Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[RemieV]

Hello, everyone.

The other thread has reached seventeen pages and become so muddied I can't even tell what's going on anymore. So, since the protocol discussion for this particular applicant has become so publicized, I thought we should probably move threads if we plan to discuss it on the forum.

Please keep on topic in here especially. Any information on Pavel or questions for him regarding his ability should be directed to the other thread, located here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82062

In negotiating this protocol, there have been three major issues.

Firstly, the ability doesn't seem to be that strong: we cannot use a small number of photographs for a single trial, and Pavel has suggested instead that we use a massive number of photographs divided into small groups, and then smaller groups, and then smaller groups until he is identifying pairs of photos out of groups of five (and all groups of five are the same).

The number of photographs needed for the test as Pavel has written it is simply unrealistic. I have run this information by other JREF staff as well as the JREF statistician consultant, and everyone agrees that it will be difficult (if not impossible) to control the test once it reaches those numbers.

If we have 300 photographs in identical envelopes divided into groups of five and the tester drops them, for example, we would have to open them all and start over.

Not only that, but this version of the test would also be expensive for Pavel. He would, of course, have to pay the cost of printing, the cost of all the envelopes, etc.

One of the most important things we're focusing on now is getting the number of photographs required for the test down to something a little more manageable.

There are also some communication problems. There is a language barrier between Pavel and the JREF, and at times, it really shows. Parts of the protocol, for example, were incomprehensible.

If there is a volunteer who would like to rewrite protocols or clarify communications, that would be very helpful.

We also need to keep in mind that no matter what protocol is decided upon here, Randi still has to approve the final copy, and he has the ability to change any aspect of it.

I say again - arguing for the high number of photographs will not move this process forward. JREF staff has already decided that the complexity of such a test would be too high.

We need to find another version of the protocol. Feel free to weigh in.

Pavel, to be clear, must you use photographs? Can we use Zener cards? Can we use photographs *of* Zener cards? Or are those too similar? What is the maximum number of photographs you can identify in a single set? Just pairs, or can we go any higher at all? How long will it take to identify each photo? Will you be identifying both photographs in the pair, or only one? Do the photos have to be inside of envelopes, or can they be inside something resealable, like a box? Will you be asking to see the result of your readings after each individual envelope, or after each pair?

I know you have answered many of these questions before, but at this point we have discussed so many protocols and so much of the information is in that thread, that we just need to have the answers in one place without any additional information.

Thanks,

~Remie

[Startz]

Remie:

I am willing to volunteer to help re-write the protocols, subject to both you and Pavel finding that helpful.

[pavel_do]

Pavel, to be clear, must you use photographs? Can we use Zener cards? Can we use photographs *of* Zener cards? Or are those too similar? What is the maximum number of photographs you can identify in a single set? Just pairs, or can we go any higher at all? How long will it take to identify each photo? Will you be identifying both photographs in the pair, or only one? Do the photos have to be inside of envelopes, or can they be inside something resealable, like a box? Will you be asking to see the result of your readings after each individual envelope, or after each pair?

I know you have answered many of these questions before, but at this point we have discussed so many protocols and so much of the information is in that thread, that we just need to have the answers in one place without any additional information.

Thanks,

~Remie

Thank you for the thread and questions
I will reply all this question tomorrow with the details. It seems that process started..:) as by asking each other questions and replying to them and explaining each other things.. though it might take time.. still it will get us closer to the point of designing a good test.
Regards,
Pavel

P.s. Startz will helm me with putting some of my lines in to proper understandable English..

[Jackalgirl]

Hi --

I admit that I only scanned through the last two pages of the other thread. But there was a suggestion there that I think would make sense -- some photographs are blank pieces of photo paper and the others are photo paper with something printed on them.

Pavel, you said you'd try this out and see if you can distinguish between them. How did that go?

Hopefully it went well, because you could do something like a set of 20 opaque envelopes containing a piece of photo paper wrapped in black paper, with three having actual photos printed on the photo paper. Pavel, you would pick out the three that have photos on them, and I'll bet JREF will let you provide the photos so that you're working with an image that you're familiar with and/or to which you have an emotional connection.

Being able to identify 3 in 20 -- RemieV, would that satisfy the test? You could repeat the test, too -- I imagine that it wouldn't take more than, say, nine photos out of 60 pieces of paper. It'll take a little bit of effort to set up, but we're not dealing with 300+ photos, either.

Would that work?

Edited to add: I apologize if I'm missing critical or obvious objections to previous protocol suggestions. I'm coming off of 9 hours of watch and I'm pretty tired. I will read the whole thread later, tho, I promise. Just thought something simple might make this easier for everyone involved -- assuming, of course, that Pavel's ability is strong enough to separate out a photo from a non-photo.

[Startz]

Thank you for the thread and questions
I will reply all this question tomorrow with the details. It seems that process started..:) as by asking each other questions and replying to them and explaining each other things.. though it might take time.. still it will get us closer to the point of designing a good test.
Regards,
Pavel

P.s. Startz will helm me with putting some of my lines in to proper understandable English..

Remie:

Would I be acceptable to you as the volunteer?

[RemieV]

Remie:

Would I be acceptable to you as the volunteer?

It's fine with me. Pavel, if you accept Startz as your volunteer, there will be a stipulation within your protocol that if, later, you decide that the language barrier caused a miscommunication (after the test is complete, I mean) it will not be used as an excuse if you should fail the test.

In other words, you must trust Startz implicitly and fully understand all communications between you. You will have up until the day of the test to decide if you wish to dismiss your volunteer and find a new one.

Startz, since you are now a part of the protocol negotiation process, please e-mail me your real name at alison@randi.org so I can put that information in the Challenge file.

Thanks,

Remie

[RemieV]

Hi --

I admit that I only scanned through the last two pages of the other thread. But there was a suggestion there that I think would make sense -- some photographs are blank pieces of photo paper and the others are photo paper with something printed on them.



This is an unbelievably fantastic idea. Pavel, please weigh in as soon as possible.

[Akhenaten]

Thank you for this thread, RemieV. I understand that it's even more work for you to do, so please know that it is truly appreciated.


Cheers,

Dave


ETA: Thanks to Startz as well. You give forumites a good name. :)

[Gr8wight]

The problem we are running into here is that Pavel's powers are only apparent to him when he complicates the protocol to the point were he loses track of the statistical probabilities involved. Simplifying and better controlling the test results in lower accuracy from Pavel, so he resists that. This is no different than any others of the multitudinous applicants the JREF has dealt with over the years. Pavel needs to ask himself one question, and think very hard about the answer. Given two envelopes, one containing a photograph, and one containing a blank sheet of photographic paper, can he identify the photograph significantly more often than half the time. If not, why not?

I have absolutely no interest in the answer to that question, only in the knowledge that Pavel has asked it of himself, and tried to be honest with himself about the answer.

[pavel_do]

The problem we are running into here is that Pavel's powers are only apparent to him when he complicates the protocol to the point were he loses track of the statistical probabilities involved. Simplifying and better controlling the test results in lower accuracy from Pavel, so he resists that. This is no different than any others of the multitudinous applicants the JREF has dealt with over the years. Pavel needs to ask himself one question, and think very hard about the answer. Given two envelopes, one containing a photograph, and one containing a blank sheet of photographic paper, can he identify the photograph significantly more often than half the time. If not, why not?

I have absolutely no interest in the answer to that question, only in the knowledge that Pavel has asked it of himself, and tried to be honest with himself about the answer.


1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

2. I am absolutely disagree with you in sense that I complicate test etc.. what can be easier than test with pairs? Too complicated? Or one out of 3? Or 2 out of 5? For you 3 out of 20 is easier than 3 out of 5? Ok.. than if 2 out of 5 everyone can do.. good luck to all of them but so far no evidence…

[William Smith]

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

2. I am absolutely disagree with you in sense that I complicate test etc.. what can be easier than test with pairs? Too complicated? Or one out of 3? Or 2 out of 5? For you 3 out of 20 is easier than 3 out of 5? Ok.. than if 2 out of 5 everyone can do.. good luck to all of them but so far no evidence…

Have you considered posting responses to Remie's inquiries?

[pavel_do]

Pavel, to be clear,
1. must you use photographs?
2. Can we use Zener cards?
3. Can we use photographs *of* Zener cards? Or are those too similar?
4. What is the maximum number of photographs you can identify in a single set?
5. Just pairs, or can we go any higher at all?
6. How long will it take to identify each photo?
7. Will you be identifying both photographs in the pair, or only one?
8. Do the photos have to be inside of envelopes, or can they be inside something resealable, like a box?
9. Will you be asking to see the result of your readings after each individual envelope, or after each pair?


SORRY Remiev I added ur post..just left the questions.

1. Yes I would prefer the photos, as I “see” them better than Zener cards, and also it has to be proper photographs not photocopy’s,
2. 3. First of all they are too similar as all of the symbols there made of “lines” and the photos I see better as I said before. Though I see no difference whether it is 5 different photos or 5 difference Zener signs.. the odds are the same I suppose.. Just that it does make significant difference for me.
4. Depend how big is the set.. I could try to identify all 5 of 5.. just that I cant promise I get many times 5 correct.. but I would say that many times I will get 3 out of 5 exactly.
5. We can go for higher 3..4. or 5.. but I would not prefer for higher as out of all photos I worked with I have 5 that I see better of all and they maximum different from each other as much as I could get.
6.Well it take from 10 second to 2 minutes.. ( if I have to repeat identification.. like sometimes when I hold first time the set.. I don’t see anything or not sure so I usually reshuffle them and trying again before I name them)
7. If it is a pair.. I would need to hold both.. and to name 1 that I am sure the most.. But only that 1 has to be open, first of all that is obvious which is the other one of two when 1 will be named and revealed. Second of all since I am trying to foresee what will I see when it will be revealed.. so I would prefer to see only the ones that I named.
8. I prefer envelopes and maximum 2 cause it is important for me to hold it as close to the photo as I can.. cause when I hold it I am getting sort of sensation of warmth that go through the photo from one my hand to the other.. and I don’t have this sensation when there is too many envelopes or photo wrapped in foil.
9. I would ask to see the result only after I finished identification of the set. If there is 2 photos out of 5.. than they both will be open only after I named them both. Any number of photos shel be open after I named them all. Well first of all I would need to see only the ones I predicted there are… and second of all of course opening each photo after naming it would illuminate them from the other “guesses”

P.S.
Re to Startz's help.
Yes it is fine with me, I have no problems in understanding spoken and written English and speaking myself.. just that not everything I can put in lines in proper way and the grammar is sort of not the best.. So I will ask Dick to review my proposals or correct some of my lines if they not “really in English”
The language barrier that is not excuse for not being able to pass the test..

[pavel_do]

This is an unbelievably fantastic idea. Pavel, please weigh in as soon as possible.

Thank you Jackalgirl there was this kind of offer before and I have explained it.

If there would be let say 3 blank and 2 photos. That could work maybe.. ( still have to try) with 20.. I don’t think it is a good idea.. as I have explained before.. if lets say 7-8 in row I will hold will be blank and I will not see anything.. I wills start doubting myself.. whether I missed it already.. as sometimes I don’t see photo.. ( I mean I hold it but see nothing). So my brain would even start to “draw” the picture for me subconsciously .. that would not help so I prefer not to go for this test I am fine if there would be pair where 1 is photo with picture and the other one is blank I am sure it would be fine with me.. but having 17 blank out of 20 would be too confusing for me.. and identifying 20 photos in row would be to tiring for me as I will not be able to split them by 5 or something I will have to see them all and name photos in one go.

[William Smith]

...
So my brain would even start to “draw” the picture for me subconsciously .. ...

Pavel, you just made a quantum leap to reality. Perhaps you will even recognise it sometime.

[Startz]

There are infinitely many possible arrangements of how many identifications are needed out of how many trials. Pavel has agreed to a number of them. Let me suggest one. If this is acceptable to Pavel, we will stick to this one subject to JREF agreement and move on to the other important details.

1. Five photos. Pavel selects three and identifies each of them correctly.

2. Step (1) is done 6 times. Getting 3 or more successes counts as a win.

3. Steps (1) and (2) are done three times. Any one win counts as a success at the preliminary MDC.

Pavel:

Please let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

[RemieV]

Pavel:

Please let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

Wait, hang on, the next step of what?

[Startz]

There are infinitely many possible arrangements of how many identifications are needed out of how many trials. Pavel has agreed to a number of them. Let me suggest one. If this is acceptable to Pavel, we will stick to this one subject to JREF agreement and move on to the other important details.

1. Five photos. Pavel selects three and identifies each of them correctly.

2. Step (1) is done 6 times. Getting 3 or more successes counts as a win.

3. Steps (1) and (2) are done three times. Any one win counts as a success at the preliminary MDC.

Pavel:

Please let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

Wait, hang on, the next step of what?

I'm not going to be much help if I can't be clear to all parties, am I? :)

All I meant was that it would be good to settle on a single statistical design, and then move the discussion to other issues of the design.

[RemieV]

Thank you Jackalgirl there was this kind of offer before and I have explained it.

If there would be let say 3 blank and 2 photos. That could work maybe.. ( still have to try) with 20.. I don’t think it is a good idea.. as I have explained before.. if lets say 7-8 in row I will hold will be blank and I will not see anything.. I wills start doubting myself.. whether I missed it already.. as sometimes I don’t see photo.. ( I mean I hold it but see nothing). So my brain would even start to “draw” the picture for me subconsciously .. that would not help so I prefer not to go for this test I am fine if there would be pair where 1 is photo with picture and the other one is blank I am sure it would be fine with me.. but having 17 blank out of 20 would be too confusing for me.. and identifying 20 photos in row would be to tiring for me as I will not be able to split them by 5 or something I will have to see them all and name photos in one go.

Pavel, it would be six blank out of twenty.

The thing I keep coming back to with this protocol is... well, if someone had this ability, with the number of stipulations you have listed for the test... how would anyone ever FIND OUT that they had it? It would be like saying "I can identify when a giraffe is near, but only when there is no grass in any direction for three miles." When would that situation ever come up? I'd have to think that you were kidnapping giraffes and landing them on the moon, and I don't see how you would've ever had the ability to do that.

The reason this is getting so difficult is that if you were simply picking things out of twenty rather than out of five and then pairs, there would be no repetitions of the same photographs. You would not have feedback to eliminate possibilities. We cannot just do four sets of five and get the twenty that way because it would skew the probability in your favour.

Pavel, if you could, please make a proposal of some kind. Just say "Well, can we try it this way..." and give only one proposal.

Thanks,

Remie

[RemieV]

I'm not going to be much help if I can't be clear to all parties, am I? :)

All I meant was that it would be good to settle on a single statistical design, and then move the discussion to other issues of the design.

All protocols have to be approved by JREF staff, though. So designing a test around a specific protocol won't do unless it's already been approved ;)

The biggest issue you'll be having as a volunteer will be making sure Pavel understands, and that we understand him. Beyond that, all the negotiations will still have to go through the JREF.

Thanks for committing to this. It's going to be an interesting ride :)

[pavel_do]

Pavel, if you could, please make a proposal of some kind. Just say "Well, can we try it this way..." and give only one proposal.

Thanks,

Remie

Ok. I need to think and try to come up with new test…

[RemieV]

Pavel,

I am still thinking of ways we could potentially try jackalgirl's idea.

I understand that her suggested protocol would be like a roulette wheel. Red comes up four times in a row, and you start thinking you should bet on black because eventually it will turn. But of course, technically, black would never HAVE to come up.

What if the protocol was designed so the answer didn't have to be a "final" answer at the moment you looked at it?

For instance, what if you were given a stack of twenty envelopes (14 would contain the same photograph, 6 would contain blank photo paper) and you were permitted an hour, or even an hour and a half, to sort through the photos as many times as you wanted and divide them into piles of photographs and piles of photo paper? We could not open the envelopes as you went, but you could hold each one as many times as you wanted to ensure that you were not seeing "photo" just because you had gotten five "blank" in a row.

We could even number the envelopes and give you a piece of paper to make notes - so you could write "I am positive" next to number 5, and "I am not sure" next to number 16 and then later go back to 16 until you *were* sure.

Can you try self-testing this way? Have someone else stuff the envelopes and give it a shot.

-- Remie

[pavel_do]

Pavel,

I am still thinking of ways we could potentially try jackalgirl's idea.

I understand that her suggested protocol would be like a roulette wheel. Red comes up four times in a row, and you start thinking you should bet on black because eventually it will turn. But of course, technically, black would never HAVE to come up.

What if the protocol was designed so the answer didn't have to be a "final" answer at the moment you looked at it?

For instance, what if you were given a stack of twenty envelopes (14 would contain the same photograph, 6 would contain blank photo paper) and you were permitted an hour, or even an hour and a half, to sort through the photos as many times as you wanted and divide them into piles of photographs and piles of photo paper? We could not open the envelopes as you went, but you could hold each one as many times as you wanted to ensure that you were not seeing "photo" just because you had gotten five "blank" in a row.

We could even number the envelopes and give you a piece of paper to make notes - so you could write "I am positive" next to number 5, and "I am not sure" next to number 16 and then later go back to 16 until you *were* sure.

Can you try self-testing this way? Have someone else stuff the envelopes and give it a shot.

-- Remie


I understand what you mean.. it some kind of Carina Landing protocol.. ( that was suggested many times by GzuzKryzt)
Maybe if there would be 20 photos with let say for instance.. 10 photos of Planet Earth, and 10 Egyptian pyramids. They will be all mixed up and I will be given time to sort them out in 2 pials, in the way that you described.. still would it work with 16 out of 20 correct?

It is possibly could work.. I mean I can and I will try it, just have to print out new set for test.

[Startz]

Pavel,

I am still thinking of ways we could potentially try jackalgirl's idea.

I understand that her suggested protocol would be like a roulette wheel. Red comes up four times in a row, and you start thinking you should bet on black because eventually it will turn. But of course, technically, black would never HAVE to come up.

What if the protocol was designed so the answer didn't have to be a "final" answer at the moment you looked at it?

For instance, what if you were given a stack of twenty envelopes (14 would contain the same photograph, 6 would contain blank photo paper) and you were permitted an hour, or even an hour and a half, to sort through the photos as many times as you wanted and divide them into piles of photographs and piles of photo paper? We could not open the envelopes as you went, but you could hold each one as many times as you wanted to ensure that you were not seeing "photo" just because you had gotten five "blank" in a row.

We could even number the envelopes and give you a piece of paper to make notes - so you could write "I am positive" next to number 5, and "I am not sure" next to number 16 and then later go back to 16 until you *were* sure.

Can you try self-testing this way? Have someone else stuff the envelopes and give it a shot.

-- Remie

I understand what you mean.. it some kind of Carina Landing protocol.. ( that was suggested many times by GzuzKryzt)
Maybe if there would be 20 photos with let say for instance.. 10 photos of Planet Earth, and 10 Egyptian pyramids. They will be all mixed up and I will be given time to sort them out in 2 pials, in the way that you described.. still would it work with 16 out of 20 correct?

It is possibly could work.. I mean I can and I will try it, just have to print out new set for test.

Pavel:

I recommend that you first try exactly what Remie suggests. This will be the fastest way to reach an agreement. That's 6 of one kind and 14 of the other, not 10 and 10.

And I think her suggestion let's you spend a long time before making a final decision, but does expect you to correctly separate all the photos into the correct piles.

[pavel_do]

Pavel:

I recommend that you first try exactly what Remie suggests. This will be the fastest way to reach an agreement. That's 6 of one kind and 14 of the other, not 10 and 10.

And I think her suggestion let's you spend a long time before making a final decision, but does expect you to correctly separate all the photos into the correct piles.

I will try to do so.. need to order prints, will do this all over weekend.

[RemieV]

Pavel,

Sixteen is a little less than what you'd need to pass the 1/1000 odds, but I am willing to write it into the protocol that way and have Randi review it, as it isn't very far off.

Shall we proceed with this protocol?

-- Remie

[Startz]

Pavel,

Sixteen is a little less than what you'd need to pass the 1/1000 odds, but I am willing to write it into the protocol that way and have Randi review it, as it isn't very far off.

Shall we proceed with this protocol?

-- Remie

Pavel:

This looks to be a very generous protocol.

