Psychic Samurai applies for MDC...apparently...

[remirol]

This is why I am leaning toward a computer program that removes all reasoning. It will simply tell what the voices say. It will be self evident.


This is not going to be acceptable as a solution. Computer voice recognition still has a success rate of only about 97%, and that is using well-enunciated words in a clear voice on a system which has been previously trained to recognize that voice.

Asking a computer to recognize the sort of stuff that is produced by EVP/ITC is simply beyond its capability to do accurately even to the imperfect 97%; it would be a guessing game at best, and thus completely inappropriate to satisfy the "self-evident" portion of your claim.

Also, (as I believe someone else has pointed out), computer voice recognition _always_ attempts to make a word out of a sound, whether or not there was a word there in the first place. This would lead to an unacceptable rate of false positives, making it even more inappropriate.

Voice recognition software is a dead-end path here, Professor. I suggest going down an different avenue.

[Marcus]

You're supposed to be negotiating this protocol with JREF, you should simply email them and ask if voice recognition software is going to be acceptable.

[Loss Leader]

The Protocol is moving along with the help of NBC's Eric Floyd and the University Scientists here in Central Florida.


Please provide Eric Floyd's position at NBC along with any contact information you may have for him. Please provide the names and contact information for the "university scientists" with whom you are working.

[Azrael 5]

Please provide Eric Floyd's position at NBC along with any contact information you may have for him. Please provide the names and contact information for the "university scientists" with whom you are working.

It's remarkable that Eric Floyd and Rozzie Franco(a news reader)are so knowledgable in the creation of EVP/ITC's or in creating a scientifically sound protocol.
No suprise I cannot find a google ref for Eric Floyd(unless he's a sports player!) ;)

[not daSkeptic]

It is not common for applicants to have tested themselves with a protocol that is acceptable for the JREF. Most are only realising what controls should be part of protocol when they are advised by the JREF. The Professor is not different from other applicants in this respect.

This too is part of my point. If one is unaware of what a controlled experiment entails, then one's claims must be questioned. As you say, this applies to all applicants, not just the Professor.

I see four possibilities is a situation such as this:

The applicant questions their abilities and is sincerely trying to develop a worthy protocol.
The applicant does not question their abilities and is a fool.
The applicant is lying about their abilities.
The applicant is refusing to disclose the protocol of a prior controlled experiment.

[The Professor]

It is not common for applicants to have tested themselves with a protocol that is acceptable for the JREF. Most are only realising what controls should be part of protocol when they are advised by the JREF. The Professor is not different from other applicants in this respect. However, after umpteen pages of advice on this forum, he still has not grasped that a protocol is not the same as a test, and apparently he is only now conducting his first test using a protocol that he prefers to keep secret instead of keeping it open so that he could be advised by the very experienced members of this forum.

I offer the explanation that he is not devising the protocol for the JREF but for his own supporters who will be much less critical, and presumably he will present it as a videotaped show after he has dropped out of the MDC negotiations.

Firstly HAPPY BIRTHDAY ALISON !!!!!!
acusations against JREF members edited
I was told to ignore the naysayers early on and I will continue to do so.

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.

It removes the Self Evident problem. Seems fair to me. :)

I have some other good ideas by Charles Fort that I will be exploring this evening.

I also believe that we will be using a "Sniffer" to document the frequency influx.

Thanks for your help!
Dave

[remirol]

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.

It removes the Self Evident problem.

No, it does not, for reasons that have been explained by at least two people in this thread, one of them myself. It is not satisfactory, and results garnered from it will not be self-evident.

Wilfully ignoring those explanations does nothing for your credibility as far as making an honest effort to produce a protocol.

[NobbyNobbs]

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.

Where? With respect to the person who suggested it, it most certainly is not the best idea presented here. For the best ideas, I suggest you review Loss Leader's posts.

It removes the Self Evident problem. Seems fair to me. :)

It most certainly does not, for reasons outlined in the last 8 or so posts prior to this one.

