly be understood, by the time an applicant made it to rule #2, his qi or chi would be so severely diminished it would be impossible to go on any further. Let alone for anyone to have to be put through more of Randi's hoops when it comes to some of the other rules."

Wallace:
"Yep-yep-yep. Unbelievable. I know exactly what you mean. Even if under these deceiving, cleverly written rules, an applicant was to demonstrate a paranormal activity, Randi has no intention of paying the million dollars. It says so right in the application. Wanna see-huh?-wanna see? Lookit! Lookit!Loo...."

Believer(interrupting Wallace):
"You don't have to show me, Mike. I was the first to see through this part of Randi's charade and evil trickery! The very first part of the application states that; "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000.... and then later, in rule #8, it states that an "independent person", upon successful completion of the test, will pay $10,000, and then within 10 days, Randi will pay the rest for a total of $1,000,000."

Wallace(becoming teary eyed):
"Stop, please, stop. I have heard enough. Has the FCC or FBI or CIA or anyone heard about this yet? What the hell is going on in this country? This is an out and out fabrication and the perpetrator responsible should be locked up immediately. And oh, oh, oh- I feel so, so bad for all the psychics, mediums, and telepaths out there watching right now. My heart and the hearts of the entire staff here at 60 minutes go out to all of you. But the truth had to come out sometime! I am glad that I could be part of this historic event. No longer will the believers of the paranormal have to put up with the likes of people like James Randi. For we have exposed him and his JREF million dollar challenge for what it really is- a twisted, evil, deception laden, negative, impossible to meet the requirements of piece of skeptic rhetoric crap! I rest my case, and goodnite, and don't let the bedbugs bite. Say your prayers, God loves you all, and be sure to watch next week when our special guests will be: John Edward, Sylvia Browne, James van Praugh, and a multitude of surprise guests, including my dead great grandpappy, and my always remembered favorite pet, Bongo the weasel."

[LTC8K6]

What about cattle prods?

[LTC8K6]

Okay, it seems cattle prod is the wrong idea. I was thinking of these:

http://www.segnow.com/ecom/catalog/Section_1/z_force03.gif

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by yellowbamboo
I do know that 60 minutes and ny times are doing an expose on randi and how his million dollar challenge is a total hoax and how he will do anything to evade paying it. I know they have contacted joko to get info etc.

:roll: :roll: :roll: Do you understand that serious journalistic enterprises like 60 Minutes and the NYT would want to see a thorough, non-nonsense demonstrations of Yellow Bamboo's proclaimed magical powers, just the sort of clear demo that YB has been avoiding all along? They're not going to be impressed by a murky low-res video such as we have been provided with.

The words come out of your mouth, but they do not make sense.

The journalist was only 1 meter or so from joko, you can see him in the video. If a taser was used, surely the journo would have seen it.
1) Why was anyone that close to Joko during what was supposed to be a carefully controlled test?

2) If he was one of those people busy falling on his a**, he couldn't properly observe, could he?

[alfaniner]

If the journalist is in the picture, who is taking the video? Could it be someone who knew enough to try to keep certain elements out of the frame?

And why wasn't a decent vidcam used, rather than a low-res device?

[davidhorman]

This is a prime example of cognitive dissonance at work.

Anyone else find that hauntingly familiar?

David

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by davidhorman


Anyone else find that hauntingly familiar?

David
Gimme an L.