For those into the statistical side, I wrote a quick simulation program in Matlab which gives the chance of success by random guessing as 0.011. I haven't checked the code, so it shouldn't be relied on. But here it is for anyone interested.

function p = remieSuggestion(minNumRight, category1size, nSim)
%{
Dick Startz
July 2008

there are 20 cards, category1size of type 1 and 2-category1size of type 2
How many times can you guess numRight or more right

We'll do this my randomly sorting numbers and seeing how many end up in
each group
%}
rand('twister',5489);
correct = 0;

for iSim=1:nSim
cardOrder = randperm(20);
numCorrect = sum(cardOrder(1:category1size)<=category1size)...
+sum(cardOrder(category1size+1:end)>=category1size+1);
if numCorrect >= minNumRight
correct = correct + 1;
end
end
p = correct/nSim;
end

[Gr8wight]

The problem we are running into here is that Pavel's powers are only apparent to him when he complicates the protocol to the point were he loses track of the statistical probabilities involved. Simplifying and better controlling the test results in lower accuracy from Pavel, so he resists that. This is no different than any others of the multitudinous applicants the JREF has dealt with over the years. Pavel needs to ask himself one question, and think very hard about the answer. Given two envelopes, one containing a photograph, and one containing a blank sheet of photographic paper, can he identify the photograph significantly more often than half the time. If not, why not?

I have absolutely no interest in the answer to that question, only in the knowledge that Pavel has asked it of himself, and tried to be honest with himself about the answer.

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

2. I am absolutely disagree with you in sense that I complicate test etc.. what can be easier than test with pairs? Too complicated? Or one out of 3? Or 2 out of 5? For you 3 out of 20 is easier than 3 out of 5? Ok.. than if 2 out of 5 everyone can do.. good luck to all of them but so far no evidence…

Perfect. This will be easy. All you need is ten identical photographs, and ten completely blank photographs. Each photo is put into an envelope. You will be handed the envelopes two at a time, and each pair of envelopes will consist of one photograph and one blank sheet. You simply need indicate which envelope holds the photograph. Those two envelopes will be marked and put aside. Repeat the process with two new envelopes. After you have chosen the envelope you believe contains the photo from all ten pairs, all of the envelopes will be opened together, and you can see how accurate you were.

What do you think?

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy! I think that Gr8wight has it.

Each attempt consists of one set of 1 piece of blank photo paper and 1 photo. You have a 1:2 chance (50%) of determining the correct one by chance alone.

But you repeat this 10 times. I think that the odds of getting all 10 correct (by chance alone) are 1:1024*. You'd have to be successful on each and every individual attempt.

How does that sound? You wouldn't have to make piles or do any sorting or worry about multiple blanks (or multiple photos) throwing you off. You could even wait in between attempts to "reset" your senses. Doable?

*I am statistically stupid. Could someone tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'm multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 ... 10 times (1 / 2^10) (I'm not even sure if I'm doing /that/ correctly). Is that right?

Edited to add: Many thanks to Ravenwood, who if I am not mistaken, is the one who originally asked if Pavel can tell between a blank photo and a photo with an image in it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872729#post3872729).

[cafink]

Your math is correct, Jackalgirl.

[William Smith]

Howdy! I think that Gr8wight has it.

Each attempt consists of one set of 1 piece of blank photo paper and 1 photo. You have a 1:2 chance (50%) of determining the correct one by chance alone.

But you repeat this 10 times. I think that the odds of getting all 10 correct (by chance alone) are 1:1024*. You'd have to be successful on each and every individual attempt.

How does that sound? You wouldn't have to make piles or do any sorting or worry about multiple blanks (or multiple photos) throwing you off. You could even wait in between attempts to "reset" your senses. Doable?

*I am statistically stupid. Could someone tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'm multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 ... 10 times (1 / 2^10) (I'm not even sure if I'm doing /that/ correctly). Is that right?

Edited to add: Many thanks to Ravenwood, who if I am not mistaken, is the one who originally asked if Pavel can tell between a blank photo and a photo with an image in it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872729#post3872729).

Well, this dude also suggested it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3874697#post3874697) ;)

[pavel_do]

Pavel,

Sixteen is a little less than what you'd need to pass the 1/1000 odds, but I am willing to write it into the protocol that way and have Randi review it, as it isn't very far off.

Shall we proceed with this protocol?

-- Remie

Thank you Remiev. I will print today a new set of photos. 10 and 10. and will test myself in this way during a weekend to see how will it go. And by the end of the Sunday, I will post my reply.

P.s.
Re to the other posts.. Gr8wight, Jackalgirl, and dude who also suggested it..:) thank you to, I will try it all over the weekend.

[Startz]

Howdy! I think that Gr8wight has it.

Each attempt consists of one set of 1 piece of blank photo paper and 1 photo. You have a 1:2 chance (50%) of determining the correct one by chance alone.

But you repeat this 10 times. I think that the odds of getting all 10 correct (by chance alone) are 1:1024*. You'd have to be successful on each and every individual attempt.

How does that sound? You wouldn't have to make piles or do any sorting or worry about multiple blanks (or multiple photos) throwing you off. You could even wait in between attempts to "reset" your senses. Doable?

*I am statistically stupid. Could someone tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'm multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 ... 10 times (1 / 2^10) (I'm not even sure if I'm doing /that/ correctly). Is that right?

Edited to add: Many thanks to Ravenwood, who if I am not mistaken, is the one who originally asked if Pavel can tell between a blank photo and a photo with an image in it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872729#post3872729).

The statistics are correct. But this is a much easier test than having all the photos together and sorting them into two groups, which is what Remie suggested. The difference is that doing it this way if you get one envelope in an attempt right you automatically get the other one right, where in the "big pile" approach you have to get the first 19 right and then the last one is automatic. Basically the odds in Remie's method are 1 in a million for perfection. That's what lets Pavel make some errors and still win.

So Pavel, since you'll have the photos it's a great idea to practice on this suggestion, but make sure you also try out Remie's suggestions exactly.

[Gmonster2]

Jackel girl and gr8 wight you may not have read all the other long long long thread but Pavel already did this same test you are describing for his affidavit from 10 pairs of photos which he knew what 2 photos there were out of 5 trials he guessed 7,7,7,8 and 4 right out of 10.

As Jref requires 1:1000 odds i.e. 10 out of 10 he failed the preliminary test 5 times already.


Only diff now is there will be one blank and one photo, Not 2 known photos but still 50% chance to guess just the same..

regards Gmonster

[Startz]

Jackel girl and gr8 wight you may not have read all the other long long long thread but Pavel already did this same test you are describing for his affidavit from 10 pairs of photos which he knew what 2 photos there were out of 5 trials he guessed 7,7,7,8 and 4 right out of 10.

As Jref requires 1:1000 odds i.e. 10 out of 10 he failed the preliminary test 5 times already.


Only diff now is there will be one blank and one photo, Not 2 known photos but still 50% chance to guess just the same..

regards Gmonster

Pavel has always said that his talent is imperfect, so it's not quite fair to ask for a test that requires perfection. The suggestion Remie has made, following ideas suggested here on the forum, presents a much higher bar for perfection and therefore allows some room for error.

[pavel_do]

I made prints of photos that I need, including a few just blank-black photographs..

Will try to have 3 types of test, by 3 trials each.
1. When all 20 ( 10 each of a kind) will be mixed up and I will try to separate them in 2 pails…
2. When I will have them separated by pairs, where I need to identify one of two(as the second one will be known as soon as first will be named) I will do it with opening every photo that was named as I usually do.
3. Test where I have to identify pairs.. same as in N.2 but the results will be unknown till the end of the test and last pair is identified.
4. Will make a few pairs with 1 photo and 1 blank-black and try it too.



p.s. Re to Gmonster2 comment

if you can get same results as I did for affidavit letter.. Good luck to you.. it still over chance..
Any ways when we ran test at psychology department. I was given 1 photo of two to identify.. Now I have both photos in my hands to choose the one I am sure most of.. that make difference for me.. Beside at that time all the pairs was different.. and this time I will use only photos that I am usually getting most of the times correct.. that is also make difference for me..

[Startz]

I made prints of photos that I need, including a few just blank-black photographs..

Will try to have 3 types of test, by 3 trials each.
1. When all 20 ( 10 each of a kind) will be mixed up and I will try to separate them in 2 pails…
2. When I will have them separated by pairs, where I need to identify one of two(as the second one will be known as soon as first will be named) I will do it with opening every photo that was named as I usually do.
3. Test where I have to identify pairs.. same as in N.2 but the results will be unknown till the end of the test and last pair is identified.
4. Will make a few pairs with 1 photo and 1 blank-black and try it too.



p.s. Re to Gmonster2 comment

if you can get same results as I did for affidavit letter.. Good luck to you.. it still over chance..
Any ways when we ran test at psychology department. I was given 1 photo of two to identify.. Now I have both photos in my hands to choose the one I am sure most of.. that make difference for me.. Beside at that time all the pairs was different.. and this time I will use only photos that I am usually getting most of the times correct.. that is also make difference for me..

Pavel:

This is excellent. Very few applicants have been as willing to follow up on suggestions as you have. We'll look forward to seeing the results of these informal tests and also to the results of the official test when it comes about.

[pavel_do]

by the way just wanted to show you the photos that I am usually most sure of and the ones I will use for the testing this time.
it is on this link.. I posted them here..

www.jaimypage.narod.ru

the photos was redone by me in photo shop, I tried to make them as different and as "bright" and significant as I could.. Like I can “get them” by shapes or colors.. Like pyramids it is either Pyramids shapes, pointed up sharp corners or something of a kind.. or red colors that I pick up.. The earth is Blue and round.. The Ship is in ship shape and gray colors.. and The cross is usually I pick up either as crossed lines or black shadow of the cross etc

p.s.
Sorry about the size of the photos..:) as on the photo paper they all fit well :redface1

[steenkh]

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.
Pavel, please be aware that blank photographic paper is white, not black. Apart from white, there will be no colours, shapes or anything, just like you stipulate.

[Ravenwood]

Pavel, if you are printing these out on an inkjet or laser printer, there is no difference between regular or photo paper. The toner or ink is being deposited on the paper by the same mechanism, unlike printing a photographic negative on photographic paper which is a completely different process... That being said, if you are using a printer, there should be no discerrnable difference in size or weight of a blank sheet vs a printed sheet of the media you are using once they are in the envelopes.

[pavel_do]

Pavel, if you are printing these out on an inkjet or laser printer, there is no difference between regular or photo paper. The toner or ink is being deposited on the paper by the same mechanism, unlike printing a photographic negative on photographic paper which is a completely different process... That being said, if you are using a printer, there should be no discerrnable difference in size or weight of a blank sheet vs a printed sheet of the media you are using once they are in the envelopes.


NO I print them on the photo paper in the Photo lab. As photo copies or photos printed on inkjet printer.. I don’t see them the same as photos on the photo paper.

Re to Steenkh.
The photos I’ve done as blank.. are BLACK not plane white.. as I would mix it up with Photo of Titanic that is Gray-light or Cross that has allot of white on photo..

[Ravenwood]

Ok, we needed that clarification. I believe Steenkh was referring to unexposed & undeveloped photo paper, which would be white, as opposed to exposed & developed photo paper, which yes, would come out black. Will the process photos all be the same size? That would be necessary to insure that there is no way of picking up cues from the size or weight. I like the idea of using processed blank photos, as that makes them identical to the processed real photo. (no way to discern if it's real or blank by trace odors of the developing chemicals)

[pavel_do]

Ok, we needed that clarification. I believe Steenkh was referring to unexposed & undeveloped photo paper, which would be white, as opposed to exposed & developed photo paper, which yes, would come out black. Will the process photos all be the same size? That would be necessary to insure that there is no way of picking up cues from the size or weight. I like the idea of using processed blank photos, as that makes them identical to the processed real photo. (no way to discern if it's real or blank by trace odors of the developing chemicals)

All the photos I have printed are the same size 6x5 inches.

Since you cant really order plain photo to make it exposed to the light and become black.. What I done is.. made a “photo” that I filled with black color in photos shop:) and it worked.. I have a few black photos..:) at first at the lab they thought that it is image came bad ( as I ordered 5 of them) and there is something wrong with it..:) So I had to tell them that the way I wanted them… I could read on there face like “WTF!?” :mglook guy orders black photos…

[Jackalgirl]

I don't think there's any functional difference between a piece of photo paper that's been covered with black ink and a blank piece of photo paper.

Pavel, I highly recommend that you wrap each photo (black or actual photo) in opaque black paper (like construction paper), then put it into an opaque envelope. That ensures that there can be absolutely no information leakage (i.e., the black photo being more apparent through the envelope).

If 100% accuracy (correctly identifying which photo of each pair is the "black blank" and which one is the photo every time for ten pairs of photos) is unreasonable, just repeat the test with multiple sets. Let's say you claim to be able to correctly identify four pairs out of the ten pairs. That's a 1:16 chance of success. But if you do that ten-pair trial three times, your chances of identifying four in ten correctly (each time for three total trials) is 1:4096.

(if I'm not doing my math incorrectly.)

Incidentally, thanks everyone for confirming my probability calculation. I've written down the date! ; )

[pavel_do]

I don't think there's any functional difference between a piece of photo paper that's been covered with black ink and a blank piece of photo paper.

Pavel, I highly recommend that you wrap each photo (black or actual photo) in opaque black paper (like construction paper), then put it into an opaque envelope. That ensures that there can be absolutely no information leakage (i.e., the black photo being more apparent through the envelope).

If 100% accuracy (correctly identifying which photo of each pair is the "black blank" and which one is the photo every time for ten pairs of photos) is unreasonable, just repeat the test with multiple sets. Let's say you claim to be able to correctly identify four pairs out of the ten pairs. That's a 1:16 chance of success. But if you do that ten-pair trial three times, your chances of identifying four in ten correctly (each time for three total trials) is 1:4096.

(if I'm not doing my math incorrectly.)

Incidentally, thanks everyone for confirming my probability calculation. I've written down the date! ; )

Thank you for suggestions. I am placing photos in double envelopes so there is nothing that you can see through as second envelope is manila and thicker than the first white one.. so even if u put it against the light u cant see what photo is inside.. unless u put it close to the bulb:) that I don’t do obviously.. Beside that my eyes covered and see no point in leaving any possible clues to myself.. that would be cheating of myself at first place and I don’t have time to waist with such games..:)

Regarding the odds.. I never claimed 100% success and being able to identify it with 100% accuracy… For that exact reason I wanted to have a test with 30 pairs in trial.. Where I need to get 24-25 correct.. still there is a room for mistake that we all can do even by random chance..:) last time I tested my self my result was 23 out of 30. I know it is not 1.000 odds but if I am not mistaken significant enough that it is over chance odds…:)
Any ways.. I have done some test today, and will do the rest tomorrow during a day, my friend will help me out. I will post my results and thoughts:) and we`ll see:) Have a nice weekend everybody.

[Jackalgirl]

Well, if my math is correct (and I warn you, my math is always suspect), you'd only need to get 4 out of 10 correct three times. So that's a total of 12 right out of 30, but you'd be doing it in three steps, or trials, of 10 pairs each.

I don't know the probability for 23 pairs out of 30 (assuming you want to do a straight run of 30 pairs), but I'll bet it's okay for the test.

I think you're pretty close to a workable protocol. JREF is going to want to ensure that the envelope setup you've got is actually opaque, so make sure you describe very exactly how you're setting it up so that they can duplicate it and try it out on their end.

Can't wait to see how your self-test goes. Good job! : )

[steenkh]

NO I print them on the photo paper in the Photo lab. As photo copies or photos printed on inkjet printer.. I don’t see them the same as photos on the photo paper.
You must be careful here, because many modern photo labs actually use a printing process, and the old developing method is fast disappearing with the advent of digital pictures - if that is important for your abilities.

The photos I’ve done as blank.. are BLACK not plane white.. as I would mix it up with Photo of Titanic that is Gray-light or Cross that has allot of white on photo..
OK. If you prefer black pictures, it is fine with me. They are just not "blank". You once claimed that you did not "see" the picture itself, but some emotional content that was associated with the picture, and I would have thought that actual blanks would have zero emotional content, and you would then no more need to to distinguish between pictures with different emotional content, but merely between "no content" and "content".

It is your claim, and you must know what you can do.

[Akhenaten]

All the photos I have printed are the same size 6x5 inches.

Since you cant really order plain photo to make it exposed to the light and become black.. What I done is.. made a “photo” that I filled with black color in photos shop:) and it worked.. I have a few black photos..:) at first at the lab they thought that it is image came bad ( as I ordered 5 of them) and there is something wrong with it..:) So I had to tell them that the way I wanted them… I could read on there face like “WTF!?” :mglook guy orders black photos…

Hi Pavel!

You tricked me with this a while ago, when I thought you were joking about printing blank photos. Thank you for sorting that out :)

I can imagine the folks at the photo lab. :eye-poppi It's a shame that home-made prints don't work properly; this must be getting expensive for you.

Things seem to be progressing well, and you continue to impress with your willingness to take advice from the people helping you. Good on ya mate.


Cheers,

Dave

[Gr8wight]

Jackel girl and gr8 wight you may not have read all the other long long long thread but Pavel already did this same test you are describing for his affidavit from 10 pairs of photos which he knew what 2 photos there were out of 5 trials he guessed 7,7,7,8 and 4 right out of 10.

As Jref requires 1:1000 odds i.e. 10 out of 10 he failed the preliminary test 5 times already.


Only diff now is there will be one blank and one photo, Not 2 known photos but still 50% chance to guess just the same..

regards Gmonster

Except, Gmonster, if Pavel can get seven out of ten correct on three, consecutive, properly controlled trials, he probably satisfies the requirement. Can someone who understands stats confirm that for me?

[pavel_do]

Well, if my math is correct (and I warn you, my math is always suspect), you'd only need to get 4 out of 10 correct three times. So that's a total of 12 right out of 30.

If that correct.. and JREF would agree with that.. ( that I doubt) I am ready for test tomorrow :) as I never got less than 4 correct out of 10 pairs..:) ( up till today at least)

Any ways.. here is my results of the tests.

First the test by Ramiev suggested method where 10 and 10 of each photos was mixed up and I had to separate them in 2 pails.
Here is the results of 3 trials.

1. 9 correct and 11 incorrect.

2. 11 correct and 9 incorrect.

3. 11 correct and 9 incorrect.

Second test is where I had 3 trials by 10 pairs.. where out of each pair I would need to identify 1 photo correct. After each pair was named the envelopes was open and answer revealed as usually I use to do.

1. 8 correct and 2 incorrect.

2. 7 correct and 3 incorrect.

3. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


Third test where it is all done the same as in second one, but the results was unknown till the last pair of 10 was identified.

1. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.

2. 5 correct and 5 incorrect.

3. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


and the last one is I done 2 trials of 10 pairs each, where one envelope contained photo and the other one photo card that is just black “plane”. One trial was in the way where the results was revealed immediately and the second it was unknown till the end of the test.

1. 8 correct and 2 incorrect.

2. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


SO based on my results as you can see, the best test for me so far would be still the one where..
I name one of the photo from the pair and it is revealed immediately.

The test when they all mixed up as Remiev proposed and when I don’t know the results…
I think what affects it is would explained the great example that was written by Remiev.. about rullet.. So when I am identified let say first 4 as let say Titanic and by not knowing either I am right or wrong.. I am starting doubting myself.. maybe I am wrong.. and maybe now should come up the Earth photo… etc.. that affect the results..
SO I am don’t think that test where all photos mixed up and I have to separate them would work for me. For the reason that I wrote.
When I chouse one of two photos and name it each time the chance for that is 50/50 and knowing the result immediately does not affect odds of the next pair.. But that make a difference for me and for my results. I would be happy to be tested with the test with pairs same as it was done by professors for Affidavit letters.. just with the difference that I would hold both photos before naming 1. Even to have 3 trials by 10 pairs would need only 60 photos that is not that much.. and it would not take allot of time either. And if odds would work out in some way as Jackalgirl proposed that would make things even more easy…


Any comments, suggestions, questions?

Regards,
Pavel

[pavel_do]

Hi Pavel!

You tricked me with this a while ago, when I thought you were joking about printing blank photos. Thank you for sorting that out :)

I can imagine the folks at the photo lab. :eye-poppi It's a shame that home-made prints don't work properly; this must be getting expensive for you.

Things seem to be progressing well, and you continue to impress with your willingness to take advice from the people helping you. Good on ya mate.


Cheers,

Dave

Hello Mate,

I am doing my best.. and while I have time.. trying to use it.. as when I leave US on the last week of August, then for a few weeks I don’t think I will have much time for it.. as I will need to sort out some things that “accumulated” for months that I have been a way from Europe. But I will do my best to get back to it as soon as I will be able to. And will be continuing with all this work at every opportunity and free time that I will have.

Cheers,
Pavel

[Startz]

If that correct.. and JREF would agree with that.. ( that I doubt) I am ready for test tomorrow :) as I never got less than 4 correct out of 10 pairs..:) ( up till today at least)

Any ways.. here is my results of the tests.

First the test by Ramiev suggested method where 10 and 10 of each photos was mixed up and I had to separate them in 2 pails.
Here is the results of 3 trials.

1. 9 correct and 11 incorrect.

2. 11 correct and 9 incorrect.

3. 11 correct and 9 incorrect.