[jj]

I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. The claim, if I understand it, is that you will produce a voice. I've seen some discussions about "what language", and so on, and I've got to wonder just how showing that one can produce a voice is in any fashion paranormal.

I do signal processing for a living, the number of ways that I can produce, trivially, something that "sounds like a voice" are, well, there's too many to list.

If we go all the way back to the 1939 World's Fair, and look at the Voder that Bell Labs showed then, we see something that was certainly mechanical, sounded mechanical, but that could produce a voice. Now, that "voice" had almost nothing, in terms of actual waveform, that actually compared to a voice waveform, but people trivially understood it as voice. The point is that a listener, trying to hear a voice, can and will turn almost anything with a short-term frequency spectrum that's something like a voice into "a voice, I heard a voice". The number of ways to create such things either deliberately or accidentally is legion.

If this is via RF, or more likely RFI, if I take sideband, for instance, and listen on the wrong sideband, I get 'funny sounding voices'. If I put an antenna in the air, even in a decent isolation, the amount of RF in the atmosphere in the USA these days will undoubtedly pick up some radio, AM or FM or what-have-you, and such radios, especially if put through nonlinear kinds of equipment can produce voices, combinations of voices, and we're still talking about ways to get, either deliberately or accidentally, reception of actual voices. There are many more, including a list of ways to do this by less than accident that I won't mention.

Now let us get down to simple issues of noise. If we have a non-flat noise source that varies with a peak in the 300-500Hz range, another peak in the 700-1500Hz range, and a third one from 1200-2000, guess what boys and girls, it's going to sound like a voice. Perhaps a voice speaking a drone (if the peaks don't move) or a voice speaking in a language nobody understands if the peaks do move around. That's just the result of noise sources. Add some "filtering" to "help recover the voice" and you can, purely by accident even, make just about any kind of noise source sound like a whispered voice. You can make just about any kind of pulse-train or strongly harmonic signal sound like voiced speech.

How can the test administrator assure us all that this is not what's happening. I'll be entirely kind and assume that this is all entirely on the up-and-up, sincere, and what-have-you, and still say that there is no way I can imagine, given a few bits of electronic gear in the midst of this, that there is any way at all to verify that the cause is supernatural.

[jj]

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.


Voice recognition, at this time and place, if you're talking about mechanical recognition, is in a much worse state than human perception. It's completely unsuitable to judge "is that a voice", all it can judge is the question of if, or not, certian spectral paramaters are met, in terms of recognition of voices, phonemes, etc.

I have an entire wall of literature on the subject in my garage from the IEEE. It's not a simple subject, and it doesn't work very well.

[steenkh]

Please provide Eric Floyd's position at NBC along with any contact information you may have for him. Please provide the names and contact information for the "university scientists" with whom you are working.
I find this kind of request unhelpful. TP can have assistance from whoever he chooses, and there is no reason why he should should tell who he asks for help, and who he does not ask. He has not said that they are part of the protocol.

We would of course be more impressed if he enlisted the help of people who actually are reputed to know how to construct a protocol, but if he prefers news readers and celebrities, that is his choice.

[gdnp]

Professor, if you could provide us a sample with one of the voices you recorded on October 31 this would be most useful in developing a protocol. Even a short transcript of what the voice said would be invaluable. You have many people here who are willing to help, but without this basic information we are wandering in the dark.

[Marcus]

Firstly HAPPY BIRTHDAY ALISON !!!!!!
acusations against JREF members edited
I was told to ignore the naysayers early on and I will continue to do so.

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.

It removes the Self Evident problem. Seems fair to me. :)

I have some other good ideas by Charles Fort that I will be exploring this evening.

I also believe that we will be using a "Sniffer" to document the frequency influx.

Thanks for your help!
Dave

Don't take our word for it, a single email to jref will tell you if this idea has legs or not. That's what protocol negotiations are for.

[NobbyNobbs]

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.