Second test is where I had 3 trials by 10 pairs.. where out of each pair I would need to identify 1 photo correct. After each pair was named the envelopes was open and answer revealed as usually I use to do.

1. 8 correct and 2 incorrect.

2. 7 correct and 3 incorrect.

3. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


Third test where it is all done the same as in second one, but the results was unknown till the last pair of 10 was identified.

1. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.

2. 5 correct and 5 incorrect.

3. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


and the last one is I done 2 trials of 10 pairs each, where one envelope contained photo and the other one photo card that is just black “plane”. One trial was in the way where the results was revealed immediately and the second it was unknown till the end of the test.

1. 8 correct and 2 incorrect.

2. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


SO based on my results as you can see, the best test for me so far would be still the one where..
I name one of the photo from the pair and it is revealed immediately.

The test when they all mixed up as Remiev proposed and when I don’t know the results…
I think what affects it is would explained the great example that was written by Remiev.. about rullet.. So when I am identified let say first 4 as let say Titanic and by not knowing either I am right or wrong.. I am starting doubting myself.. maybe I am wrong.. and maybe now should come up the Earth photo… etc.. that affect the results..
SO I am don’t think that test where all photos mixed up and I have to separate them would work for me. For the reason that I wrote.
When I chouse one of two photos and name it each time the chance for that is 50/50 and knowing the result immediately does not affect odds of the next pair.. But that make a difference for me and for my results. I would be happy to be tested with the test with pairs same as it was done by professors for Affidavit letters.. just with the difference that I would hold both photos before naming 1. Even to have 3 trials by 10 pairs would need only 60 photos that is not that much.. and it would not take allot of time either. And if odds would work out in some way as Jackalgirl proposed that would make things even more easy…


Any comments, suggestions, questions?

Regards,
Pavel

One main comment: Your honesty in reporting both trials that work and ones that don't work is most admirable!

[Startz]

Second test is where I had 3 trials by 10 pairs.. where out of each pair I would need to identify 1 photo correct. After each pair was named the envelopes was open and answer revealed as usually I use to do.

1. 8 correct and 2 incorrect.

2. 7 correct and 3 incorrect.

3. 6 correct and 4 incorrect.


SO based on my results as you can see, the best test for me so far would be still the one where..
I name one of the photo from the pair and it is revealed immediately.


Any comments, suggestions, questions?

Regards,
Pavel

Pavel:

The chance of getting 8 or more right out of 10 is about 5 percent. The probability of getting 8 or more right at least once with three chances is over 15 percent. So while your scores are quite a bit better than chance, they aren't likely to be acceptable to JREF.

I would imagine (and I obviously don't speak for JREF) that they might let you have three shots at getting a perfect score out of ten.

There is also the issue of whether JREF will agree to a test in which cards are revealed before the very end of the test.

[Startz]

SO I am don’t think that test where all photos mixed up and I have to separate them would work for me. For the reason that I wrote.
When I chouse one of two photos and name it each time the chance for that is 50/50 and knowing the result immediately does not affect odds of the next pair.. But that make a difference for me and for my results. I would be happy to be tested with the test with pairs same as it was done by professors for Affidavit letters.. just with the difference that I would hold both photos before naming 1. Even to have 3 trials by 10 pairs would need only 60 photos that is not that much.. and it would not take allot of time either. And if odds would work out in some way as Jackalgirl proposed that would make things even more easy…


Any comments, suggestions, questions?

Regards,
Pavel
if you like, suggest a protocol based on this. I'm happy to rework it for clarity. Then it can be sent in to Remie to see if there are any remaining barriers.

[pavel_do]

if you like, suggest a protocol based on this. I'm happy to rework it for clarity. Then it can be sent in to Remie to see if there are any remaining barriers.

There was one before, I will find it and review maybe change something and send you to rework it.

[Startz]

There was one before, I will find it and review maybe change something and send you to rework it.

Great! Post it here so others can take a look too.

[Miss_Kitt]

Wow! What a difference from another applicant's thread I've been following. Pavel is a gentleman, and he is genuinely committed to determining a test protocol. What a pleasant surprise!

Those of you who are statistically savant, is opening the envelopes before all are revealed getting into the Monty Hall issue at all? Would it make any difference if the test was run as, he completes 3 pairs, and is told how many he got right BUT not which ones he got right??

Just thinking, MK

[Jackalgirl]

Miss Kitt --

I have no idea re: the Monty Hall issue as I just barely understand the edges of that, and I barely understand that it has edges, if that makes sense. But I see what you're saying and I think that it is highly, highly unlikely that the JREF will agree to the confirmation of any success until the entire run is complete. That is to say, none of the envelopes will be opened until they have /all/ been sorted into "contains black photo", "contains regular photo" piles.

I agree with you re: Pavel, too. I'm really impressed and pleased with how this is progressing, and with Pavel's obviously sincere efforts to come up with a good test. Way to go, Pavel!

[ddt]

Those of you who are statistically savant, is opening the envelopes before all are revealed getting into the Monty Hall issue at all? Would it make any difference if the test was run as, he completes 3 pairs, and is told how many he got right BUT not which ones he got right??

I'd be glad to comment, but I'm a bit at a loss now how the draft test protocol looks like. Which post(s) should I look at?

Do I understand it right that Pavel's basic claim is that, when presented with two sealed envelopes, one containing a completely black piece of paper, and one containing a photo, he can say which one is which?

[Startz]

Wow! What a difference from another applicant's thread I've been following. Pavel is a gentleman, and he is genuinely committed to determining a test protocol. What a pleasant surprise!

Those of you who are statistically savant, is opening the envelopes before all are revealed getting into the Monty Hall issue at all? Would it make any difference if the test was run as, he completes 3 pairs, and is told how many he got right BUT not which ones he got right??

Just thinking, MK


This does not raise the Monte Hall issue as each set of pairs is separate from those that precede them.

From a statistical point of view, there is no reason not to tell Pavel what happens as he goes along. However, JREF may not go along (as JackaGirl and others have pointed out) for two reasons.

1) If the results are bad, the challenger could declare midway through that some condition of the test is being violated.

2) It may be generally bad procedure for undefined reasons.

However, JREF hasn't spoken about this issue in this challenge yet.

[IXP]

Those of you who are statistically savant, is opening the envelopes before all are revealed getting into the Monty Hall issue at all? Would it make any difference if the test was run as, he completes 3 pairs, and is told how many he got right BUT not which ones he got right??
Just thinking, MK
No more than looking at the results of a string of coin flips would change the statistics. The Monty Hall paradox results from Monty having knowledge which is partially revealed when he opens one of the doors. Now if we allowed him to change his guess after opening an envelope, that would be a problem.

IXP

[Startz]

August 8, 2008
This is a modification of the previous protocol to address issues raised by JREF in regard to simplifying the procedure and using fewer photos. Other elements not previously questioned by JREF are not addressed here, although we understand they remain to be negotiated.

This test requires Pavel to identify photographs in sealed envelopes.


Test Procedure:
The test will consist of two trials (A & B) each of 30 attempts at identification.

For each trial:

1. One pair of photographs, numbered photographs 1 and 2 will be visible and unsealed.

2. Tester will hand Pavel one sealed pair of envelopes containing the same pictures as the visible photographs .

3. After handling the pair of sealed envelopes, Pavel will select one envelope and clearly announce the number of the picture contained inside of the envelope. The second envelope will be set aside. Then the chosen envelope will be opened. If the photo is correctly identified the tester will record “correct.”

4. The remaining envelope of two will not be opened until the conclusion of the second trial.

5. All materials from the set will be set aside.

6. A new pair of two photos in sealed envelopes will be handed to Pavel and procedures 2 through 5 will be repeated for ten pairs.

7. After every ten pairs, the tester will switch to a different set of photographs.

At the end of 30 pairs, the tester will announce the score. Pavel succeeds at the trial if he receives 24 or more scores of “correct”.

Pavel succeeds at the preliminary challenge if he succeeds at either trial A or trial B.

[Rodney]

August 8, 2008
This is a modification of the previous protocol to address issues raised by JREF in regard to simplifying the procedure and using fewer photos. Other elements not previously questioned by JREF are not addressed here, although we understand they remain to be negotiated.

This test requires Pavel to identify photographs in sealed envelopes.


Test Procedure:
The test will consist of two trials (A & B) each of 30 attempts at identification.

For each trial:

1. One pair of photographs, numbered photographs 1 and 2 will be visible and unsealed.

2. Tester will hand Pavel one sealed pair of envelopes containing the same pictures as the visible photographs .

3. After handling the pair of sealed envelopes, Pavel will select one envelope and clearly announce the number of the picture contained inside of the envelope. The second envelope will be set aside. Then the chosen envelope will be opened. If the photo is correctly identified the tester will record “correct.”

4. The remaining envelope of two will not be opened until the conclusion of the second trial.

5. All materials from the set will be set aside.

6. A new pair of two photos in sealed envelopes will be handed to Pavel and procedures 2 through 5 will be repeated for ten pairs.

7. After every ten pairs, the tester will switch to a different set of photographs.

At the end of 30 pairs, the tester will announce the score. Pavel succeeds at the trial if he receives 24 or more scores of “correct”.

Pavel succeeds at the preliminary challenge if he succeeds at either trial A or trial B.
With this protocol, according to my calculation, the odds of Pavel succeeding by random chance is less than 1 in 700. I think that is overly stringent for the preliminary challenge. Further, his ability, if it exists, may be more "steady as she goes" as opposed to spectacular. So, at a minimum, I think he should succeed at the preliminary challenge if he does either what you propose or if he gets at least 40 out of 60 correct in both trials combined. The odds of doing this are about 1 in 150, and the odds of doing either what you propose or this are about 1 in 125, according to my calculation.

[RemieV]

What is the purpose of the second trial?

And again, I really need for us to move along one continuous thread. That means we propose a SINGLE protocol and work at it, not the results of several different ones.

If we are going to do this negotiating publicly, this is going to have to be much clearer than if it was an e-mail exchange taking place between two people.

[RemieV]

Also, why set aside the other photo in the pair after one is shown to be correct or incorrect? If all the pairs are the same, then he is predicting *both* photos in *both* envelopes by predicting one.

So when you say 24 out of 30, you mean 24 PAIRS wherein both are correct, because they would necessarily HAVE to be. If one is right, so is the other.

There is no way the JREF is going to agree to two shots at this. That increases the probability of getting one of the sets above random chance.

I'll have to run the numbers by the statistician and let you know.

Pavel, will you be in the US on August 31st?

[Gr8wight]

What is the purpose of the second trial?

I believe the challenge rules allow for a second trial...after a one year wait and reapplication.

[pavel_do]

Also, why set aside the other photo in the pair after one is shown to be correct or incorrect? If all the pairs are the same, then he is predicting *both* photos in *both* envelopes by predicting one.

So when you say 24 out of 30, you mean 24 PAIRS wherein both are correct, because they would necessarily HAVE to be. If one is right, so is the other.

There is no way the JREF is going to agree to two shots at this. That increases the probability of getting one of the sets above random chance.

I'll have to run the numbers by the statistician and let you know.

Pavel, will you be in the US on August 31st?

Thank you.

To set a side the photos, for a reason that I don’t want to see the other photo that I am naming.. as when I hold the envelope I am trying to predict wht will I see when it will be open, if we have to open both, than I will see both photos and might be wrong in order of two that dos not make sense.

When I say 24 it means 24 times I name exact envelope of two. ( 24 pairs out of 30)

Well, why it is higher chance? As there each result of the trial will be considered as independent and not summed up..

Well.. Ok maybe we could leave second trial..Though having 2 would reduce stress for me.. Though I understand that it is more psychological thing.. if there is now way.. just that I would take more time for 1 to make sure that I am sure in every answer to be given.. like if I am not sure the pair shell be put a side and I will try to re identify it again after the other done etc.

NO I am leaving US on 27th of August, have my tickets already.


p.s.
So as you say we must stick to one protocol..
Fair enough.. Than if the test with pair is more or less considered as possible.. even if we have to drop second trial.. and have only one.. OK.. than, I will prepare new test protocol propose with Startz with more details and s post it so u can review it and check it with statisticians etc.

[Startz]

Also, why set aside the other photo in the pair after one is shown to be correct or incorrect? If all the pairs are the same, then he is predicting *both* photos in *both* envelopes by predicting one.

So when you say 24 out of 30, you mean 24 PAIRS wherein both are correct, because they would necessarily HAVE to be. If one is right, so is the other.

There is no way the JREF is going to agree to two shots at this. That increases the probability of getting one of the sets above random chance.

I'll have to run the numbers by the statistician and let you know.

Pavel, will you be in the US on August 31st?


Remie:

The chances of success if two trials are allowed is 0.0014304. Really, there is not a problem with the statistics. There may well be other elements that are problematic.

Why set aside the unopened photo? Why immediately check whether a pair is a success? Only because Pavel says that's how his power works. Shouldn't we accommodate him in these matters, so long as JREF can be sure that the requests we don't understand don't lead to trickery or other problems?

Pavel:

Remie has suggested that negotiations would proceed much more smoothly if they were conducted by email. I strongly urge you to use email or private messages. There are two reasons:

(1) Remie has demonstrated that she is working hard to make your challenge come off. She is much more experienced than anyone else here about the most effective way to conduct these negotiations. You should listen to her advice.

(2) JREF and challengers may have an adversary relation about the outcome of the trial. That need not apply to working out the details of a protocol. In terms of the issues that have been raised so far by JREF (not all issues have been worked through of course) there is no reason a protocal can't be worked out in a few days. So on process issues you should do what Remie asks.

[steenkh]

With this protocol, according to my calculation, the odds of Pavel succeeding by random chance is less than 1 in 700. I think that is overly stringent for the preliminary challenge.
You mean because other preliminary tests have not been as stringent? That could be right.

Further, his ability, if it exists, may be more "steady as she goes" as opposed to spectacular.
It is up to Pavel to state what he can do. The less certain his ability is, the more envelopes will be needed per session, making the test longer and more tiring.

[Cuddles]

With this protocol, according to my calculation, the odds of Pavel succeeding by random chance is less than 1 in 700. I think that is overly stringent for the preliminary challenge.

The standard chance of success has always been 1 in 1000, so this would actually be much less stringent that usual.

Further, his ability, if it exists, may be more "steady as she goes" as opposed to spectacular. So, at a minimum, I think he should succeed at the preliminary challenge if he does either what you propose or if he gets at least 40 out of 60 correct in both trials combined. The odds of doing this are about 1 in 150, and the odds of doing either what you propose or this are about 1 in 125, according to my calculation.

And this would be much, much too high a chance of winning by chance alone. The thing is, it shouldn't matter to Pavel what the probability of winning by chance is. If he actually does have the ability he claims, then chance doesn't come in to it. The only way chance matters is if he actually can't do what he claims, and then the JREF must ensure that he doesn't win anyway.

[Elvis666]

The thing is, it shouldn't matter to Pavel what the probability of winning by chance is. If he actually does have the ability he claims, then chance doesn't come in to it. The only way chance matters is if he actually can't do what he claims, and then the JREF must ensure that he doesn't win anyway.

This is something that's always bothered me about those who state that the chance of success is too small. It's only too small if you can only succeed by chance.

If the JREF were to allow me to apply for the challenge on the basis of my ability to do long division, I wouldn't care how difficult it would be for me to succeed by chance. My only concern would be if I could accidently lose by making a stupid mistake, because I can do long division. I'll be glad to do 100 long division problems with multiple choice answers. I can get (almost) everyone of them right.

[Rodney]

The standard chance of success has always been 1 in 1000, so this would actually be much less stringent that usual.
Can you document that the 1 in 1000 odds standard has been used for previous applicants in the preliminary test?


And this would be much, much too high a chance of winning by chance alone.
But this is only the preliminary test -- Pavel wins nothing by passing the preliminary test. Obviously, the odds standard should be much higher for the final test -- 1 in a million odds seems reasonable to me.

The thing is, it shouldn't matter to Pavel what the probability of winning by chance is. If he actually does have the ability he claims, then chance doesn't come in to it. The only way chance matters is if he actually can't do what he claims, and then the JREF must ensure that he doesn't win anyway.
This is what you and so many others here keep missing: If Pavel or anyone else can perform at a vastly above chance level (say 1 in a 100 million, consisting of 1 in 100 in the preliminary test and 1 in 1 million in the final test) in foolproof testing, that essentially confirms a paranormal ability, even if his hit rate is only, say, 60% versus an expected hit rate of 50%.

[Cuddles]

Can you document that the 1 in 1000 odds standard has been used for previous applicants in the preliminary test?

But this is only the preliminary test -- Pavel wins nothing by passing the preliminary test. Obviously, the odds standard should be much higher for the final test -- 1 in a million odds seems reasonable to me.

This is what you and so many others here keep missing: If Pavel or anyone else can perform at a vastly above chance level (say 1 in a 100 million, consisting of 1 in 100 in the preliminary test and 1 in 1 million in the final test) in foolproof testing, that essentially confirms a paranormal ability, even if his hit rate is only, say, 60% versus an expected hit rate of 50%.

You will find it stated in this thread by the JREF's representative that they are aiming for 1/1000 odds, although they are willing to compromise if necessary.

If you wish to discuss the challenge in general and what you think it should and should not do, please discuss it somewhere else. Do not derail this thread.

[Moochie]

You mean because other preliminary tests have not been as stringent? That could be right.


It is up to Pavel to state what he can do. The less certain his ability is, the more envelopes will be needed per session, making the test longer and more tiring.

This seems to be a signature feature of all these "abilities" -- they are so fugacious as to be almost nonexistent.


M.

[Startz]

Pavel has prepared a new protocol which I have lightly edited. As requested, the protocol has been emailed to JREF. I anticipate that negotiations will be conducted by email. I am posting the latest version so that folks outside JREF can see what is going on. I will not be posting any back-and-forth between Pavel and JREF unless the parties want me to.

In the protocol below, "I" refers to Pavel.

Proposed Pavel Protocol - August 7, 2008

Propose of the protocol to test my claiming powers.

This test requires Pavel to identify photographs in sealed envelopes.

Without looking in any possible- physical ways inside of the sealed envelope, just by holding it between my hands, I will be able to identify the photo that will be inside and will name it.
During a trial with 40 pairs, I will get at least 30 correct out of 40 photos to which I will offer my answer. If I get less than 30 correct, I accept that I was not able to perform my abilities successfully under/according the conditions and the protocol that was agreed before the test and that the test results are negative. With 30 or more correct photos, the test result is positive.

Materials required:
Materials for each pair: 2 highly distinguishable photographs, with a unique name for the image. 2 identical small envelopes. 2 identical Manila envelopes.

The photographs are to be produced in four sets of ten identical pairs.

Photographs are to be approximately 3.5 x 5 inches and will be printed from the files that I will provide in advance.

Paper sheet with the photos that will be used in pairs and the name and number to each of the photo.

Environment stipulations:

No talking or any kind of distraction with light or sound or any other ways of interruption during the test. No photography during the test will be allowed as the flash or the sound produced by the camera can be distracting.

No trickery, or cheating from either Pavel or JREF or other parties present in room during the test. The environment should be established to give me the best chance of success and JREF the assurance that my abilities are real.

No substance with a strong odor will be allowed in the room same, include people who might use perfume that has strong odor and that can cause distraction during the concentration and a headache due to the strong smell.

It is important that in the room where the test will be held, there should be NO photos or pictures of any kind on the walls or anywhere near me and visible to me.

What Will Constitute a Successful Test:

If I am able to identify 30 or more photos out of 40 pairs of sealed envelopes.


List of the photographs that will be used in pairs. (I might still change some of the photos)

1. The cross
2. Ship “Titanic”
3. Egyptian pyramids
4. Photo of the Planet Earth

Can be seen here www.jaimypage.narod.ru

Preparation:

The photos will be placed in envelopes in separate room by a third party with the supervision of a JREF representatives who will make sure that there will be no interference in the process of preparation of the photo pairs for the test. Each of the 2 photos is placed in a different small envelope and sealed. Each of these small envelopes is placed in a different manila envelope and sealed. The envelopes will be checked for marks, folds, creases etc by JREF representatives before being brought into the test room.


Test settings:

After I am situated, ready, and comfortable, I will cover my eyes with a mask and my ears with the plugs and will have up to 10 minutes to get ready and relax.

After that, the testing shell begin, and one random pair of 2 shell be handed to me.


The test.

The envelopes arranged in four groups with 10 pairs in each, will be prepared to be used in test.

1. One pair of photographs, numbered photographs 1 and 2 will be visible and unsealed.

2. Tester will hand Pavel one sealed pair of envelopes containing the same pictures as the visible photographs .

3. After handling the pair of sealed envelopes, Pavel will select one envelope and clearly announce the number of the picture contained inside of the envelope. The second envelope will be set aside. Then the chosen envelope will be opened. If the photo is correctly identified the tester will record “correct.”

4. The remaining envelope will not be opened until the conclusion of the whole trial.

5. All materials from the set will be set aside. (Removed from the table)

6. A new pair of two photos in sealed envelopes will be handed to Pavel and procedures 2 through 5 will be repeated for ten pairs.

7. After every ten pairs, the tester will switch to a different set of photographs.

At the end of 40 pairs, the tester will announce the score. Pavel succeeds at the trial if he receives 30 or more scores of “correct”.

I would need small breaks of 3-5 minutes brake from time to time between pairs… probably after each 3 or 5 or as needed. (Depending on how I feel).

I would need up to 10 minutes break between every 10 sets.

For identification of each pair I would take up to 3 minutes before I would offer my answer.

The entire test will not take more than 4 - 5 hours including all breaks.

Remarks:

* I need to know the result of my answer immediately after I name the photos. I need this because, when I hold the envelopes I am trying to foresee what will I actually see when the photo will be revealed. By asking myself – “What picture will I see when the envelope will be open”. For this reason, it is important for me and necessary to see the actual photo immediately after I offer my answers during the test.

** If I am not sure of my answer, the pair shall be put aside and I will get back to identification of it, later after the rest of the pairs of the current run on 10 will be named.

*** After each 10 pairs, the photos will be switched to a different set. For the first run of 10 pairs, the pair will be made of 2 photos, The Cross and The Planet Earth. For the second run of 10 it should be The Titanic and the Egyptian Pyramids. For the third run of 10 it is, The Cross and the Egyptian pyramids. And for the fourth run of 10 it is, The planet Earth and the Cross.
Changing the pairs, will help me to avoid extra confusion that could be caused by repetition of the same photos used in pairs for many times. The order of the pairs is not a final and might be changed to a different before the final protocol will be agreed.

Notes:

1. No talking (or signaling!) during the test from any person who will be present in room.

2. No text messaging or phone calls allowed, as the sms and call alerts can distract my concentration and affect the result of my answer. (The smsing during the test is not permitted either, as the sound of the constantly clicking buttons can be very irritating and distracting). For that reason, all mobile phones in the room, must be switched to a silent mode to eliminate interruptions of the testing. If anyone needs to make calls or sms, it can be done during the brake between runs

3. Any person that is present at the testing may raise his or her hand during the demonstration to inform the others of suspicious behavior of anyone in the room. However, no shouting or interruptions will be allowed during the process of identifying the photo. If there are any doubts or suspicions, the person shall raise his/her hand silently and inform the others after I have finished with identification of the current photo and announced my answer.

I would prefer:

1. I want to do the test in the United States, in Charlotte, North Carolina to avoid traveling that can affect my state due to the road sickness or the climate change. Testing should be done in the presence of objective people which both as JREF and I can trust. I want to be able to approve the people that are present during the testing, e.g. it can’t be more than 10 people in the room during the test.

2. I want to bring with me a friend Vladimir Sirovitskiy who will be present at the testing as a support.
After the test will start, there will be no talking or any kind of communication between us until the test will be complete and the last photo will be identified and announced.

3. I also would like Dr. Eric D. Heggestad, and Dr. Linda Shanock, the academics that tested me to produce affidavit letters for application for the challenge, to be present during the test (if they are able to attend it) as the independent parties and witnesses–supervisors.

4. I would like the testing to take place in the afternoon, as I would need time to have rest and sleep enough hours and get ready for the test. (As due to the stress with the upcoming test I might have a problem to sleep) For example, it can start at 1 pm where I will arrive at 12 noon, an hour before.

5. I would prefer the weather conditions to be good at the day of testing, as I am sensitive to the low atmospheric pressure and often get headaches, feel low and tired when it is cloudy and the atmospheric pressure is low.

[Paul2]

5. I would prefer the weather conditions to be good at the day of testing, as I am sensitive to the low atmospheric pressure and often get headaches, feel low and tired when it is cloudy and the atmospheric pressure is low.
[/indent]This looks like a non-starter, if you're saying that you may not perform as well during low atmospheric pressure.

[Peristarkawan]

This is what you and so many others here keep missing: If Pavel or anyone else can perform at a vastly above chance level (say 1 in a 100 million, consisting of 1 in 100 in the preliminary test and 1 in 1 million in the final test) in foolproof testing, that essentially confirms a paranormal ability, even if his hit rate is only, say, 60% versus an expected hit rate of 50%.

Fortunately, Pavel is claiming an accuracy of 75% in the current protocol, not 60%.

However, it is worth noting that in the affidavit tests, Pavel's overall hit rate was only 2/3. If Pavel were claiming that as his accuracy, then to establish it to odds of 1:1000 would require at least 62 hits out of 93 pairs of envelopes. Based on the time allowances in the current protocol, that would require a full day of testing, which I agree would be too arduous for the preliminary test.

[Rodney]

Fortunately, Pavel is claiming an accuracy of 75% in the current protocol, not 60%.

However, it is worth noting that in the affidavit tests, Pavel's overall hit rate was only 2/3. If Pavel were claiming that as his accuracy, then to establish it to odds of 1:1000 would require at least 62 hits out of 93 pairs of envelopes. Based on the time allowances in the current protocol, that would require a full day of testing, which I agree would be too arduous for the preliminary test.
So let's suppose Pavel gets 29 out of 40 envelopes correct. Will the JREF want to see him re-tested before the MDC ends, or will they say that his failure constitutes more proof that there is no such thing as the paranormal?

[IXP]

So let's suppose Pavel gets 29 out of 40 envelopes correct. Will the JREF want to see him re-tested before the MDC ends, or will they say that his failure constitutes more proof that there is no such thing as the paranormal?
Please show me a quote from Randi that claims that the MDC proves there is no such thing as the paranormal. If you want to interpret it this way, fine, but don't put words in other people's mouths.

IXP

[Rodney]

Please show me a quote from Randi that claims that the MDC proves there is no such thing as the paranormal. If you want to interpret it this way, fine, but don't put words in other people's mouths.

IXP
"Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"

By the way, if Pavel does get 29 out of 40 envelopes right, do you think he should be re-tested?

[Jackalgirl]

By the way, if Pavel does get 29 out of 40 envelopes right, do you think he should be re-tested?

I don't speak for JREF, but I am 99% certain that they will only consider success to be what's agreed to as a standard for success. If they agree that 30 out of 40 constitutes success, then 29 out of 40 will be a failure, period. At that point, Pavel would be welcome to reapply a year later (if the MDC is still going on).

[William Smith]

"Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"

By the way, if Pavel does get 29 out of 40 envelopes right, do you think he should be re-tested?

If he applies again, why not?

I don't want to derail this thread further, however, there seem quite a few a challenges out there for Pavel to pursue if the MDC ends in March 2010.

Rodney, what do you think of the protocol? Any comments, propositions?

[Miss_Kitt]

So far, so interesting. I am sure that JREF will stipulate that no one who will be in the room during the testing will be present when the envelopes are prepared; also, what provision will there be to check the unopened envelopes to verify that all pairs were the specified pair? (That is to be sure no form of reading one-ahead or bringing in an extra envelope will be used. After the trial, if the opened photo was A, then the unopened envelope should have B, etc.)
I think there's a "write-o" in the protocol, as it provides for the cross to be used in 3 of the 4 sets of pictures...and I believe one of the goals was to not re-use a picture for the series immediately following?

I think I can see how JackalGirl gets totally into this! This is very interesting and fun.

[Jackalgirl]

Good points, Miss Kitt -- I'm so glad that JREF handles this, because after everything I've read, I still don't understand the one-ahead trick. : )

I think perhaps it might be a good idea to open the first envelope, record the results, then open the second envelope. Then set both aside. The second envelope from each pair can't and won't get mixed in or confused or anything because the envelopes will be open and thus easily identifiable.

[Rodney]

I don't speak for JREF, but I am 99% certain that they will only consider success to be what's agreed to as a standard for success.
I agree with that.

If they agree that 30 out of 40 constitutes success, then 29 out of 40 will be a failure, period.
Here is where I think there needs to be a more sensible approach. The odds of getting 29 out of 40 correct by random chance are well under 1%. So, it seems to me that if the JREF is really open-minded about the paranormal, it would want Pavel re-tested in the near future to see if he could duplicate those results.

At that point, Pavel would be welcome to reapply a year later (if the MDC is still going on).
That's another problem isn't it? Suppose Pavel (or anyone else, for that matter) is close to passing the preliminary test when the clock runs out. Is the March 2010 expiration date for the JREF MDC Challenge set in stone?

[Jackalgirl]

Well, remember that the Challenge requires two tests: the preliminary and the formal tests. So if they agree that 29 out of 40 constitutes a success, then they'll run the test again to see if he can do it again. And since the Challenge consists of both tests, it doesn't matter if he only finishes the preliminary before the clock runs out -- the fact that there's a contract that requires a formal test upon success at the preliminary means that it (the second, formal test) will happen. Assuming, of course, I'm not misunderstanding how the MDC works. : )

[Startz]

So far, so interesting. I am sure that JREF will stipulate that no one who will be in the room during the testing will be present when the envelopes are prepared; also, what provision will there be to check the unopened envelopes to verify that all pairs were the specified pair? (That is to be sure no form of reading one-ahead or bringing in an extra envelope will be used. After the trial, if the opened photo was A, then the unopened envelope should have B, etc.)
I think there's a "write-o" in the protocol, as it provides for the cross to be used in 3 of the 4 sets of pictures...and I believe one of the goals was to not re-use a picture for the series immediately following?

I think I can see how JackalGirl gets totally into this! This is very interesting and fun.

I'm sure you're right about no one being in the room who was involved in preparing the envelopes.

Pavel has explained that an important part of the way his power works is that he should not see the contents of the second envelope. I believe he would be okay with opening them after the test.

What is "reading one ahead?" I'm ignorant about these things.

[Jackalgirl]

I'm sure you're right about no one being in the room who was involved in preparing the envelopes.

Pavel has explained that an important part of the way his power works is that he should not see the contents of the second envelope. I believe he would be okay with opening them after the test.

I think it will be important to make sure that the envelopes are properly labeled so that when, after the test, they are opened, it's clear which attempt each envelope belonged to.


What is "reading one ahead?" I'm ignorant about these things.

From Wikipedia, that ultimate source of accurate information: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billet_reading)

The effect is generally worked as follows. Members of the audience write messages on small slips of paper, or billets. The messages can be questions for the deceased, or simply statements that the performer could not know. The billets are then put into individual sealed envelopes, which are collected and given to the performer. The performer then takes one envelope at a time and accurately describes the message inside. After announcing the contents of each envelope, the performer opens it, as if to confirm his reading.

The trick used in billet reading is the one-ahead method. It relies on the performer knowing what is inside one of the envelopes beforehand, and using that knowledge to stay one step ahead of the audience. He may do this by having a plant in the audience submit a pre-arranged message as one of the billets, or by secretly opening one envelope. When the performer pretends to read the contents of the first sealed envelope, he actually recites the plant's message or the message from the secretly opened envelope. When he opens the first envelope to "check" his answer, he actually reads the first billet, which he then pretends to "read" inside the second envelope. This process is repeated down to the final envelope, which is either an empty decoy, or the plant's envelope, or the secretly opened envelope. It is necessary, of course, that no one but the performer see the billets until the trick is completed and all the billets are out. If the secret-opening variant is used, the performer must use sleight of hand to conceal that the last envelope is already open, or to "extract" the last billet from an empty decoy envelope.

Okay, so I get it now. ; )

[Cuddles]

Here is where I think there needs to be a more sensible approach. The odds of getting 29 out of 40 correct by random chance are well under 1%. So, it seems to me that if the JREF is really open-minded about the paranormal, it would want Pavel re-tested in the near future to see if he could duplicate those results.

Despite many explanations, you still refuse to understand what the challenge is. It is a challenge. Either you pass or you fail. End of story. Whether the JREF, Pavel or anyone else thinks a failure is interesting enough to warrant further investigation is irrelevant, since that further investigation would simply be research and nothing to do with the challenge. Now stop trying to derail this thread.

[Rodney]

If he applies again, why not?

I don't want to derail this thread further, however, there seem quite a few a challenges out there for Pavel to pursue if the MDC ends in March 2010.

Rodney, what do you think of the protocol? Any comments, propositions?
The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.

[steenkh]

So let's suppose Pavel gets 29 out of 40 envelopes correct. Will the JREF want to see him re-tested before the MDC ends, or will they say that his failure constitutes more proof that there is no such thing as the paranormal?
I believe the JREF will claim that yet another applicant could not perform as he claimed.

If it can be managed before the challenge closes, Pavel can ask for a retest after one year.

[William Smith]

The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.

Pavel named his propositions for "success" - actually he named a lot of them. As far as I can tell the protocol reflects Pavel's proposition.

[steenkh]

The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.
Is it not completely up to Pavel to state what he can do and what he cannot do? The task for the JREF is to ensure that he will get the prize if he can do what he claims, and that he will not get the prize if he cannot do it. I see nothing arbitrary here, except what claim Pavel may have.

[steenkh]

I think it should also be made part of the protocol that Pavel should get a non-blinded test where he can ascertain that his powers work under those conditions. In this way, he cannot later claim that the atmospheric pressure was too low, or that there was an odour in the room that ruined his concentration.

[IXP]

"Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"

I guess we speak a different language, because that does not sound at all like "The MDC Challenge is proof that the paranormal does not exist," to me.

By the way, if Pavel does get 29 out of 40 envelopes right, do you think he should be re-tested?
Yes, I think he should be re-tested 1,000,000 times until he wins by chance, because I like the guy!

IXP

[Moochie]

As typical of such claims, the current applicant is already preparing "outs" should the stars be inauspicious on the day. Why am I completely underwhelmed?


M.

[William Smith]

As typical of such claims, the current applicant is already preparing "outs" should the stars be inauspicious on the day. Why am I completely underwhelmed?


M.

I think low pressure should be defined properly in the protocol. Pavel, can you give the exact minimum pressure (in mb, kPa, Torr or psi) which has to be present for you to perform?

Concerning the odor: Which odors do you refer to specifically and what is the maximum (in ppm) allowed present for you to perform?

What minimum distance (in m or ft) must pictures have from you in order for you to be able to perform?

[pavel_do]

I think low pressure should be defined properly in the protocol. Pavel, can you give the exact minimum pressure (in mb, kPa, Torr or psi) which has to be present for you to perform?

Concerning the odor: Which odors do you refer to specifically and what is the maximum (in ppm) allowed present for you to perform?

What minimum distance (in m or ft) must pictures have from you in order for you to be able to perform?


here we go again.. any ways..

I don’t know mb, kPa, Torr or psi... and all of you perfectly understand what I mean by low pressure.. I am sure I am not the only one like that.. It is when Sky is covered with clouds and u feel like it is an evening so tired and low.. what ever that will be another reason to make fun of me.. We remove it from the conditions as already More than half the things that would make me more comfortable and helped me to perform better results.. that not much people interested in..

Re to odors I HATE when people not smell but stink with strong odors cause them over use it or mix it. Strong odors (perfumes) give me headache often.. what ever we remove it as well..
Every one happy??
Great lets move on!
Re to the pictures.. NO PICTURES ON THE WALLS OR ANY WHERE NEAR ME IN VISIBLE DISTANCE.. seeing them a specially if they have allot of colors and very bright, it can affect me.. by imprints in my brain and then it will appear in my vision when I will cover my ease.. Like when u look as the light and then still see it for some time when ur eyes closed.. ( stupid example but I think understandable)
Any think elts people don’t like here?? and for them it would be no problem to perform same test??

Have a nice weekend everyone.

[Startz]

I think low pressure should be defined properly in the protocol. Pavel, can you give the exact minimum pressure (in mb, kPa, Torr or psi) which has to be present for you to perform?

Concerning the odor: Which odors do you refer to specifically and what is the maximum (in ppm) allowed present for you to perform?

What minimum distance (in m or ft) must pictures have from you in order for you to be able to perform?

Pavel:

As a practical matter, some of your environmental conditions will be very difficult to measure objectively. Perhaps the best way around this will be if you are given a few minutes before the test to say whether the conditions are satisfactory. You would probably have to agree that once you have said the conditions are satisfactory, you will not be allowed to change your mind later.

Would this work for you?

[pavel_do]

Pavel:

As a practical matter, some of your environmental conditions will be very difficult to measure objectively. Perhaps the best way around this will be if you are given a few minutes before the test to say whether the conditions are satisfactory. You would probably have to agree that once you have said the conditions are satisfactory, you will not be allowed to change your mind later.

Would this work for you?

we just remove both "Preferences" as weather and Odor. Just hopefully there will be no cloudy and rainy day.. same as no one would come to the room where the test wil be hold.. smelling like the Perfume factory.. ( some people poring in on them self instead of having just a bit..)

[Startz]

we just remove both "Preferences" as weather and Odor. Just hopefully there will be no cloudy and rainy day.. same as no one would come to the room where the test wil be hold.. smelling like the Perfume factory.. ( some people poring in on them self instead of having just a bit..)

I suspect JREF is going to want you to agree at the beginning of the test that conditions are satisfactory. But then, I don't speak for JREF :)

[pavel_do]

I suspect JREF is going to want you to agree at the beginning of the test that conditions are satisfactory. But then, I don't speak for JREF :)

If I am not mistaken I will have to state it to the camera.. before the begging of the test. That I will do.:)

[Rodney]

I guess we speak a different language, because that does not sound at all like "The MDC Challenge is proof that the paranormal does not exist," to me.
So, with respect to the MDC, what is Randi "right" about?

Yes, I think he should be re-tested 1,000,000 times until he wins by chance, because I like the guy!
Getting 29 out of 40 correct would defy odds of better than 300 to 1 against -- not very likely to be a chance result.

[Ravenwood]

So that would be between the chance of drawing a Straight and drawing a Flush in a 5 card poker hand. Hardly ground shaking odds, & certainly within the realm of chance...

[Rodney]

So that would be between the chance of drawing a Straight and drawing a Flush in a 5 card poker hand. Hardly ground shaking odds, & certainly within the realm of chance...
What you're missing is that defying those odds the very first time -- whether in a Randi test or in a poker game -- is unusual. Obviously, if you play poker long enough, you will eventually draw a straight, a flush, and even a royal straight flush.

[steenkh]

What you're missing is that defying those odds the very first time -- whether in a Randi test or in a poker game -- is unusual. Obviously, if you play poker long enough, you will eventually draw a straight, a flush, and even a royal straight flush.So you are suggesting that if Pavel gets lucky, Randi should for some reason raise his chance of taking the million by giving him another test?

The JREF prize is there for people to prove what they claim to do, and if they cannot do it, that is the end of it. If somebody else finds it so fascinating that a claimant almost did it, he is free to do his own testing of the former claimant.

If Pavel only thinks he can do 29/40, that should have been his claim.

[William Smith]

I suspect JREF is going to want you to agree at the beginning of the test that conditions are satisfactory. But then, I don't speak for JREF :)

If I am not mistaken I will have to state it to the camera.. before the begging of the test. That I will do.:)

Yes, Pavel, you certainly will have to answer the question if the conditions meet your satisfaction.
I made my last post - using pedantry and emphasis - to illustrate a point.

If you do not agree with the conditions then there simply will be no test.

Weeding out even the slightest possibilities of interference to your claimed powers before the test happening only serves one purpose: To make sure the test will take place satisfying all parties involved.

[Pup]

The protocol seems pretty reasonable, but the definition of "success" seems pretty arbitrary.

When the point of the challenge is either to award a million dollars for succeeding, or nothing for failing, how could the definition be anything else but arbitrary? It's not like the challenger gets a million for 30 right, $500,000 for 29 right, $100,000 for 28 right...

[Marcus]

Pavel has promised no excuses if he fails. Although this would be unprecedented behaviour for a challenger, I think we could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this will be the case.

[Czarcasm]

Pavel has promised no excuses if he fails.
Nope, just excuses to back out of the test in the first place(sounds, smells, sights, atmospheric conditions.)

[pavel_do]

So you are suggesting that if Pavel gets lucky, Randi should for some reason raise his chance of taking the million by giving him another test?

The JREF prize is there for people to prove what they claim to do, and if they cannot do it, that is the end of it. If somebody else finds it so fascinating that a claimant almost did it, he is free to do his own testing of the former claimant.

If Pavel only thinks he can do 29/40, that should have been his claim.