I taught at a school for kids with learning difficulties. Several of them had problems physically writing, and used voice recognition to write their essays. As I recall, the software took several hours of training to "learn" your voice, and even then was not wholy accurate. And that's for a clear, well-articulated voice, speaking directly into a microphone, reading long passages.

[Jeff Wagg]

For the record, The Professor and I have not discussed protocol since before Halloween. We did have a recent e-mail exchange, but it was about other matters. At this point, we have a claim, and that is all. We have nothing close to a working protocol.

[eirik]

Firstly HAPPY BIRTHDAY ALISON !!!!!!
acusations against JREF members editedDave

Hmmm. This is not helping your case, dave.

I was told to ignore the naysayers early on and I will continue to do so.

Don't take this too literally, it is a figure of speech. You should take notice of criticism related to the protocol.

The Voice Recognition Idea was one from the JREF Forum to be used in the Protocol. One of the best Protocol Ideas I've heard so far IMHO.

It removes the Self Evident problem. Seems fair to me. :)

No, it is not going away. Please read the excellent posts of JJ, ##1509 and 1510, and also NobbyNobbs #1514.

I also believe that we will be using a "Sniffer" to document the frequency influx.

OK: Forgive me for asking about these things:

Will you be using a frequency sniffer? Is that because the spirits communicate in high frequency EM waves?

So, in the prelim, the spirits/entities/(insert what you likes) are going to communicate by radio waves. A radio receiver will modulate and amplify the signal, and a recording device will record. Seems very basic to me.

Am I in the "ballpark"?

The problem with this claim is still that it doesn't demonstrate anything paranormal. The "voices" can be either just noise, interpreted into a voices(parodelia), it could be a third accomplice transmitting voices by radio, or it could be any radio signals from any radio communication in the area.

I can not see how you can rule out either of these problems.

First: You might be able to rule out an accomplice/ordinary radio signals. Problem is, if you buy a radio frequency-proof cage(if one 100 % effective exist) and put the radio receiver in it, does this not stop the entities as well? What did your experience on Halloween tell you? Since this have been addressed earlier, I assume this is not a problem.

Second, and even more difficult: Parodelia. "The Self Evident problem". It is not likely that the JREF will accept judging by neither a scientist, ten scientists, or by computer software. You will have to do without judging.

I have no idea how you are going to resolve this with your current claim. It might very well be untestable. Good luck anyway.

[Loss Leader]

Where? With respect to the person who suggested it, it most certainly is not the best idea presented here. For the best ideas, I suggest you review Loss Leader's posts.




Which would be great except for the fact that I'm pretty sure I was the one who suggested voice recognition software.

I was just spitballing at the time. It seemed to me that such software could solve the problem of whether the "voice" was significantly louder than background noise. If Dragon hears a voice, we know that it's not trying to interpret static.

However, I certainly concede to those who know more about this software than I do. I know almost nothing about it. If the general opinion is that it is not a reliable indicator of whether a thing was said, I accept it entirely.

[The_Animus]

This entire post is a continuation from:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129364

It was closed and I was told to go here instead.

All EVP recordings I've heard so far are only hissing and moaning interpreted as actual words. I think it's fair to (at the very least) consider the possibility that The Professor's EVP recordings could be just hissing and moaning interpreted as actual words.

As I said before, if it is hissing and moaning it is not clear and intelligible speech.

Please download this 150-KB ZIP file (http://www.jojonete.com/20081124_SampleSounds.zip). It contains 6 sound samples. The question is: which of them are "clear and intelligible recordings"? I guess your answer to that question would differ a lot from The Professor's answer to the very same question.
It's very important to have the question "what is considered clear and intelligible?" answered before the test begins. Deciding it after the test would lead to endless discussions.

I did. #1 is clear and intelligible. If you gave that recording to 10 people I highly suspect that all 10 would write down having heard the same thing independent of one another. #2 sounds like it is in spanish so I can't say. For that you'd have to get 10 people who speak spanish. The rest are not clear and intelligible.