:) I cant claim 29 out of 40.. cause that not beating 1.000 odds..:)

[pavel_do]

Re to all the posts about an excuses to back off from the test etc..
As I said before I am not child, and see no point in wasting my time and time of the others.. I spent allot of effort, money and time by now to move the test and to be tested, I spent almost 6 months in US hoping that while I ma here it could happen faster, all the running after Academics to find one that would find time to test me in order to write an affidavit letters to be able to aply for it.. etc.. I am not a spoiled reach guy who can afford wast his time.. and than “leave with pump” by saying in last moment,.. I don’t like the smell or something! In my proposal I have tried to list all the possible reasons that could affect the results.. I mentioned them.. I didn’t put any stupid excuses like If I don’t like some ones bad vibes, energy I want this person to leave the room ( and that could be even JREF representatives or someone elts), or I want it to be in midnight with a foul moon or in darknes or what ever elts stupid can be invented.! I listed reasonable and things they do affect me. Any way almost all of them was removed by now.

[IXP]

So, with respect to the MDC, what is Randi "right" about?

I think the MDC is excellent evidence that there are many people out there claiming abilities that they do not have. Period. No more, no less.

IXP

[William Smith]

Re to all the posts about an excuses to back off from the test etc..
As I said before I am not child, and see no point in wasting my time and time of the others.. I spent allot of effort, money and time by now to move the test and to be tested, I spent almost 6 months in US hoping that while I ma here it could happen faster, all the running after Academics to find one that would find time to test me in order to write an affidavit letters to be able to aply for it.. etc.. I am not a spoiled reach guy who can afford wast his time.. and than “leave with pump” by saying in last moment,.. I don’t like the smell or something! In my proposal I have tried to list all the possible reasons that could affect the results.. I mentioned them.. I didn’t put any stupid excuses like If I don’t like some ones bad vibes, energy I want this person to leave the room ( and that could be even JREF representatives or someone elts), or I want it to be in midnight with a foul moon or in darknes or what ever elts stupid can be invented.! I listed reasonable and things they do affect me. Any way almost all of them was removed by now.

For what it is worth, Pavel, I have to admit you do seem sincere enough to actually perform a controlled test. I have the recipe for humble pie ready. ;)

We - and by we I mean: I - tend to have a very critical position towards claims like yours. The vast majority of your predecessors rambled the heck out of their keyboards.

Remember to describe as specific as possible what conditions you need to perform so that you and the JREF can weed out any difficulties before the test. The more specific the protocol the less probable it is for any difficulties to arise and hinder your performance.



If you actually perform the controlled test you envision, regardless of the outcome I'd have a drink with you any day.

[Rodney]

I think the MDC is excellent evidence that there are many people out there claiming abilities that they do not have. Period. No more, no less.

IXP
Yes, but my point is that Randi does not believe in the paranormal, as opposed to being open-minded about it.

In any event, good luck to Pavel.

[Paul2]

Yes, but my point is that Randi does not believe in the paranormal, as opposed to being open-minded about it.


Not believing in something and being open-minded about it are not mutually exclusive. Can you show that they must be? Why can't Randi be/do both?

[Rodney]

Not believing in something and being open-minded about it are not mutually exclusive. Can you show that they must be? Why can't Randi be/do both?
I guess it depends on your perspective, but again, what do you think Randi meant when he stated: "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"

[Moochie]

I guess it depends on your perspective, but again, what do you think Randi meant when he stated: "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"

He can say this because he's been there, done that. Evidently you haven't. That is to say, there are laws that have been established and tested, ad nauseam, and perhaps Mr. Randi doubts that they ever will be overturned.

How do you see this?


M.

[chillzero]

Please take that to a new thread for discussion, and keep this one on the topic of Pavel's protocol. Thank you.

[steenkh]

:) I cant claim 29 out of 40.. cause that not beating 1.000 odds..:)
You should find out what you can claim according to your abilities, and then a protocol should be constructed to reflect that with the required odds. But of course I understand that you have never done this kind of experimentation before, so you actually do not know just what your abilities are. You have now settled on a protocol and you can only hope that your abilities can live up to the expectation.

[Peristarkawan]

Getting 29 out of 40 correct would defy odds of better than 300 to 1 against -- not very likely to be a chance result.

And what if Pavel gets only 10 correct out of 40? The odds of that are the same as the odds of getting 30 correct. Do you claim Pavel should also be retested in that case?

[Peristarkawan]

:) I cant claim 29 out of 40.. cause that not beating 1.000 odds..:)

Just to make sure you understand this, it is possible to claim a success rate lower than 75% and still have 1:1000 odds. A lower success rate would just require more trials to prove. For example, as I noted above, the odds of getting 60 or more correct out of 90 are also about 1:1000. The real problem with that is that it would be a much longer test.

[Startz]

Just to make sure you understand this, it is possible to claim a success rate lower than 75% and still have 1:1000 odds. A lower success rate would just require more trials to prove. For example, as I noted above, the odds of getting 60 or more correct out of 90 are also about 1:1000. The real problem with that is that it would be a much longer test.

Pavel understands this. He originally proposed more trials, but JREF felt this was problematic. The current design is intended to accommodate concerns raised by JREF.

[Rodney]

And what if Pavel gets only 10 correct out of 40? The odds of that are the same as the odds of getting 30 correct. Do you claim Pavel should also be retested in that case?
Now that you mention it, yes. ;)

[Rodney]

Pavel understands this. He originally proposed more trials, but JREF felt this was problematic. The current design is intended to accommodate concerns raised by JREF.
Which is why he definitely should be retested if he gets 29 -- or even 27 or 28 -- out of 40. If the JREF is serious about the paranormal, it can't ignore unusual results that fall just below an arbitrary standard that it establishes.

[RemieV]

Which is why he definitely should be retested if he gets 29 -- or even 27 or 28 -- out of 40. If the JREF is serious about the paranormal, it can't ignore unusual results that fall just below an arbitrary standard that it establishes.

Please stay on topic, particularly in this thread. The topic of the thread is the protocol for Pavel Ziborov's claim. Potential future testing has no place here.

[Gr8wight]

Which is why he definitely should be retested if he gets 29 -- or even 27 or 28 -- out of 40. If the JREF is serious about the paranormal, it can't ignore unusual results that fall just below an arbitrary standard that it establishes.

Oh, Rodney, we've all had this discussion before. Fifteen or twenty times, if I recall correctly. The JREF is not serious about the paranormal. They are serious about challenging those people who make claims about the paranormal to demonstrate their abilities. That's all we're asking Pavel, or any other applicant, to do. Demonstrate the exact ability you claim to have. If Pavel claims to be able to correctly identify 30 of 40 photographs, then 29 does not meet his own conditions.

Of course, until Pavel undertakes his test, your position on this is moot. What happens if he only gets 26 correct? Or 25? Or 19? Where do you draw the line? Or do you not recognise why it is necessary to draw a line?

Do you?

[Rodney]

Oh, Rodney, we've all had this discussion before. Fifteen or twenty times, if I recall correctly. The JREF is not serious about the paranormal. They are serious about challenging those people who make claims about the paranormal to demonstrate their abilities. That's all we're asking Pavel, or any other applicant, to do. Demonstrate the exact ability you claim to have. If Pavel claims to be able to correctly identify 30 of 40 photographs, then 29 does not meet his own conditions.

Of course, until Pavel undertakes his test, your position on this is moot. What happens if he only gets 26 correct? Or 25? Or 19? Where do you draw the line? Or do you not recognise why it is necessary to draw a line?

Do you?
Let's continue this discussion in the existing thread "Odds Standard for Preliminary Test."

[William Smith]

Let's continue this discussion in the existing thread "Odds Standard for Preliminary Test."

In said thread, Pavel made the following post:

He is right, though I think I will be able to perform 30 out of 40, will do my best for that. If I was sure I cant do that I would say I am not going for it… I was the one who asked for 40 pairs.. At least..
But the conditions is not as good for me as the other tests that would give me enough time, less stress in order to perform positive results.
I know some one will say now.. you see.. he prepared already an excuse in case he fails..
THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSES… no one forced me to apply and take test.. It is my own decision..
Just that I want test to happen.. And if I will not step out of my way and test conditions that would make me really comfortable etc.. that the test will never happen.. cause it take too many hours.. cause I have advantage, cause it is too many photos etc.. CAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PASS IT WITH THOSE CONDITONS..
I stepped way to far just to move some how the negotiations and make test possible..
I would be more comfortable with 2-3 trials ( let say by 30 pairs in each) where achieving positive results in any would mean I passed it by covering any way 1.000 odds that needed to pass preliminary test.. I am sure during all 2-3 trial I would perform evident results that I am real deal and able to see and perform what I am claiming to! Having 2-3 trials also reduce a stress level that is the main issue for me in order to be as calm as I can during a test… Every one would feel calmer and more comfortable knowing that he can perform 2-3 trial.. But not 1.. I have explained that many times.
Same with more pairs.. that is still covers 1.000 that is way far from getting by a chance and I see no problem in having a few hour test with allot of pairs that I am the one who pays for any way..
Etc.. many reasons that I have explained before many times that is just ignored, and I am in front of the fact that it will be not allowed full stop.
Like passing it make them to give me the money! that is just a preliminary test as we all know.
Just that passing it will mean that is possible to pass the second one and get the money.

I will be honest with you. If the JREF will not let me to have results revealed immediately after each pair is named, I am not taking this test. Cause that would mean I have agreed to everything that will make test almost impossible to pass and I have to rely in chance to pass it..
Ill just drop it, and will be looking for other ways of testing ( maybe JREF offer something reasonable too). There is a time.. my claim valid for 1 year if I am not mistaken.
I really want test to happen and doing my best to make it possible. Cause I know I will be able to show that such things is real and can exist and has to be studied etc.. There is a fake psychics.. but that dose not mean there is no real ones!

I highlighted one relevant part.

[pavel_do]

In said thread, Pavel made the following post:

I highlighted one relevant part.

I am sure most of people read it there, same as JREF..:) I see no reasons to copy and post it here too.. Or... Oh yes.. cause I said if JREF will not allow the envelopes to be opened immediately.. (that is not affect odds in any ways), so I am not taking this test.
And I am not taking this test with pairs, as I agreed to all that they wanted so far and that the last thing that would help me to show good results… and I am not getting off that.. If it cant not be agreed, that we have to find the other test to test me and I will do my best for that as I am doing any ways. So what the problem? I am being honest , as always but..:)
Every body, have a nice weekend.
Regards,
Pavel

[IXP]

I highlighted one relevant part.
What is your point? Pavel has always maintained that he foresees what will happen when the envelope is opened and this is why he needs each envelope to be opened immediately after the guess, so it is not confuse it with others.

IXP

[pavel_do]

What is your point? Pavel has always maintained that he foresees what will happen when the envelope is opened and this is why he needs each envelope to be opened immediately after the guess, so it is not confuse it with others.

IXP


His point is obvious.. to twist it and make look like I have no intentions to have any test and sort of wasting my time and the others etc..

I am not even going to argue it.. it is pointless. I am just sick of it to be honnest. When some one don’t want to see (admit) the truth, he will not see or admit it.. and the truth is that I am not wasting anyone’s time, and I really want to have proper good test and show that what I am claiming I am able to perform. And I will do my best to make it happen. I just cant as a lame sheep, agree to all the conditions that would put me in the position to lose the test, but not being able to perform it is best…
Any way I am sure who want to see it he sees it..

Or that was another joke? Or the way to encourage me? I am sorry but maybe due to a cultural difference and some others.. I don’t take it as a joke, and obviously not taking it as an encouraging…

[IXP]

I am with you Pavel.

I think you have been quite reasonable in trying to determine exactly what you can do and under what circumstances. You are one of the few who has not changed your story or come up with new demands each time JREF proposes something. I hope you get a test that you believe you can pass.

IXP

p.s. This does not mean that I think you will pass!

[Startz]

I am with you Pavel.

I think you have been quite reasonable in trying to determine exactly what you can do and under what circumstances. You are one of the few who has not changed your story or come up with new demands each time JREF proposes something. I hope you get a test that you believe you can pass.

IXP

p.s. This does not mean that I think you will pass!

I fully agree with IXP's position.

[Akhenaten]

Hi Pavel.

Welcome to город skeptiks :)

It was always going to be tough for you to deal with the rigourous examination of your ability here. It's just the nature of the place that it will sometimes become quite adversarial, and you seem to have done a brilliant job so far of not taking it personally, but rather in the spirit of transparency in which most criticisms and suggestions have been made.

Please believe that nobody here will attempt to twist your words with intent to discredit you. That's just not what the folks here do. Well, mostly :)

But people will insist, quite rightly, that all the cards are on the table, so to speak.

Your honesty has set you apart from the vast majority of previous claimants, and I'm sure this will continue until a mutually agreeable test is designed.


I understand your need to see the envelopes opened as you make your choices, and I also understand the objections to this, but sadly I don't know nearly enough to help with a solution. I just wanted to add a voice of support for the way you've gone about this, regardless of the outcome.


Good Luck Mate,

Dave

[Ravenwood]

I can't believe I missed this! Pavel, you said earier that you could not use the blank/white photos because you confused it sometimes with the cross picture. What if you used only blank/white photos & black/exposed photos as your "targets" in your test? if you had one black & one white in the pair, perhaps you would "see" one or the other more distinctively. If that is the case, then you could do say sets of 5 envelopes, but only one contains the black or white photo(whichever you can feel strongest about), the other 4 contain the opposite color photo. That would be a 1 in five chance, or 20% as opposed to the 50% chance per pair, meaning less runs. I would be really interested in seeing what your success with that protocol is, I'm sure one of our number crunchers will come up with how many runs you would have to do to meet the odds, assuming that you are sticking to the 75% accuracy claim...

[Peristarkawan]

I can't believe I missed this! Pavel, you said earier that you could not use the blank/white photos because you confused it sometimes with the cross picture. What if you used only blank/white photos & black/exposed photos as your "targets" in your test? if you had one black & one white in the pair, perhaps you would "see" one or the other more distinctively. If that is the case, then you could do say sets of 5 envelopes, but only one contains the black or white photo(whichever you can feel strongest about), the other 4 contain the opposite color photo. That would be a 1 in five chance, or 20% as opposed to the 50% chance per pair, meaning less runs. I would be really interested in seeing what your success with that protocol is, I'm sure one of our number crunchers will come up with how many runs you would have to do to meet the odds, assuming that you are sticking to the 75% accuracy claim...

The odds of getting 7 correct out of 10 would be 0.00086, about 1:1157.
At a 60% accuracy rate, the odds of getting 9 correct out of 15 would be 0.00078, about 1:1274.

[Startz]

There are a large number of statistical designs that can be used for these tests, as well as a large number of experimental procedures. Forumites have made a number of helpful suggestions along both lines that Pavel has used in coming up with a protocol.

As of right now, there is a specific proposed protocol that was emailed to JREF just over a week ago. It was also posted here in the forum. While waiting for JREF to respond, it would be most helpful for folks here to comment on the current draft protocol.

Remember that:

(1) Pavel's claimed ability is to "see" the content of envelopes that will be opened after his identification. He "sees" the envelopes being opened. He does not claim to see into the sealed envelopes. This is a claim of clairvoyance, as opposed to "x-ray vision."

(2) Pavel has always said his that his ability is imperfect.

(3) JREF wants to hold down the number of envelopes involved, and has expressed some preference for the test to be done in pairs of envelopes.

[pavel_do]

Thanks Startz, I wouldn't answer better!

[petre]

There are a large number of statistical designs that can be used for these tests, as well as a large number of experimental procedures. Forumites have made a number of helpful suggestions along both lines that Pavel has used in coming up with a protocol.

As of right now, there is a specific proposed protocol that was emailed to JREF just over a week ago. It was also posted here in the forum. While waiting for JREF to respond, it would be most helpful for folks here to comment on the current draft protocol.

Remember that:

(1) Pavel's claimed ability is to "see" the content of envelopes that will be opened after his identification. He "sees" the envelopes being opened. He does not claim to see into the sealed envelopes. This is a claim of clairvoyance, as opposed to "x-ray vision."

(2) Pavel has always said his that his ability is imperfect.

(3) JREF wants to hold down the number of envelopes involved, and has expressed some preference for the test to be done in pairs of envelopes.

Thanks for the summary! I might have missed it in my skimming, or it might have gotten a bit obfuscated in translation, but it wasn't until this thread that I realized the claimed ability was clairvoyance rather than some flavor of remote viewing. That makes it greatly more clear why the post-selection reveal might impact performance.

The following have probably already been suggested but...
It would seem likely that with an ability like this, testing several differentation classes would be much easier (one would be less likely to confuse the results of multiple trials). For example, do one trial with six envelopes containing pictures of zenner cards. Pavel points the one out from a list that will be chosen, then a die is rolled and that number envelope opened and the item shown to Pavel. A second trial is then done with pictures of six different colors of full-page rectangles. Another trial might use pictures of numerical digits, etc.

Perhaps he has more difficulty picking out one item from among a similar class of items though, so his own testing will have to guide the protocol. I was just hoping to offer a helpful suggestion based on my recent new understanding of the described ability.

[pavel_do]

Thanks for the summary! I might have missed it in my skimming, or it might have gotten a bit obfuscated in translation, but it wasn't until this thread that I realized the claimed ability was clairvoyance rather than some flavor of remote viewing. That makes it greatly more clear why the post-selection reveal might impact performance.

The following have probably already been suggested but...
It would seem likely that with an ability like this, testing several differentation classes would be much easier (one would be less likely to confuse the results of multiple trials). For example, do one trial with six envelopes containing pictures of zenner cards. Pavel points the one out from a list that will be chosen, then a die is rolled and that number envelope opened and the item shown to Pavel. A second trial is then done with pictures of six different colors of full-page rectangles. Another trial might use pictures of numerical digits, etc.

Perhaps he has more difficulty picking out one item from among a similar class of items though, so his own testing will have to guide the protocol. I was just hoping to offer a helpful suggestion based on my recent new understanding of the described ability.

Thank you, good advise.. But I think for JREF such test will be too complicated as it will again involve allot of different pictures etc... and they are not research team that interested in researching and testing.. it is a challenge..

[pavel_do]

I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”

[Moochie]

I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”


Good one :)

Reminds me of those sex lines which are staffed by all kinds of people -- grannies, guys with feminine sounding voices, and so on. I guess it's a living.


M.

[RemieV]

At this point, I'm going to need to have some discussions with other JREF staff members.

They are trickling back from the Galapagos trip. I'll update soon.

[Startz]

At this point, I'm going to need to have some discussions with other JREF staff members.

They are trickling back from the Galapagos trip. I'll update soon.

Remie,

Thanks for keeping us all in the loop.

[Myriad]

The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

The result of each trial is revealed immediately after each trial.

The image(s) can be the same for all the trials, or different for each trial, whatever Pavel thinks would be most helpful. He may be shown a copy of the trial's image or told in words what the image depicts at the start of each trial if that would be helpful.

18 hits in the 27 trials (2/3 or better correct) is a successful test. The probability of success by chance is well under 1 in 1000 (.000407). The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.

The success rate needed for success corresponds to getting 27 or more hits out of 40, something that appears to be more comfortably within Pavel's claimed success rate than 30 out of 40.

Note that the total number of envelopes involved is only one more than in the 40-trials protocol currently under consideration.

(If I'm interpreting Pavel's comments correctly, he suggests failures occur when he is unable to perceive the future opening of an envelope showing a target picture when the envelope does in fact contain the target picture -- in other words, false negatives. If that's the case, then the presence of the two blanks instead of one in each trial set should not decrease the probability of success per trial, given that the examination time he would have available per envelope would be the same.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Startz]

The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

>snip
Respectfully,
Myriad

I rather like this. It greatly reduces the probability of a false negative, down to about 40 percent. I think this is better than the revised protocol that Pavel (with a minor assist from me) submitted.

Pavel:

If you like this, perhaps you should send it in to Remie.
-Dick

[Rodney]

The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.
So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?

[Gr8wight]

So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?

The applicant may submit the protocol design. The JREF will decide if 17 out of 27, or 18 out of 27, or some other result will satisfy their statistical requirements. In any case, there are two possible outcomes: a) the applicant is successful, or: b) the applicant is unsuccessful. Giving the applicant a do-over for being kinda close is not provided for in the rules.

But why am I wasting my time writing this all out, Rodney? You already know this. You're just being deliberately obtuse for trolling purposes.

[Myriad]

So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?

Please note that my proposal is a suggestion from a third party, not an offer from JREF.

Pavel (with Startz's continued help) must negotiate these things. I would suggest -- still as a bystander -- that he choose ONE of the following possiblities, whichever he feels is most important to him, to negotiate for:

1. Explicit provision for a guaranteed extension of the test, within a set range of future dates, should a certain number of hits short of the requirement be made.

2. Allowance for a chance probability value for success somewhat over .001, such as allowing 17 of 27 to be counted as a success.

3. Slightly increased number of trials. With the trials as I suggested them, if there were 30 trials instead of 27 (that's ten more envelopes total than the 40-trial protocol, but fewer steps for the testers to go through during the test than the 40-trial protocol), 19 hits would be sufficient for p < .001 (.000737). That's essentially three more chances to make one more hit. (That seems surprising, but it's how the math works out.) Overall 19 out of 30 is approximately the same hit expectation per trial as 25 out of 40.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[pavel_do]

The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

The result of each trial is revealed immediately after each trial.

The image(s) can be the same for all the trials, or different for each trial, whatever Pavel thinks would be most helpful. He may be shown a copy of the trial's image or told in words what the image depicts at the start of each trial if that would be helpful.

18 hits in the 27 trials (2/3 or better correct) is a successful test. The probability of success by chance is well under 1 in 1000 (.000407). The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.

The success rate needed for success corresponds to getting 27 or more hits out of 40, something that appears to be more comfortably within Pavel's claimed success rate than 30 out of 40.

Note that the total number of envelopes involved is only one more than in the 40-trials protocol currently under consideration.

(If I'm interpreting Pavel's comments correctly, he suggests failures occur when he is unable to perceive the future opening of an envelope showing a target picture when the envelope does in fact contain the target picture -- in other words, false negatives. If that's the case, then the presence of the two blanks instead of one in each trial set should not decrease the probability of success per trial, given that the examination time he would have available per envelope would be the same.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you very much!
Sounds good.. as even the results would be more evident than 50/50 chance in pairs... For that reason before I was offering also 1 out of 3.. and even 2 out of 5.. I can try this one tomorrow or Saturday.. and It still might be better for me if there will be 3 photos.. not 2 blank.. But sound “easy” and I done things like this before.. just that there was 3 photos.. not 2 blank and 1 photo.. But I think it does not matter at all for the odds..:)
So we could prepare with Startz a new proposal for JREF and see what they would say..

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, Pavel --

Play around with different combinations of regular photos and blank photos and see what works best. In the end, it doesn't really matter, as long as there's some kind of target image (or non-image) that you can identify out of two other images or non-images (which need not necessarily be the same as each other).

I love the idea of three photos. This thread has inspired me to take a stats & probabilities class this next term. What a cool collaborative effort!

[Startz]

Thank you very much!
Sounds good.. as even the results would be more evident than 50/50 chance in pairs... For that reason before I was offering also 1 out of 3.. and even 2 out of 5.. I can try this one tomorrow or Saturday.. and It still might be better for me if there will be 3 photos.. not 2 blank.. But sound “easy” and I done things like this before.. just that there was 3 photos.. not 2 blank and 1 photo.. But I think it does not matter at all for the odds..:)
So we could prepare with Startz a new proposal for JREF and see what they would say..

Pavel:

This sounds good. I think that to keep the negotiations on track you should put some weight on keeping things simple. You might do well to stick exactly to Myriad's suggestion, perhaps using 3 photos if that is really important.

[Startz]

This thread has inspired me to take a stats & probabilities class this next term. What a cool collaborative effort!

Proving the success of the E in JREF!

[gibsonbaud]

Im not sure if I am the only person who noticied this or if it is something that has been covered before, or if im wong on this, but the statistics most of you have been posting seem faulty...

10 sets of two envelopes: probability of getting them in two distinct piles... 50%. Every time you start a new pair the probability of getting it right goes back to one out of two... (i.e. 1 out of 2, 2, out of 4, 3 out of 6), it's a constant 50% probability. It would be different if a stack of 20 was handed to them and they picked the correct one of 20 each time, but 1 of 2 each time stays at 50%.

Same goes for the three envelopes at a time method only its a 33.3% chance of getting them correct.

Each time a new one is done the number correct or incorrect goes up, but so does the total number of envelopes taken in to consideration.

EDIT:

PS: I would suggest making it so the envelopes cannot be picked up, ie, they are taped to the table or are fastened down, allowing them to be tuched but not held.

[Gr8wight]

Im not sure if I am the only person who noticied this or if it is something that has been covered before, or if im wong on this, but the statistics most of you have been posting seem faulty...

10 sets of two envelopes: probability of getting them in two distinct piles... 50%. Every time you start a new pair the probability of getting it right goes back to one out of two... (i.e. 1 out of 2, 2, out of 4, 3 out of 6), it's a constant 50% probability. It would be different if a stack of 20 was handed to them and they picked the correct one of 20 each time, but 1 of 2 each time stays at 50%.

Same goes for the three envelopes at a time method only its a 33.3% chance of getting them correct.

Each time a new one is done the number correct or incorrect goes up, but so does the total number of envelopes taken in to consideration.

Yes, but...

My chances of success in the first pair is 50%. My chances of success in the second pair is 50%. However, my chances of getting both right are only 25%.

[gibsonbaud]

Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...

[Startz]

Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...

What Gr8wight said is right. This very easy for you to check. Take a coin, guess heads or tails. Do it again. If you're right both times, score it as a success. Now run this two-toss experiment a few dozen times. You'll see that you get both tosses right about one time in four.

More formally, the joint probability of a sequence of independent events is the product of the individual probabilities.

[gibsonbaud]

ahh, im an idiot... Guss I've been out of school too long...lol.

[EHocking]

ahh, im an idiot... Guss I've been out of school too long...lol.I've posted this a number of times, but do find it a handy reference for checking the odds of random chance for simple tests such as being proposed for Pavel's challenge.
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html

[Jeff Wagg]

Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.

[Startz]

Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.

Jeff:

I am willing to help.

In fairness to Pavel, he has presented statistically sound protocols. JREF has been rather unresponsive as to what objections they have so that Pavel can revise them in accord with JREF's wishes.

Let me be more pointed than, as a fan of JREF, I wish were necessary. JREF has asked for communications to be done by email. When I have done as JREF has asked, JREF has not had the courtesy to return emails. If JREF were one of my PhD students, rather than an organization with a long, successful track record, I would say this in a less pleasant way.

Remie has sensibly pointed out that negotiations are better done by email than through this public forum. Following this wise advice, I have (on Pavel's behalf) sent in protocols by email (while posting informational copies to the forum). JREF's responses have been through the forum. There is no reason this could not have been settled in a week of back-and-forth email messages. Nearly all the delay time has been on JREF's end, not Pavel's

But in the interest of moving this forward, perhaps you could say what limit JREF has on the number of photos Pavel may use or how long the test can take, and whether JREF has objections to the specifics in previous proposals (those formally presented, not necessarily the side discussions here in the forum.)

While decisions are up to JREF and Pavel, if you find it helpful you should feel free to email me at the address I supplied to JREF when requested.

-Dick Startz

[EHocking]

With all due respect to everyone trying to make this work.

Why not go back to Pavel's basic claim?

That was he can pick 1 from 2, or 1 from 3 photographs.
7 times out of 10 (actually 67% in 50 trials)
This is a most basic test, it only then requires JREF to come up with the required number of trials required.

One of Pavel's first posts here, before his application, was to ask JREF what was the required success rate to win the Challenge.

This post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3980924&postcount=269) of mine has links to the above initial discussion with Pavel.

[pavel_do]

Jeff:

I am willing to help.

In fairness to Pavel, he has presented statistically sound protocols. JREF has been rather unresponsive as to what objections they have so that Pavel can revise them in accord with JREF's wishes.

Let me be more pointed than, as a fan of JREF, I wish were necessary. JREF has asked for communications to be done by email. When I have done as JREF has asked, JREF has not had the courtesy to return emails. If JREF were one of my PhD students, rather than an organization with a long, successful track record, I would say this in a less pleasant way.

Remie has sensibly pointed out that negotiations are better done by email than through this public forum. Following this wise advice, I have (on Pavel's behalf) sent in protocols by email (while posting informational copies to the forum). JREF's responses have been through the forum. There is no reason this could not have been settled in a week of back-and-forth email messages. Nearly all the delay time has been on JREF's end, not Pavel's

But in the interest of moving this forward, perhaps you could say what limit JREF has on the number of photos Pavel may use or how long the test can take, and whether JREF has objections to the specifics in previous proposals (those formally presented, not necessarily the side discussions here in the forum.)

While decisions are up to JREF and Pavel, if you find it helpful you should feel free to email me at the address I supplied to JREF when requested.

-Dick Startz


with all my respect to everyone.. the same was when I was trying to negotiate, sent propositions, asked questions regarding protocol, requirements etc... and there was not much result, first of all it is a weeks for a reply and second.. I have always answered every question that was asked or proposed by JREF (Remiev) and in my tern also posted question..and there was no reply...and as I have also written before, the replies would be really helpful in moving on with things.., yes JREF is busy, but to find out after weeks of waiting that the protocol is can not be accepted cause it is too complicated, and when I have asked like, why? what is the problem, what would be good enough etc.. nothing... so weeks was waisted.. and I was waiting in order not to waist myself and time of the others with the other protocols etc.. than have started to propose the other options hoping that one of them would suite.. again not knowing exactly what it should be suited in..a prat of time frame ( though I never asked for over 8 hours test) or the 1.000 odds to be covered for the first test.

[William Smith]

Do I dare to wake the dog? What's the lowdown on the progress here?

[Moochie]

"Been down so long, it looks like up to me."


M.

[Startz]

Do I dare to wake the dog? What's the lowdown on the progress here?

Pavel is actively working on a protocol that will be acceptable to JREF. He has also been traveling.

[DevilsAdvocate]

For kicks, I wrote up a protocol:

Materials Required:

87 5" x 6" color photographs processed at a shop approved by both parties. 29 each of the images Ship, Pyramids, Earth provided by the applicant.
6 sheets of 1-1/4" x 1-3/4" permanent white labels. Labels are printed for 29 each of the words Ship, Pyramids, Earth in black ink on three sheets, and the same in red ink on the other three sheets.
84 opaque envelopes large enough to hold a 5" x 6" photograph
28 rubber bands large enough to fit around the envelopes
28 small post-it notes
One standard six-sided die
One room with blank walls
One video camera
Two pens
Two pieces of paper
Clipboard
One chair
Two tables
One cardboard box or other device suitable to display examples of the three different photographs

Environment Stipulations:

1. Other than provided by JREF and Testers, no chemicals or devices that emit light or otherwise detect or reveal electromagnetic fields that would compromise the opacity of the envelopes may be possessed or used, unless approved by JREF.

2. To as much extent as possible, the test room shall be adequately lit, of a comfortable temperature, and free of distracting sounds and odors. Phones and other communication devices must remain off or on silent. Talking during the tests must be kept to a minimum and in quite tones. Cameras, other than the video camera used by the Testers, are not permitted. All persons attending the test should wear neutral colors with no distracting prints or images. No signs or banners are permitted during the test.

3. If any of the above listed are violated during a test trial, the person violating the rules may be required to leave the test room and the Applicant may be granted an additional break up to three minutes and restart the trial or choose to postpone the trial until the end of the set and start a new trial.

4. The walls of the test room shall not have any pictures, images, or distracting designs, unless approved by the Applicant.

5. All persons in the room during Test Preparation are not permitted to be present in the room during the test or to communicate in any way to any person present in the test room during the test.
6. If there is a setup or technological problem, or if for any reason the test must be halted due to extenuating circumstances, as determined by JREF, the test may be conducted up to two additional times.

Test Preparation:

1. The 87 photographs are produced and provided to the Testers.
2. JREF or Tester print labels for 29 each of the words “Ship”, “Pyramids”, “Earth” in black ink on three sheets, and the same in red ink on the other three sheets. Labels are provided to the Testers.
3. Tester writes on 28 post-it notes, numbers 1 to 27 and “TEST”.
4. Tester places 27 of each type of photograph into envelopes and seal the envelopes completely so that the photograph inside cannot be seen in any way. The photographs will be placed with the image facing the front of the envelope and the top of the image toward the top of the envelope. The envelopes will be kept separate so that there are three piles consisting of 27 envelopes that all contain the same image. Each Tester fulfilling these duties will fill/seal an envelope for each of the three types of photographs before proceeding to the next to ensure that there is no consistency in the manner in which all photographs of the same image are filled or sealed. The envelopes will have no markings of any kind.
5. Tester now has three piles of 27 envelopes. The envelopes in each pile contain photographs of the same image. These will be considered, from left to right, as piles A, B, and C. Test will compile 27 packets. Tester will pull down an envelope from each pile. Tester will roll a six-sided die. Tester will place the envelopes into a separate pile, bottom to top, based on the die roll as follows:
1) ABC
2) ACB
3) BAC
4) BCA
5) CAB
6) CBA
6. Tester takes the three envelopes as a packet, turns the packet 90 degrees to the right, and taps them on the table to move the contents of each envelope down. Tester places a rubber band around the packet, and places post-it note on the packet with the packer number (1-27). The envelopes will have no markings of any kind.
7. Tester compiles an additional packet, exactly as above, but does not seal the envelopes.
8. Tester holds each envelope up to at least the brightest light in the test room to ensure that the image of the photograph cannot be seen.
9. Tester places a rubber band around the three unsealed envelopes and places a post-it note on the packet labeled “TEST”.
10. Tester places the 27 packets, in order, on the storage table in the test room.
11. Tester places the TEST packet on the test table.
12. Tester places the labels printed in black ink on the test table.
13. Tester places the cardboard box or other device on the test table and tapes each of the three types of photographs up so that the Applicant will easily see them. Labels for each photograph will placed immediately above or below each photograph. Testers (and/or JREF) will verify that the labels match the photographs.
14. A chair will be placed at the test table for use by the Applicant.
15. A pen and piece of paper will be placed on the test table for use by the Applicant.

Test Verification:

1. Applicant will have up to 30 minutes to verify the test conditions.
2. Applicant will verify that the example photos and labels can be seen clearly and that the labels match the photographs.
3. Applicant will verify that the environment is suitable.
4. Applicant will verify that he can place a label on an envelope without difficulty. Applicant may use one of each label, or more if permitted by Testers or JREF.
5. Applicant will verify that he can demonstrate his ability according to the established protocol and standards in the current environment. Applicant may use the “TEST” packet to test his ability. The test packet consists of three envelopes containing each photo, exactly the same as every other packet that will be used in the test, except that the envelopes are not sealed so that the Applicant can verify that his abilities are working correctly.
6. If the Applicant cannot verify any of the above, JREF and Testers will, within reasonably ability and without altering the protocol, attempt to resolve any conflicts. Otherwise, the test may be considered a failure.
7. Both the Applicant and the Tester/JREF will verify that the conditions for the test are adequate.

Test Protocol:

1. JREF Staff will videotape all activity at the storage and test tables. The video will be time-stamped. The camera will be left running for the entirety of the test.
2. Tester will take a packet (in packet order) from the test table, remove the rubber band and post-it note, and place the packet on the test table. Tester will start a time clock for three minutes.
3. Applicant may use the paper provided for notes and may write on the envelope, but may not puncture the envelope in any way.
4. Applicant will have up to three minutes to identify and label the contents of one, and only one, envelope. Applicant will identify the contents of one envelope by placing a label on the envelope. Placing a label on an envelope constitutes a final decision.
5. If the Applicant has not placed a label on an envelope within the required time, it will be considered a “skip” and the packet will be placed on the storage at the end of the packet order be tried again. The Applicant may, at any time, choose to voluntarily skip a packet. The Applicant may only skip a maximum of nine packets (either voluntarily or involuntarily). If the Applicant has already skipped nine packets and the time expires on a packet, the test shall be considered a failure for the Applicant.
6. After the Applicant has placed a label on an envelope, the Tester will control the envelopes and the Applicant may not touch, write on, or place labels on the envelopes.
7. Tester will write the trial number (1-27) on all three envelopes.
8. Tester will record on paper the trial number and label applied by the Applicant.
9. Tester will open the envelope labeled by the Applicant. This will be done in front of the applicant.
10. Tester will select the red-ink label corresponding to the photo in the envelope and apply it to the envelope. This will be done in front of the applicant.
11. Tester will record on paper the label of the actual contents of the envelope and whether or not it matches the Applicant’s prediction. The Applicant will be told if this was recorded as a success or failure. The Tester may also state how many more failures are needed to fail the challenge.
12. Tester will open the other two envelopes in front of the applicant and place red-ink labels corresponding to their contents to demonstrate that the test is fair. Tester will move the packet to the storage table.
13. In the event that the Applicant fails a trial and it is revealed that the packet did not actually contain the three photos, the trial will be disregarded and done over.
14. Tester will repeat these procedures until all trials have been completed or the Applicant has conclusively failed.
15. If the Applicant has failed enough trials to be excluded from the terms of success, the test will end immediately.
16. Applicant may take up to 60 minutes of break time during the test. Applicant may take a break at any time. Tester will record break times and notify Applicant of amount of break time recorded and amount of break time available.

What Will Constitute a Successful Test:

Applicant must succeed in 18 of the 27 trials. If the Applicant fails on 10 trials, the test ends immediately.

Time required:

Maximum: 2.8 hours.

[DevilsAdvocate]

This looks like some good envelopes for the project: Black "Euro Flap" 5-1/4 x 7-1/4" (A7) Envelope 100 Pack

Just $17.75 for the whole 100 pack.

Seems like a lot of protocol for something so small. Pavel doesn't even seem to have a good hold on what he can do. I expect that under controlled conditions, Pavels ability equals chance. So the test time could be much shorter. However, that doesn’t reduce the preparation time required by JREF.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think I'm starting to see this as 8 hours JREF time to set all this up, and about 40 minutes for Pavel to fail. Maybe it's just me. It seems like a lot of work for someone who isn't real confident in his abilities.

I’m predicting total failure. If you can get better odds on it in Vegas, I’ll lay my money down. I’m not a gambling man, but I think I’d be willing to bet $1000 to any takers that Pavel can’t pass the protocol I posted.

[Rodney]

I think I’d be willing to bet $1000 to any takers that Pavel can’t pass the protocol I posted.
Are you giving odds? The (random) probability of Pavel passing your protocol is 2456 to 1 against. And if he gets 17 of 27, is that a failure with no possibility of a re-test within one year? The odds against that are 648 to 1 against.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Are you giving odds? The (random) probability of Pavel passing your protocol is 2456 to 1 against. And if he gets 17 of 27, is that a failure with no possibility of a re-test within one year? The odds against that are 648 to 1 against.So it seems pretty safe as a bet, doesn’t it? That is, unless something paranormal is going on and Pavel is really clairvoyant.

Someone else mentioned a claim that they can do long division and being tested with 100 questions with 4 multiple choice answers. I can do long division. I’m sure I can get at least 95 questions correct. What are the odds of that happening?

I understand that Pavel’s claim is that his ability is weak and doesn’t work 100%. I offered the above because it seemed to be the protocol that Pavel had last chosen to move forward with. Getting 18 out of 27 is the minimum about beyond 1 in 1000 odds and outside of 3 standard deviations. So the test would prove either that Pavel can do what he claims or he got extraordinarily lucky. 17 of 27 just seems very lucky. I don’t think there should be a do over for a close call (however if Pavel fails but comes close and wants to be retested in, say, 6 months, considering that the challenge will be ending soon, I think JREF should at least consider possibly bending the one year requirement a little.)

Personally, I think the whole thing should have stuck the original claim (at least I think it was) that Pavel can consistently get 7 out 10 picking from 2 images. I think you can get to 1 in 1000 odds in 6 sets of 10. You could just use 40 photos and start with 20 sets of envelopes and recycle the photos as the test goes on as needed. With 10 minutes between sets, 10 minutes break time per set, 3 minutes per trial with allowing a “skip-do later” for each trial, a set of 10 trials would take max 80 minutes, for max total test time of 8 hours. I would expect each set to actually take about 30 minutes, and that if Pavel was simply guessing that the test would be over within 2 hours. If Pavel was beating the odds well enough to keep going all the way through the test, I think JREF would want to keep putting together the envelope packages and stick out the potential 8 hours of testing.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I watched the video at YouTube videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pavelprorok).

I think the test could be very much simplified and quickened.

2 tests of 30 trials of 2 images. 60 photos. 2 minutes per trial (in the videos, Pavel made a determination in 4-20 seconds, so a full 2 minutes should be adequate). Pavel is allowed a maximum of 30 minutes break time during each test. Pavel may choose to “skip” up to 30 trials during each test-a “skip” trial moves to the end of the test and Pavel will have an additional 2 minutes to repeat the trial.

Maximum time for a test, therefore, is 2.5 hours.

Pavel must get 21 of 30 correct to pass a test. If Pavel passes the first test, the second test will be repeated exactly as the first.

Pavel must get 21 of 30 correct to pass the second test. If Pavel passes the second test, he will have passed the preliminary test.

I would expect that a test of 30 trials would actually take less than one hour. If Pavel is simply guessing and the odds play out at or less than the mean, the test would be over in less than an hour (or at most, 2.5 hours).

There is no heavy burden on JREF, unless Pavel succeeds. Considering Pavel’s claim and videos, it should not be difficult to achieve these results. If Pavel fails the first test because the things didn’t turn out right, that’s the way it goes. If Pavel gets all 30 right on the first test simply by guessing, that’s the way it goes.

Everyone wins. Simple test.