Which, of course, you are able to determine by not having read it. Riiiiight. I refer you to my prior paragraph about not being taken seriously; because at this point, I certainly don't.

I'll ignore your insults and assume they come because I did not properly explain to you why that information is irrelevant. I do not care about the professor, or what he has said in this entire thread. I am concerned with this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122607. More specifically I am concerned solely with whether or not it is fair to reject, as objective evidence of the supernatural, clear, intelligible speech not from a living person. Notice that this topic can be completely independent of the professor? What he said or did not say has no bearing on this. He does not own the scenario. You could just as well consider it as if I had made the claim that I could communicate with the dead in a clear, intelligible manner. Not that I ever would seeing as I don't believe in ghosts or entities or anything of that sort. To avoid any continuing confusion further discussion of my specific topic will be as if I made the claim and the protocol.

Two out of three of my above examples do not qualify as "clear and intelligible" to me; I can understand no dialects of Chinese, and voice disguisers operate by inherently making a voice unclear. However, someone who was a Chinese native might well understand the second example and consider it perfectly intelligible. How do you expect to resolve such disagreements between listeners? (Answer: you can't, and this is why it's a bad idea; see below).

I like how you answer your own question lol. First of all I don't think the different languages issue would be a problem. If I speak to an entity in English, why would it respond in another language? It would make no sense at all that an entity would comprehend the English language and decide to communicate back to this English speaker by then speaking in a different language. Even so, if it is clear and intelligible the language it is in will be able to be determined. At this point a number of independent people who speak that language can conduct the procedure I outline later in this post. As for a voice disguiser why would an entity have a voice disguiser? That's just weird. Even so, a disguiser does not make what is said unclear, it alters the pitch or tone of the voice. Thus what is said is still identifiable while the voice of the person who says it is not.

At this point you are simply repeating yourself without either putting any thought into what you're saying, or reading what people are saying to you. Specifically, you did not answer this:
There are a number of variants of this question, all of which are possible sources of contention over what was actually said. The 8-out-of-10 thing has been brought up before, and the obvious problem is: how do you know the 2 aren't right, and the 8 aren't wrong?


More insults. You can discuss things respectfully or you will be ignored. Either is fine by me.

To answer, you can't know the 2 aren't right. You cannot know anything with absolute certainty. Science never has and never will deal in the realm of absolute certainty. If that was what was demanded for the $million challenge then the challenge would rightly be called a sham. Science is based on probability or likelihood that a law or study is true. For many studies significance is based on a p<.05 or p<.01. Even with a 5% or 1% chance of type I error these studies are considered very likely to show a real relationship. I'm not certain but I thought the JREF required something like .001 for the preliminary test and final test. How do you know that each time that 1/1000 chance didn't happen? (And now to answer my own question!) You don't. It's just extremely unlikely.

So let me lay it out like this.
Assume for the sake of this hypothetical situation, that measures have been taken to ensure that no cheating is going on. Also assume for the purpose of simplicity that the entity speaks English. I go to a spot where I claim I can communicate with otherworldly entities or something of that nature. I don't really know anything about EVP recordings so I don't know if it would also record the questions I ask. If they don't then in addition to the EVP recording would be a tape recorder started at the same time as the EVP. After I say I'm done communicating with the entity the EVP is given to 100 independent people who are told absolutely nothing about this other than they are needed for a study and need to listen to this recording and do their best to transcribe what they hear. They will all do this in separate rooms or at separate times to ensure they don't influence one another.

Let's say that 95 out of 100 people wrote down having heard the same words and phrases.

What would be the odds of the EVP, picking up words and phrases, the words and phrases are answers to my questions, they are answered in correct order and always after I ask the question, and were understood clearly and intelligibly by 95 out of 100 independent listeners?

[Robaato]

Please show where the JREF agreed to 6pm.
Actually, please show me where the JREF has agreed to anything protocol related at all.

Seriously, has there been any communication, much less agreement, lately?

[RoboTimbo]

<snip>
What would be the odds of the EVP, picking up words and phrases, the words and phrases are answers to my questions, they are answered in correct order and always after I ask the question, and were understood clearly and intelligibly by 95 out of 100 independent listeners?


I would suggest that you submit a tentative protocol so that it can be examined bit by bit. This may be a great help in developing a protocol for The Professor, you standing in as proxy for him. We might be able to actually have a conversation about it.

[Azrael 5]

The_Animus it doesn't matter(to me anyway)wether voices are clear.it's wetehr they are paranormal(belnging to the dead).
How do you make that self evident?!

I have an idea based on a claim of TP's on Magic Cafe.He claim's to have contacted a dead NASA employee,and has ITC/EVP of said person.Have him summon this particular entity,I'm sure JREF can agree to a protocol for that.

Maybe if he could just produce this communication now,and how it was recieved,he could use that as a progression towards a protocol.

[The Professor]

For the record, The Professor and I have not discussed protocol since before Halloween. We did have a recent e-mail exchange, but it was about other matters. At this point, we have a claim, and that is all. We have nothing close to a working protocol.

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.


David Koenig to jeff
show details 9:28 AM (14 hours ago)

Reply

Jeff

I will take your questions one at a time.

1) "I understand that you've been contacting the JREF, and have told them that you've been in contact with me. I also understand that you're complaining that forum members have been checking up on you."

Yes, I have been contacting the JREF. I've spoken with Shaun, Randi and another nice lady who answered the phone a time or two. I've spoken with Randi and Shaun at least two time each and maybe more. I asked them several questions and got a few great answers. Very helpful.

In my last conversation with Shaun he said that "he" would contact you about my concern over JREF Forum members directly interfering in the JREF MDC Protocol as in their contacting the location's Police Department and telling them lies about me. (It appears that he did) They have publicly stated on the JREF forum that they told the Lake Helen Police Department that I was going to perform a MAGIC SHOW in their cemetery. I think that this would upset any authorities. Please show me where I claimed I'd perform a Magic Show. All of my conversations with the authorities have been on how meet in their cemetery in a respectful manner.

I have never stated that I've been in contact with you other than the times that I have. I may have said that I hoped to email you when I'd finished my protocol, but I've never stated that we had any other contact.

2) "First, you should not call the JREF. There is no one there who can help you".

I can't agree. I have found my conversations with James Randi and Shaun (Hope the spelling is correct) very enlightening. Being a magician, speaking with Randi was a privilege. I feel that direct contact is very efficient. I have learned a lot about the way things are run and what is expected of me. I would think that the more direct contact the more information that could be utilized to help in the negotiations and development of the protocol.

Are you now saying that I am "Prohibited" from calling the JREF?

3) "Second, forum members are private individuals. What they do is their business"

I've never said that Forum member's "Weren't" private individuals, but the JREF Publishes what they say and contributes to the information used in what they do. Are you defending Eirik (Not really sure that's his name or that he's a lawyer as claimed) and his direct interference with my proposed location for the JREF MDC?

What he's claimed is an obvious lie. I've never said I'd be performing a MAGIC SHOW in the Lake Helen Cemetery. NEVER!
But that is what he's claimed in his contact with them. (There are other problems with his attempted sabotage that I can go into later if you'd like to know the truth)

Do you support this lie?
Do you advocate his interference?
Do you have personal knowledge of him as a friend or acquaintance?

If they Directly Interfere with my proposed protocol and the procurement of the necessary location wouldn't this be "Our" business as well? Both myself and the JREF?

If not ... then why?

3) "However, because of your calling, I know that you've not been honest with us. You repeatedly say that you're in discussions with me, even though we haven't communicated since before Halloween. Also, if what I hear is true, you lied about getting permission to conduct your ritual in the cemetery."