[Unlike a Bull]

I normally read these to laugh at the applicants. Either when their proposal gets changed to avoid their cheating and they run away, or when they are simply delusional and ramble on about "energies" or "spirits" or whatever it is they think gives them the power to obey the laws of probabilities and guess things at chance. But I'm not laughing at this guy. I really want to see him get tested. Mind you, I don't think he has the abilities he claims to. But, I don't know that he doesn't. I don't think he is intentionally lying though. I wish they would get the preliminary underway.

[William Smith]

I normally read these to laugh at the applicants. Either when their proposal gets changed to avoid their cheating and they run away, or when they are simply delusional and ramble on about "energies" or "spirits" or whatever it is they think gives them the power to obey the laws of probabilities and guess things at chance. But I'm not laughing at this guy. I really want to see him get tested. Mind you, I don't think he has the abilities he claims to. But, I don't know that he doesn't. I don't think he is intentionally lying though. I wish they would get the preliminary underway.

Welcome to the forum, Unlikab..., er, Unlike a Bull.

I feel the same way about Pavel. Hopefully he will proceed to a test.

[Startz]

Welcome to the forum, Unlikab..., er, Unlike a Bull.

I feel the same way about Pavel. Hopefully he will proceed to a test.

A news update is probably due.

Pavel has been working on a protocol that we think will satisfy JREF and have good properties in terms of the likelihood of both false positives and false negatives. I expect to have more specifics to report in the (relatively) near future.

I should also mention that Pavel has received a courteous inquiry about progress from the JREF staff, so they are upholding their end.

[The Professor]

I normally read these to laugh at the applicants. Either when their proposal gets changed to avoid their cheating and they run away, or when they are simply delusional and ramble on about "energies" or "spirits" or whatever it is they think gives them the power to obey the laws of probabilities and guess things at chance. But I'm not laughing at this guy. I really want to see him get tested. Mind you, I don't think he has the abilities he claims to. But, I don't know that he doesn't. I don't think he is intentionally lying though. I wish they would get the preliminary underway.

I like the fact that you like to laugh at the applicants :)

[Czarcasm]

I like the fact that you like to laugh at the applicants :)Does that mean you like all the responses you've received so far?

[Crundy]

No news on this I take it?

Pavel started out with a very strong "I can see images inside envelopes" claim, which was very promising and a stark change from other applicants who bang on about energy and have a complete inability to state what they can actually do.

Ever since then, Pavel has been winding down the extent of his abilities until it became "Given a 50-50 chance, I can occasionally get better than 50% right". It became obvious to everyone except Pavel that he does not have the ability he claims. There have been some excellent suggestions for protocols which would be a breeze for him if he did actually have the ability he claims (such as the one about having 9 blank photos and one with a picture on, and he has to find the real photo 7 times out of 10), but he makes up weird excuses for why he can't do this, for example, now instead of being able to see inside the envelopes he can see forward in time to opening the envelopes (why this excludes the mentioned protocol I don't know).

I think it's time to give up on this one. It would be good if Pavel had a moment of self realisation and started living his life, but instead he will probably spend the rest of his life trying to find a way to 'prove' his abilities to people and live in a state of permanent frustration.

[Startz]

No news on this I take it?

Pavel started out with a very strong "I can see images inside envelopes" claim, which was very promising and a stark change from other applicants who bang on about energy and have a complete inability to state what they can actually do.
...

I think it's time to give up on this one. It would be good if Pavel had a moment of self realisation and started living his life, but instead he will probably spend the rest of his life trying to find a way to 'prove' his abilities to people and live in a state of permanent frustration.

Pavel submitted a revised protocol on November 6.

Pavel had a completed new protocol at the beginning of October. I asked him to delay submission while I had the protocol reviewed by a statistician with experience in this area. We were fortunate to find a statistician who volunteered his services and was able to vet the new protocol.

[RemieV]

No news on this I take it?

Pavel started out with a very strong "I can see images inside envelopes" claim, which was very promising and a stark change from other applicants who bang on about energy and have a complete inability to state what they can actually do.

Ever since then, Pavel has been winding down the extent of his abilities until it became "Given a 50-50 chance, I can occasionally get better than 50% right". It became obvious to everyone except Pavel that he does not have the ability he claims. There have been some excellent suggestions for protocols which would be a breeze for him if he did actually have the ability he claims (such as the one about having 9 blank photos and one with a picture on, and he has to find the real photo 7 times out of 10), but he makes up weird excuses for why he can't do this, for example, now instead of being able to see inside the envelopes he can see forward in time to opening the envelopes (why this excludes the mentioned protocol I don't know).

I think it's time to give up on this one. It would be good if Pavel had a moment of self realisation and started living his life, but instead he will probably spend the rest of his life trying to find a way to 'prove' his abilities to people and live in a state of permanent frustration.

Startz is right - Pavel has submitted a new protocol. Startz - I'm not sure if you got my response to that. I got an auto-response message back when I sent it.

Pavel's protocol is on the list for review, as soon as we work out the testing of Patricia Putt. Her protocol is complete, and all that remains is the test.

[gibsonbaud]

I sure hope your statician works this out correctly, Last time I came on here and tried to explain it I got shot down. I'm not sure of the new protocols details, but if it is similar to those that where in place last time I checked on here you guys will be handing out a million dollars to someone that can guess just slightly better then chance.

[Cuddles]

I sure hope your statician works this out correctly, Last time I came on here and tried to explain it I got shot down. I'm not sure of the new protocols details, but if it is similar to those that where in place last time I checked on here you guys will be handing out a million dollars to someone that can guess just slightly better then chance.

Last time you came on here you made a very basic error, had that pointed out to you and left having admitted that you were wrong:
ahh, im an idiot... Guss I've been out of school too long...lol.
Unless you've taken some maths classes since then, I'd think twice about accusing everyone of getting it wrong again.

[gibsonbaud]

Hehe, Last time i dropeed it like that because it was very apparent that arguing the point was useless. You cannot convince some people the earth is round. I have taken plenty of math classes in my time. I suggest waiting to hear back from the stetician before talking trash like that.

My point is that you are resetting the odds each time. If you started with 60 envelopes, with 20 correct ones and 40 incorrect, he would have a 2.4% chance of getting all 20 correct, if you do sets of 3 where the previous envelopes are removed each time and it is reset to 1 correct, 2 incorrect, the odds will always be 1/3, so in a total of 20 tires, that would be 20/60, or 33%. But like I said, if you start with all 60, 20 being correct, each choice would reduce the odds, meaning, the first choice he would have 33% chance (20 correct cards, 40 incorrect), 2nd choice he would have a 32.2% (19 correct cards, 40 incorrect), keep going until the last one, which he would have a 2.4% chance of getting the correct one (1 correct card, 40 incorrect), which would satisfy the odds requerment.

[jsfisher]

Hehe, Last time i dropeed it like that because it was very apparent that arguing the point was useless. You cannot convince some people the earth is round. I have taken plenty of math classes in my time. I suggest waiting to hear back from the stetician before talking trash like that.

My point is that you are resetting the odds each time. If you started with 60 envelopes, with 20 correct ones and 40 incorrect, he would have a 2.4% chance of getting all 20 correct, if you do sets of 3 where the previous envelopes are removed each time and it is reset to 1 correct, 2 incorrect, the odds will always be 1/3, so in a total of 20 tires, that would be 20/60, or 33%. But like I said, if you start with all 60, 20 being correct, each choice would reduce the odds, meaning, the first choice he would have 33% chance (20 correct cards, 40 incorrect), 2nd choice he would have a 32.2% (19 correct cards, 40 incorrect), keep going until the last one, which he would have a 2.4% chance of getting the correct one (1 correct card, 40 incorrect), which would satisfy the odds requerment.


Just to be absolutely sure of what you are saying here, gibsonbaud, are you talking about a series of tests with 20 sets of envelopes, three in each set and with only one correct "target" in each set? Moreover, are you saying the probability in each test of correctly selecting the target envelope is 1/3?
Then, finally, are you saying that the probability of getting each and every test correct, all 20, is 1/3?

A "yes" response to the first two queries will get you no argument. Please tell me I misinterpreted your post, though, and that you won't say "yes" to the third.

[Coveredinbeeees]

Last time you came on here you made a very basic error, had that pointed out to you and left having admitted that you were wrong:
Hehe, Last time i dropeed it like that because it was very apparent that arguing the point was useless. You cannot convince some people the earth is round. I have taken plenty of math classes in my time. I suggest waiting to hear back from the stetician before talking trash like that.

I'm going to hold off from commenting on your views on the test you described in your most recent post until you have answered jsfisher's question.

In the mean time your post seems to infer that you still stand by your earlier calculations regarding the 50:50 odds per trial test.

It could easily be that you are being sarcastic but, just in case, I'll have a go at convincing you "that the Earth is round."

Your second post seemed to sum up your opinion most clearly.

Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...
bolding mine

Let me take the example of two consecutive tests. Gr8wight pointed out, correctly, that the odds of guessing a 50:50 chance correctly twice in a row are 1 in 4. You responded with the post I have just quoted claiming that the odds of guessing correctly twice in a row would actually be 1 in 2. If this is not your claim then feel free to ignore the following.

Consider the case of a coin toss. Each toss there are two possible outcomes and they are equally likely, heads or tails. Lets say that heads (H) represents a correct guess and tails (T) represents an incorrect guess. The odds of guessing this toss correctly are 1 in 2.

Now lets consider two tosses in a row. Again heads (H) will represent a correct guess.

There are four possible outcomes to a pair of tosses, all equally likely.

HH
HT
TH
TT

Only one of these four outcomes represents two correct guesses, the first one HH. The odds of correctly guessing two consecutive tosses is therefore 1 in 4.

Now consider the case of three tosses in a row. Now there are eight possible outcomes.

HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT

Only one of the eight outcomes above represents three correct guesses (HHH), so the odds of correctly guessing all 3 tosses is 1 in 8, not 1 in 2 as you suggested.

You can easily demonstrate this to yourself by following Startz' advice.

What Gr8wight said is right. This very easy for you to check. Take a coin, guess heads or tails. Do it again. If you're right both times, score it as a success. Now run this two-toss experiment a few dozen times. You'll see that you get both tosses right about one time in four.

I hope this helps.

'beeees

[gibsonbaud]

hehe, worry not guys, Its been a while since ive been on here and just figured id come back to "stir things up" a bit...
I was wrong the first time around I was WRONG and I admit it, this time around... Im just messin around. The only reason I kept it going this time was because of Cuddles jackass comment.

[gibsonbaud]

Does anyone know if Pavels revised protocol was approved yet?

[Akhenaten]

Considering your approach to this thread, how do you rate your chances of a polite response?

Hint: Aim low.

[chillzero]

Please remember to keep reponses in threads in this section strictly on topic to the Challenge.

[pavel_do]

I know its off topic..Mrs Moderator.. but still would like to post it..

Dear Boys and Girls..:) Ho Ho Ho..:)
I know its a bit too yearly for Xmass letter, but since I am not sure that I will have an Internet access on xmass days, so sending you it now.

Marry Christmas and Happy new year to you and your beloved ones! Have a great holly days and a new year coming. Wishing you all the best, may all that you wish for 2009 will come true the way you want it, with allots of pleasant surprises!

Sincerely yours.

Pavel

[Akhenaten]

I'll join you on the Naughty List.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Pavel, to you and yours.

Cheers.

Dave

[The Professor]

Does anyone know if Pavels revised protocol was approved yet?

Why no word on this approval?
What's the hold up?
It's been a MONTH!!!!!

[rjh01]

I would not worry, Professor. Sometimes applicants can take months to work out that they cannot work out a good protocol. Example here. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122607

[William Smith]

Why no word on this approval?
What's the hold up?
It's been a MONTH!!!!!

Rjh01 already made a valid point.
Also, the JREF lacks the resources to update the progess on each claim. I also find it unfortunate but we have to live with that - unless you want to donate a large sum and speed the process up.

And only a snarky cynic would say the JREF Staff's precious little time is often consumed by insincere applicants, wouldn't he?

[Klaymore]

So once the new protocol is vetted, where does Pavel get tested?

[Akhenaten]

So once the new protocol is vetted, where does Pavel get tested?

Pavel travels a bit, and if I recall correctly he was at one stage hoping that a test could be arranged to coincide with one of his visits to the United States.

[pavel_do]

Hello to everyone,
Well I am planing to go to US in April-May for a few weeks, so I could be tested while I am there, as according the rules my claim is expires in 1 year after submission that is June 5th. So I must be tested by that date.. As last time JREF said, now they finishing with claimant who's protocol is ready and only testing left.. than they get back to my.. It still takes time but, since till April there are still a few month, I guess it will be all arranged.:)

[RemieV]

A preliminary protocol has been completed and posted in Pavel's thread in the Challenge Applicants subforum.

Pavel - the application does not expire one year from submission. It expires one year from loss of contact with the applicant. Additionally, a failed test will bar a claimant from re-submitting an application for one year.

[Sparhawk]

The protocol states that the answer is disclosed at the end of each guess (yes/no). This may create bias in the claimant if they get too many consecutive no results.
What about only disclosing the answers at the end of the test to the claimant, but conduct an open test every hour, to determine that the claimant is still satisfied that his powers are working.

[Startz]

The protocol states that the answer is disclosed at the end of each guess (yes/no). This may create bias in the claimant if they get too many consecutive no results.
What about only disclosing the answers at the end of the test to the claimant, but conduct an open test every hour, to determine that the claimant is still satisfied that his powers are working.
My understanding is that it is Pavel's preference that the envelopes be opened immediately.

[William Smith]

Why is Pavel not allowed to bring observers?

@Sparhawk: In all of the protocols I have read in the MDC section the results were revealed after the entire test had been completed. I simply hope the JREF has very good reasons to abandon a well-working procedure. I brought this up before in the other thread.

[RemieV]

Because this will more than likely take place in a room more like a classroom than a lab. The observers would be *in* the testing room, and that is simply too many people who might either intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the testing.

Pavel specifically stated that he needs the envelopes to be opened as soon as he announces his response. That is why it is in the protocol as such.

[pavel_do]

Why is Pavel not allowed to bring observers?QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RemieV;4342852]Because this will more than likely take place in a room more like a classroom than a lab. The observers would be *in* the testing room, and that is simply too many people who might either intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the testing.

Pavel specifically stated that he needs the envelopes to be opened as soon as he announces his response. That is why it is in the protocol as such.


To be honest I cant understand it.. is that to make me more stressed by being in environment where I am alone and surrounded by only JREF members and volunteers?? That creates extra stress for me to be honest.. plus Only JREF allowed video taping, meaning what ever happened there its all in the hands of JREF. NO whiteness. :) I am not saying it to avoid testing I am just saying it cause that the way I feel, the test in the small lab, I am not finding good reason, why don't we do in in a bigger one? Just finding it weird and purposively complicating.. Can at least some one be there “for me”?? if its not some one who I know very well, can it be at least Startz who helps negotiate protocol? I will pay his tickets if I will be able to and if he will be able to attend it. I am human being and even simply psychology works on me, when you suppressed by all conditions and even cant have even 1 person in room who will be on “your side” that really not helping to be calm. Nevertheless again.. I am not sayng it to avoid testing.

YES I want envelopes to be open immediately, just that I don't want results board to be on my eye sight.

[William Smith]

Because this will more than likely take place in a room more like a classroom than a lab. The observers would be *in* the testing room, and that is simply too many people who might either intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the testing.

I assumed you might say that.

However, Pavel should be allowed to have observer/s of his chosing in the immediate testing area to allow for control of the process.
I would consider that an important accomodation, because it would not create - in Pavel's words: extra stress.

Both sides should focus on optimal test conditions to ensure an optimal result.


Pavel specifically stated that he needs the envelopes to be opened as soon as he announces his response. That is why it is in the protocol as such.

That would be one step towards optimal test conditions.

[William Smith]

...
YES I want envelopes to be open immediately, just that I don't want results board to be on my eye sight.

Why would you want the envelopes to be opened immediately if you can not see the results board?

[pavel_do]

Why would you want the envelopes to be opened immediately if you can not see the results board?


Well I want it to be open immediate as I have stated from day one cause when I hold envelope I am trying foresee what will I see when it will be revealed, so I need to see actual picture.. not YES or NO answer.... and I don't want see result board, cause I don't want to be destructed as my brain will be counting Hits and Misses, plus lines, squears etc.. So I prefer not too..

[William Smith]

Well I want it to be open immediate as I have stated from day one cause when I hold envelope I am trying foresee what will I see when it will be revealed, so I need to see actual picture.. not YES or NO answer.... and I don't want see result board, cause I don't want to be destructed as my brain will be counting Hits and Misses, plus lines, squears etc.. So I prefer not too..

I see.

Have you done trial runs with this exact test set-up?

[pavel_do]

I see.

Have you done trial runs with this exact test set-up?


I have done trials with pairs obviously, but not the exact way it was proposed by JREF.. cause they changed it a bit and take different set up, but any way..my “job” is to see what the photo is.. and how its all passed to me with what names and stuff that is different story..

[Crundy]

Can the room not contain the tester, Pavel, a JREF cameraman, and Pavel's cameraman? 4 shouldn't be too many for one room.

[Roma]

RemieV, I read that if Pavel gets 67% correct it will be considered a win. Isn't that pretty low?

[Startz]

RemieV, I read that if Pavel gets 67% correct it will be considered a win. Isn't that pretty low?

My calculation is that the probability of winning by chance is 0.00043686, roughly 1 chance in 2,000.

This will, of course, be checked by a JREF consultant, as RemieV mentioned in her posting in the challenge section

[Roma]

Thanks Startz, I learn something new everyday.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg
Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

SO TRANSPARENT!!!!!

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim. Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.

Discussing Moderation issues in threads outside the Forum Management section is not allowed, if you do this again your entire post will be removed.

[steenkh]

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim. Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.
Please explain why the JREF needs to go through all this trouble with applicants who seem incapable of stating a clear claim? They have been very obliging with Pavel because he seems sincere (compared to certain others, which will be off-topic to discuss here), but why should they do endless negotiations with him?

You can hardly call it "pulling a fast one", when you note for how long these negotiations have been going on. It is only reasonable that they draw a line.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg
....
__________________________________________________ ___________________

SO TRANSPARENT!!!!!

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim. Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.Talk about quote mining.

That was posted on 27th August 2008, 11:54 PM.

Unlike you, Pavel was always genuinely committed to participating in the Challenge and as such received a great deal of support from Forum members in helping iron out a protocol that suited his claim and suited him.

The latest post, 2 days ago, from RemieV demonstrates both the willingness and the honesty of both parties in concluding Pavel's Challenge application.

[Startz]

>snip______________________________________________ _______________________

SO TRANSPARENT!!!!!

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim. Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.

This is just offensive. JREF is actively engaged in negotiations with Pavel, with some intermediary work on my part. This is a matter of public record. We have sometimes had several email exchanges on a single day. While the protocol is probably messier than anyone wants, I expect that the evident good will on both sides will result in a test agreement in the near future.

[The Professor]

Won't happen! The JREF with the help of the rest of you will destroy this before you ever have to risk the Million. You ALWAYS DO :)
Why the THREAT from WAGG? He loves throwing his weight around saying ..."This is your Last Chance" ... It's just obvious.
You are right !!!!!... This guy is really trying yet he has to deal with these threats.
I feel his pain :)

[EHocking]

Won't happen! The JREF with the help of the rest of you will destroy this before you ever have to risk the Million. You ALWAYS DO Wrong.

As evidenced by the people who HAVE been tested for the MDC.

[Jeff Wagg]

Pavel and The Professor have nothing in common. Pavel is trying to work out something, but having trouble (which seems to be fixed.) The Professor never tried.

[The Professor]

Pavel and The Professor have nothing in common. Pavel is trying to work out something, but having trouble (which seems to be fixed.) The Professor never tried.
I disagree! I still want to take the challenge. I think that you are making Pavel jump through hoops that he doesn't need to. He is honestly trying.
He has filled out the application and notorized it. That takes a lot of work.
He sent it in.
He got a Media Presence somewhere. Not that easy.
Then he got someone to be an Academic and write something good for him.
That takes effort too.
Then he worked out an acceptable a Claim. That takes some doing.
He's tried to work with those on the Forum. Remarkable.
Now the Protocol .... Is that where this is now?
All of this seems to take a lot of time and effort.
Good Job Pavel !!!!!!!!
We do have a lot in common.
I commend you.:cool::cool:

[Darat]

Please keep to the topic of this thread which is the protocol for Pavel Ziborov. If you wish to discuss other protocols, applications and so on do so elsewhere.

[The Professor]

I am here to encourage you Pavel!
Keep at it. Time is running out but I have faith in you.
I will help you in any way!
Stick to your guns :)

[Crundy]

Can the room not contain the tester, Pavel, a JREF cameraman, and Pavel's cameraman? 4 shouldn't be too many for one room.