I have been Totally Honest with you. The calls actually Prove that! I have never to the best of my knowledge said that I had contacted you since Halloween. I had said that Shaun was going to contact you on my behalf about the problems with the JREF Forum members confession and he apparently did.

I am working on my Protocol as instructed.

I am attempting to focus on the Self Evident portion of the test. It is difficult to say the least and it seems at one time you were happy that I delayed the test to allow you more time to get volunteers together ( One month was not enough), but now you appear to be "Pushing".

Bottom line ... I've never claimed to have communicated with you since Halloween.

Who has told you that I lied to the Lake Helen Police Department? I'd like to know the inside source for this information. Please give me their real name and contact information so I can defend myself from this slander. Lying to the Police Department is a big deal and I'd like to see your proof. (Just spoke with those authorities again last week, and they said nothing about it)

So you see, I have been totally honest in my protocol negotiations even contacting the JREF office for additional information, but you seem to be supporting the interference by unnamed sources. Please let me know if I'm wrong here?

4) " At this point, I have no reason to believe you are acting in good faith with the JREF. I will, however, give you a chance to explain yourself. This is it."

And now you threaten that this is my "Last Chance".

I am and always have been acting in good faith. I have invested my Time. Money, and Effort into this Application. I've developed my Application as requested, my Media Presence as requested, an Academic Approval as requested, and my Claim as requested. I am doing everything that the JREF MDC requires. I am preceding with my protocol as requested in a fair manner.

I would like you to name the sources of the lies perpetrated against me.
Also any proof that I am not acting in good faith.
If a JREF Forum Member is falsely accusing me of criminal activities involved in the JREF MDC protocol, I'm sure you would want to get to the truth of the matter. Where is the proof and who is the accuser?

I assure you that I honestly want to take the JREF MDC!
I always have.
You have offered the challenge and I am taking you up on your offer.
Thanks
David Koenig
- Show quoted text -
__________________________________________________ ___________

As you now see the protocol and people interfering in it is the topic of discussion!

[eirik]

Dave Koenig has posted his latest email correspondance with Jeff Wagg on the Magic Cafe forum, to prove his latest claim that Wagg has been lying to him.

I don't think this is actually helping Daves case. It could sort of sort of get on ones nerves when he calls everybody liars. I'm posting it here, as Koenig already made the correspondance public. I think it's only fair that Jeff Wagg and the JREF and the forumites know what they are dealing with.

All quotes are from the Magic Cafe forum:
Posted Nov 25 2008- 11:41 pm

Dave Koenig, aka Psychic Samurai wrote:

“Quote: Jeff Wagg; 4225967
For the record, The Professor and I have not discussed protocol since before Halloween. We did have a recent e-mail exchange, but it was about other matters. At this point, we have a claim, and that is all. We have nothing close to a working protocol. (end of quote)

Since this post is made at almost noon, I'll show you the email he recieved several hours earlier, just to prove that I'm telling the truth
And someone else isn't?


David Koenig to jeff
show details 9:28 AM (14 hours ago)

Reply

Jeff

I will take your questions one at a time.

1) "I understand that you've been contacting the JREF, and have told them that you've been in contact with me. I also understand that you're complaining that forum members have been checking up on you."

Yes, I have been contacting the JREF. I've spoken with Shaun, Randi and another nice lady who answered the phone a time or two. I've spoken with Randi and Shaun at least two time each and maybe more. I asked them several questions and got a few great answers. Very helpful.

In my last conversation with Shaun he said that "he" would contact you about my concern over JREF Forum members directly interfering in the JREF MDC Protocol as in their contacting the location's Police Department and telling them lies about me. (It appears that he did) They have publicly stated on the JREF forum that they told the Lake Helen Police Department that I was going to perform a MAGIC SHOW in their cemetery. I think that this would upset any authorities. Please show me where I claimed I'd perform a Magic Show. All of my conversations with the authorities have been on how meet in their cemetery in a respectful manner.