No-one answered this. So don't you think this would be sufficient?

[pavel_do]

How Cool! Happy birthday to me!:) JREF must tell you that is something cool! Note with Happy birthday!:)
xxx

[Moochie]

How Cool! Happy birthday to me!:) JREF must tell you that is something cool! Note with Happy birthday!:)
xxx


Is it your birthday? If so, :bcake: Happy Birthday!


M.

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry I missed your birthday, Pavel. Happy birthday yesterday and good luck with the challenge!

[William Smith]

Happy birthday and all the best on your next trip around the sun, Pavel.

[pavel_do]

Dear forum members,

I would like to thank you all for your time, help and patience during the negotiation of my protocol with JREF. Thank you for your support, critique and ideas. I have learned a lot, some of the suggestions helped me to improve the protocol and move on with negotiations.
This morning I received the next email from JREF.

Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”


I am speechless, to be honest. After dragging it for over a year and deliberately pushing me to accept THEIR conditions that would complicate the test and make it impossible for me to pass, JREF just want make it my fault and close file. I am given a “great” choice—my file will be closed or I have to agree with the protocol that guarantees my failure! JREF has dragged me with my protocol for so long, I had to wait MONTHS sometimes for their reply and seemed like they were sort of happy with it. And the problem was a bottle of water and the presence of someone from my side. Then I answered all there question, reviewed the protocol with the help of Startz and accepted some of JREF’s suggestions and objections, waited for the reply and opinion and what’s happened? After exactly four months I’ve received a reply which completely ignores all previous negotiations with NO answers to my questions. JREF asked me to send the latest protocol. OK. I was a bit confused but OK, did it, sent it! And here we go, after months of waiting—GET IT PAVEL! Now its as simple as: you fail or you fail!

I never from the very first day, NEVER claimed 100% accuracy and it was the JREF who asked me to state my accuracy. I did it, as you all know, totally transparent from my side and posted on forum. The JREF accepted my claims and after some months we started negotiating and we arrived where we arrived.

In the view of over a year of my "STRUGGLE" corresponding with JREF—one letter in a few months— and their deliberate push, as I said before, to the conditions that would guarantee JREF that I will fail.

There last threat to close my file if I don't agree to correctly identify 20 and I am not given even 1 chance to be wrong, they know I will not agree to this. They perfectly know it. Again, I never claimed 100% accuracy and even if supposedly we negotiated, say, 18 out of 20 that, first of all, more than my accuracy claimed and, second of all, I am not given chance anyway, Starz has offered me to write to JREF and ask for possible negotiation. Very kind of him but what negotiation are we talking about when… “What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility? If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.”

I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.

Nevertheless, I want to thank everybody here on this forum again.
My challenge is over! I leave JREF to their business that is to ridicule applicants and than to shout everywhere that they are the fairest challenge ever.
Now my file will be closed.
And, unfortunately, the words of Sally Feather, daughter of the founder of Rhine’s parapsychology center, finally came true: “You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.”

She was absolutely right. I guess she should get 1.000.000$ for prediction coming through!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

P.S.

My reply to JREF as follows..

Dear Alison,

From my side I have done more than enough to prove my willingness to be tested. And I think it is a normal wish to be tested fairly. I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure. I have nothing more to say but to close my file as I see no more point in negotiations with JREF.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

[William Smith]

...
I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.
...

Pavel, while you were one of the more courteous applicants, you did do a lot of waffling, which is usually the sign of someone not wanting to get tested.

We can never be sure whether it was due to a language barrier. I think you are quite intelligent, and I think you made calculated moves.

All in all, your walk in JREF territory was not a straight line, which can easily be seen from your posts.

If I were you - that is: serious about providing evidence for my claim under controlled conditions - I'd take up another challenge and do a test where possible. The JREF is obviously not the only girl at this dance.

[rjh01]

I agree with GzuzKryzt. Find other organizations that are willing to test you. Try the local universities. Try the media. You need to have something very simple to show. Once you can demonstrate the simple then you can do the more complex things. Doing the MDC is a hard task. No one has come close to winning the prize.

[EHocking]

Dear forum members,

...Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”pavel,

Since you are being asked to simplify the protocol you sent to JREF (June?) and the latest protocol on the MDC thread was in February, could you list the protocol in this thread to enable sincere posters to help you refine it to meet JREF's suggestion? If you prefer, you could PM the protocol to me.

It would seem a shame to have come all this way only to fall at the last fence.

[Marcus]

Pavel, they didn't say you had to get all 20 correct to pass. Someone help me out here, wouldn't the number be more like 17? I don't see how this protocol guarantees your failure.

[William Smith]

Pavel, they didn't say you had to get all 20 correct to pass. Someone help me out here, wouldn't the number be more like 17? I don't see how this protocol guarantees your failure.

The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.

[Rodney]

The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.
According to Pavel, Randi said:

"Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

"I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested."

All that Randi had to add is something like: "Of course, he doesn't have to get all 20 right. 16 would be acceptable, at least for the preliminary test."

So, will Randi make such a clarification?

[fls]

Dear forum members,

I would like to thank you all for your time, help and patience during the negotiation of my protocol with JREF. Thank you for your support, critique and ideas. I have learned a lot, some of the suggestions helped me to improve the protocol and move on with negotiations.
This morning I received the next email from JREF.

Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”


I am speechless, to be honest. After dragging it for over a year and deliberately pushing me to accept THEIR conditions that would complicate the test and make it impossible for me to pass, JREF just want make it my fault and close file. I am given a “great” choice—my file will be closed or I have to agree with the protocol that guarantees my failure! JREF has dragged me with my protocol for so long, I had to wait MONTHS sometimes for their reply and seemed like they were sort of happy with it. And the problem was a bottle of water and the presence of someone from my side. Then I answered all there question, reviewed the protocol with the help of Startz and accepted some of JREF’s suggestions and objections, waited for the reply and opinion and what’s happened? After exactly four months I’ve received a reply which completely ignores all previous negotiations with NO answers to my questions. JREF asked me to send the latest protocol. OK. I was a bit confused but OK, did it, sent it! And here we go, after months of waiting—GET IT PAVEL! Now its as simple as: you fail or you fail!

I agree with you. The response seems quite unfair. I followed your application process, but it's been so long that I have forgotten some of the details. However, I just re-read the last protocol you submitted to Alison and I don't understand why they suddenly felt it was too onerous (or why they made a fuss over something as simple as some water). If eight hours is now too long for a Challenge test, then it means that many claims will be dismissed on a technicality, rather than on merit, which makes the presence of the Challenge even less useful.

I never from the very first day, NEVER claimed 100% accuracy and it was the JREF who asked me to state my accuracy. I did it, as you all know, totally transparent from my side and posted on forum. The JREF accepted my claims and after some months we started negotiating and we arrived where we arrived.

I think you have misunderstood (or at least, I hope you have). Your success rate will probably be expected to correspond to the same probability given for success in the other test. However, you are right to be concerned. Reducing the number of tests means that you need a much higher success rate to reach the same level of probability. And this success rate will be higher than the success rate you have actually claimed (through your own testing). It sets you up to fail even if your claim is true and accurate. Which would make the critics of James Randi and the Challenge right. This is very disappointing.

In the view of over a year of my "STRUGGLE" corresponding with JREF—one letter in a few months— and their deliberate push, as I said before, to the conditions that would guarantee JREF that I will fail.

There last threat to close my file if I don't agree to correctly identify 20 and I am not given even 1 chance to be wrong, they know I will not agree to this. They perfectly know it. Again, I never claimed 100% accuracy and even if supposedly we negotiated, say, 18 out of 20 that, first of all, more than my accuracy claimed and, second of all, I am not given chance anyway, Starz has offered me to write to JREF and ask for possible negotiation. Very kind of him but what negotiation are we talking about when… “What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility? If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.”

I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.

Nevertheless, I want to thank everybody here on this forum again.
My challenge is over! I leave JREF to their business that is to ridicule applicants and than to shout everywhere that they are the fairest challenge ever.
Now my file will be closed.
And, unfortunately, the words of Sally Feather, daughter of the founder of Rhine’s parapsychology center, finally came true: “You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.”

She was absolutely right. I guess she should get 1.000.000$ for prediction coming through!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

P.S.

My reply to JREF as follows..

Dear Alison,

From my side I have done more than enough to prove my willingness to be tested. And I think it is a normal wish to be tested fairly. I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure. I have nothing more to say but to close my file as I see no more point in negotiations with JREF.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

Before you consider the matter closed, is it possible for you and Starz to review the protocol again and attempt a response? Otherwise, I'd do as others suggested and simply look elsewhere.

Linda

[William Smith]

According to Pavel, Randi said:

"Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

"I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested."

All that Randi had to add is something like: "Of course, he doesn't have to get all 20 right. 16 would be acceptable, at least for the preliminary test."

So, will Randi make such a clarification?

Before we play chinese whispers or delve into a he said, she said bonanza, let's await an official JREF response. Or, if one can't wait that long, ask challenge@randi.org

[Gr8wight]

I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure.

Pavel

Pavel,

Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.

[Pixel42]

Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.
AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.

[William Smith]

AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.

Let me remind everyone that Pavel wanted to use 200 photographs (or copies) in the last available protocol. If I remember correctly, at one point he wanted to use even more.

That is not a streamlined test. I'm sure we can agree on that.

Given Randi's penchant for simple test set-ups, he seems to have recently insisted on 20 trials, after a simple test did not materialize in the months and months before.

I also doubt very much that Randi insisted on Pavel nailing all 20 of those 20 trials. That's why I'd like to see a JREF statement.

[Pixel42]

Let me remind everyone that Pavel wanted to use 200 photographs (or copies) in the last available protocol. If I remember correctly, at one point he wanted to use even more.

That is not a streamlined test. I'm sure we can agree on that.
Absolutely.

Given Randi's penchant for simple test set-ups, he seems to have recently insisted on 20 trials, after a simple test did not materialize in the months and months before.
Which should be ample for a preliminary test.

I also doubt very much that Randi insisted on Pavel nailing all 20 of those 20 trials. That's why I'd like to see a JREF statement.
Likewise. I can see nothing in the correspondence he quoted that says he'd have to get all 20 right. Pavel seems to have simply assumed it.

[Elvis666]

Statistics might be a long way back for me, but wouldn't getting 10 or more right by chance have less than 1:1000 odds?

[fls]

AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.

The question isn't "how many photographs would he need to identify to achieve a p of <0.0005?", but "what p-value would be attached to his usual performance?"

Based on his own tests (if I am recalling correctly), he averages about 2/3 correct. If he performs as expected over 100 tests, the p-value for that achievement will be <0.0005. If he performs as expected over 20 tests, the p-value for that achievement will be 0.058. He will have done exactly what he claimed he could do both times, but only one will count as passing the preliminary challenge. Doesn't that strike anyone else as unfair?

It should also be noted that the usual set-up for the Challenge only offers each claimant a 50% chance of passing, even if their claims are true. Usually the claimant specifies a success rate, and the trial number is chosen so that that particular success rate will pass a particular p-value cut-off (0.001 is often thrown around here, but sometimes it is lower and sometimes it is higher). Doing it this way means that the claimant only has a 50% chance of passing. It would be better to take Power into consideration and choose a trial number that gives the claimant a better chance of passing (if they have the claimed ability) - say 80 or 90%. Of course, most claimants are too naive to realize that they are putting themselves at a disadvantage, and it's not to the JREF's advantage to point this out. And realistically, it doesn't matter when it comes to the results we usually see. It's not like claimants' performances are markedly different from the average, but slightly missing the p-value cut-off. They usually have quite ordinary performances - that is, their claimed success rates are effectively ruled-out by their performances anyway.

Let's look at what has happened here. Pavel sent in a protocol which gave him a 50% chance of passing - not ideal, but some people may find it acceptable. Randi suggests cutting the number of trials. Now I doubt that Randi intends to change Pavel's odds of winning to 1:17 instead of 1:1000 by staying with the same success rate, so it is likely that he will be asked to guess at least 18 correctly in order to pass the preliminary. If Pavel's real success rate is 0.67, then the chance that he will achieve a success rate of 0.90 is only about 2%. You can see that Randi has the ability to ensure that claimants will fail based on dictating how long a Challenge test will last. Of course, I cannot speak to his motivations for doing so. I suspect (or rather hope) that it is done out of naivety. But I would hope that he would demonstrate his good faith by changing his stance if this is pointed out to him.

Linda

[pavel_do]

Pavel,

Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.


I think Linda, (Thank you) answered to this question even better than I could have.


Reducing the number of tests means that you need a much higher success rate to reach the same level of probability. And this success rate will be higher than the success rate you have actually claimed (through your own testing). It sets you up to fail even if your claim is true and accurate. Which would make the critics of James Randi and the Challenge right. This is very disappointing.

Linda


I know that the JREF supporters will be blindly defend JREF.. that is normal.. same as I will defend myself and to be fairly treated..

I see no reason in treating me like that.. even if we leave a side the time and the way JREF has corresponded by keeping me waiting MONTHS and completely ignoring my questions etc..

1) All latest protocols were written with Stratz help (thanks to him for his help). He speaks English good enough, i guess, to be able to correct when I can't really explain myself and put it in plane English so that JREF could understand all of its parts.

2)The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

3) It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and accordion his opinion it was good enough.

4) It's too expensive? I'm supposed to pay for all the photos and stuff, NO? so JREF concerned about my money?
Or its too expensive to conduct? Well, I guess there are plenty of volunteers ready to participate... and JREF is going to be full of volunteers anyways...
Even if the test has to be conducted in UK, I am sure JREF has a lot of friends, including professor Richard Wisman.. or others? I am sure they could find free space for a test somewhere at the University or somewhere..? and I am sure many people would volunteer to help for free. NO??
Too expansive.. I think 1.000.000$ not a peanuts either.. and it's worth to spend some money to win it in my case and to spend some in order to make sure it was won fairly and not by mistake (in case JREF is really willing to award that money). Am i wrong?


The last thing.. to some people who doubt reply from JREF... Do you think I invented it..? I did not.. I am open and honest from day ONE here. I see no point in wasting my time and time of others and play games.

How ever I found some other challenges, most of the requirements the same more or less.. and I am fully ready.. I have affidavit letters, media presence and READY protocol proposal. And if someone genuinely wants to test my powers s/he is welcome to do so. I am open for the test. But the test should be a fair one. That will allow me to really show my ability not holding me in some frames to prevent me from showing what I am capable of.
Like JREF.. they say.. tell us what you can do.. tell us under what condition and show it...:) and when it comes to the matter.. everything comes to what JREF wants.. But in the end of the day..it's their money, their challenge and their rules. And whoever is willing to find the truth will find it and who is not.. will set too many rules for each and every case...to make sure who ever apply will never "get there" and this thing can go on and on... where applicants ridiculed and JREF is a hero!

[Moochie]

I've had misgivings about this test and the various protocols from the beginning. It's always seemed to me less a test of any claimed "paranormal ability" than a kind of lottery, with built-in calculated risk. For me to even consider that the claimant had an ability even slightly out of the ordinary he would need to perform well above chance consistently again and again over a very long period of time -- years rather than hours.


M.

[William Smith]

...
I know that the JREF supporters will be blindly defend JREF.. that is normal.. same as I will defend myself and to be fairly treated..

Can you specifically name JREF supporters who have blindly defended JREF in this case?

I see no reason in treating me like that.. even if we leave a side the time and the way JREF has corresponded by keeping me waiting MONTHS and completely ignoring my questions etc..

If the JREF accepted my application - I have said this before - I'd communicate with them via registered mail only. Perhaps I'd use the JREF Forum to replicate what I sent per registered mail.

If I suspected the JREF would stall I'd ask for a specific timetable. And so on.

I'd basically treat them as I would treat any business partner who would owe me one million dollars if I could do what I claim to be able to do.

...
And whoever is willing to find the truth will find it and who is not.. will set too many rules for each and every case...to make sure who ever apply will never "get there" and this thing can go on and on... where applicants ridiculed and JREF is a hero!

Where do you get that you are being ridiculed by the JREF?

The truth - as you call it, Pavel - should be replicable for you at any institution which does controlled tests in a professional way.

There are even some who pay you money if you do what you claim to be able to do.

Will you take the Pavel Ziborov Express elsewhere?

[pavel_do]

Can you specifically name JREF supporters who have blindly defended JREF in this case?

No comment about that..:rolleyes:


If the JREF accepted my application - I have said this before - I'd communicate with them via registered mail only. Perhaps I'd use the JREF Forum to replicate what I sent per registered mail.

If I suspected the JREF would stall I'd ask for a specific timetable. And so on.

I'd basically treat them as I would treat any business partner who would owe me one million dollars if I could do what I claim to be able to do.

Well, communication by Email.. took them sometimes months to reply.. can you imagine how much would it take by regular post..?

If you look back to the beginning of my communications with them.. I literally bugged them, bombarded with email when I didn't get any reply from them for some weeks.. and than I ended up calling them and than they got back to me that I am not the only one applicant and they getting back to me as soon as they able or something like that... don't remember exactly.. though I think i can find that letter if its not somewhere at forum...


The truth - as you call it, Pavel - should be replicable for you at any institution which does controlled tests in a professional way.

There are even some who pay you money if you do what you claim to be able to do.

Will you take the Pavel Ziborov Express elsewhere?

I will definitely! And if you know of any genuine researchers who as you say even pay for it, please let me know there contacts. I will gladly contact them.

p.s.

No I am not ridiculed by JREF... I meant previous applicants.. and of course the ridiculing wasn't so to say Open and direct it was done an a smart way.. to show everyone that JREF is happy to test everyone even if they claim to make others Urinate for instance but.. JREF always wins!! and no wonder as the contract that everyone has to sign in order to enter the challenge.. states..Rule number ONE the JREF is always right! Rule number two.. if the JREF is not right.. see rule number one... or we change the rules any ways.. as according to the contract JREF can change it at any time...

[Olowkow]

No I am not ridiculed by JREF... I meant previous applicants.. and of course the ridiculing wasn't so to say Open and direct it was done an a smart way.. to show everyone that JREF is happy to test everyone even if they claim to make others Urinate for instance but.. JREF always wins!! and no wonder as the contract that everyone has to sign in order to enter the challenge.. states..Rule number ONE the JREF is always right! Rule number two.. if the JREF is not right.. see rule number one... or we change the rules any ways.. as according to the contract JREF can change it at any time...
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html
Rule 1 and 2:
1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/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.
2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered.
Not quite what you claim, :D but stating one's abilities is always a great obstacle.

[William Smith]

No comment about that..:rolleyes:

Can you please name JREF supporters who have blindly defended JREF in this case?

Well, communication by Email.. took them sometimes months to reply.. can you imagine how much would it take by regular post..?

If you look back to the beginning of my communications with them.. I literally bugged them, bombarded with email when I didn't get any reply from them for some weeks.. and than I ended up calling them and than they got back to me that I am not the only one applicant and they getting back to me as soon as they able or something like that... don't remember exactly.. though I think i can find that letter if its not somewhere at forum...

My point in using registered mail was to be able to document the JREF's moves. Even in a court of law.

I do not know how you contacted JREF, if you really bombarded them, if you found the right tone or if you pulled a David Koenig. I can't comment on what I do not know.


I will definitely! And if you know of any genuine researchers who as you say even pay for it, please let me know there contacts. I will gladly contact them.
...

Somewhere in this subforum is a list with similar challenges which pay prizes for what you claim to be able to do.

If you are interested, try a search.

[Rodney]

Likewise. I can see nothing in the correspondence he quoted that says he'd have to get all 20 right. Pavel seems to have simply assumed it.
So when Randi stated (according to Pavel): "Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times," he really didn't mean getting all 20 correct, but he just couldn't be bothered to state how many correct would be sufficient to pass the preliminary test?

[pavel_do]

My point in using registered mail was to be able to document the JREF's moves. Even in a court of law.

I do not know how you contacted JREF, if you really bombarded them, if you found the right tone or if you pulled a David Koenig. I can't comment on what I do not know.

You cant really go to a court with the contract you sign before your application is accepted...
Beside that JREF if I am not mistaken always sued by someone and has plenty of court cases to defend themselves from..

Re to my bombarding them and there reply...just one reminder.. when I applied and they accepted my claim, they told me that will start negotiation as soon as TAM will be over and than I waited over 3 weeks or more..sending them bunch of emails (always being polite) and ended up calling them.. if you look to some of my posts and your lets say here...http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82062&page=14 from post #554 you will see...

I am sure Alison will confirm what a pest I were and than I just given up and waited for the replies as I Been told to...

and also you can ask Startz about correspondence with JREF and there replies..


Somewhere in this subforum is a list with similar challenges which pay prizes for what you claim to be able to do.

If you are interested, try a search.

Thank you I will look in to it.