I have never stated that I've been in contact with you other than the times that I have. I may have said that I hoped to email you when I'd finished my protocol, but I've never stated that we had any other contact.

2) "First, you should not call the JREF. There is no one there who can help you".

I can't agree. I have found my conversations with James Randi and Shaun (Hope the spelling is correct) very enlightening. Being a magician, speaking with Randi was a privilege. I feel that direct contact is very efficient. I have learned a lot about the way things are run and what is expected of me. I would think that the more direct contact the more information that could be utilized to help in the negotiations and development of the protocol.

Are you now saying that I am "Prohibited" from calling the JREF?

3) "Second, forum members are private individuals. What they do is their business"

I've never said that Forum member's "Weren't" private individuals, but the JREF Publishes what they say and contributes to the information used in what they do. Are you defending Eirik (Not really sure that's his name or that he's a lawyer as claimed) and his direct interference with my proposed location for the JREF MDC?

What he's claimed is an obvious lie. I've never said I'd be performing a MAGIC SHOW in the Lake Helen Cemetery. NEVER!
But that is what he's claimed in his contact with them. (There are other problems with his attempted sabotage that I can go into later if you'd like to know the truth)

Do you support this lie?
Do you advocate his interference?
Do you have personal knowledge of him as a friend or acquaintance?

If they Directly Interfere with my proposed protocol and the procurement of the necessary location wouldn't this be "Our" business as well? Both myself and the JREF?

If not ... then why?

3) "However, because of your calling, I know that you've not been honest with us. You repeatedly say that you're in discussions with me, even though we haven't communicated since before Halloween. Also, if what I hear is true, you lied about getting permission to conduct your ritual in the cemetery."

I have been Totally Honest with you. The calls actually Prove that! I have never to the best of my knowledge said that I had contacted you since Halloween. I had said that Shaun was going to contact you on my behalf about the problems with the JREF Forum members confession and he apparently did.

I am working on my Protocol as instructed.

I am attempting to focus on the Self Evident portion of the test. It is difficult to say the least and it seems at one time you were happy that I delayed the test to allow you more time to get volunteers together ( One month was not enough), but now you appear to be "Pushing".

Bottom line ... I've never claimed to have communicated with you since Halloween.

Who has told you that I lied to the Lake Helen Police Department? I'd like to know the inside source for this information. Please give me their real name and contact information so I can defend myself from this slander. Lying to the Police Department is a big deal and I'd like to see your proof. (Just spoke with those authorities again last week, and they said nothing about it)

So you see, I have been totally honest in my protocol negotiations even contacting the JREF office for additional information, but you seem to be supporting the interference by unnamed sources. Please let me know if I'm wrong here?

4) " At this point, I have no reason to believe you are acting in good faith with the JREF. I will, however, give you a chance to explain yourself. This is it."

And now you threaten that this is my "Last Chance".

I am and always have been acting in good faith. I have invested my Time. Money, and Effort into this Application. I've developed my Application as requested, my Media Presence as requested, an Academic Approval as requested, and my Claim as requested. I am doing everything that the JREF MDC requires. I am preceding with my protocol as requested in a fair manner.

I would like you to name the sources of the lies perpetrated against me.
Also any proof that I am not acting in good faith.
If a JREF Forum Member is falsely accusing me of criminal activities involved in the JREF MDC protocol, I'm sure you would want to get to the truth of the matter. Where is the proof and who is the accuser?

I assure you that I honestly want to take the JREF MDC!
I always have.
You have offered the challenge and I am taking you up on your offer.
Thanks
David Koenig
- Show quoted text -
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Jeff responded just a few minutes later, so his statement that we haven't discussed Protocol is SIMPLY FALSE since the protocol was mentioned several times (At least 8 times) in the above email and also many times in the next six or seven emails all before noon.

All before this post on the JREF Forum at 11:53.
Check the times to be sure!

What say you now DR. REZ?

When Jeff Wagg says we have not spoken of protocol since halloween he is LYING!!!!!!!!

And some other posts:


Posted: Nov 26, 2008 12:38am, Dave Koenig:


“Get it Jeff ... I'm not giving up even when you LIE!!!!!!”

Posted: Nov 26, 2008 12:42am, Dave Koenig:


“The protocol is mentioned EIGHT TIMES in ONE EMAIL and yet JEFF WAGG tells the JREF Forum that it was NEVER DISCUSSED!

BUSTED!!!!!!!”

And another:
Posted: Nov 26, 2008 12:42am, Dave Koenig:

“I have proven the lie and everyone who can READ sees it too!!!!!!


The time stamp proves it !!!!!

EIGHT TIMES!”

I know, this post is not directly related to the protocol, but it does show the challenges ahead in designing one.

[steenkh]

As I said before, if it is hissing and moaning it is not clear and intelligible speech.
Who decides if it is hissing and moaning, or clear and intelligble speech? Do you think TP would feel fairly treated if he produces something that he regards as clear and intelligible, but that the testers dismiss as hissing and moaning?

To answer, you can't know the 2 aren't right. You cannot know anything with absolute certainty. Science never has and never will deal in the realm of absolute certainty. If that was what was demanded for the $million challenge then the challenge would rightly be called a sham.
The MDC challenge is not about whether the paranormal really exists or not, but whether a claimant can perform an act that the JREF accepts as paranormal.

Science is based on probability or likelihood that a law or study is true. For many studies significance is based on a p<.05 or p<.01. Even with a 5% or 1% chance of type I error these studies are considered very likely to show a real relationship. I'm not certain but I thought the JREF required something like .001 for the preliminary test and final test. How do you know that each time that 1/1000 chance didn't happen? (And now to answer my own question!) You don't. It's just extremely unlikely.
This is a risk that the JREF accepts. However, the rules for the MDC are also made to eliminate any kind of judgement, which makes the MDC stricter than most scientific studies, and this rule may well prevent voice claims like TP's to be tested. Since TP has never submitted any protocol, we do not know the JREF position on this.

[Cuddles]

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.

Did you perhaps copy the wrong email? The one that you have posted does not contain any protocol discussion. Merely including the word "protocol" does not make it any kind of discussion about the matter. You claimed to be working on one, and complained about alleged interference with one (although you fail to provide any evidence of either), but at no point did you say anything at all about the actual contents of a protocol.

Protocol negotiations are really very simple. They go something like this:

Hi Jeff,

Here is a new version of my protocol including updates from your last email:
[insert protocol here]
Please could you provide any comments or criticism.

Thanks,
Applicant.

That's it. There are two important points to note here. Firstly, it involves actually having a protocol. Secondly, it involves actually showing said protocol to the person you're negotiating with.

It's also worth considering that ranting about everyone, including the person you're supposed to be negotiating with, being liars and then posting correspondence proving yourself wrong may not be the best way to get yourself taken seriously and actually progress towards a test. Of course, if you're only interested in stringing this out as long as possible until you manage to get rejected so that you can start ranting about how unfairly you were treated and how Randi is scared of your awesome powers, then you're doing it exactly right.

[rjh01]

Dave Koenig has posted his latest email correspondance with Jeff Wagg on the Magic Cafe forum, to prove his latest claim that Wagg has been lying to him.

I don't think this is actually helping Daves case. It could sort of sort of get on ones nerves when he calls everybody liars. I'm posting it here, as Koenig already made the correspondance public. I think it's only fair that Jeff Wagg and the JREF and the forumites know what they are dealing with.

I have deleted some of the above quote.

You forgot to include the links to the posts you quoted (the ones quoting Jeff are below)

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=285361&forum=251&start=78
AND
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=286063&forum=251&8



I always thought that to reach any sort of agreement both parties must show good faith and treat each other with respect. Then they can build trust between each other. How do the two parties (Jeff and the professor) measure up?

[Mojo]

As I said before, if it is hissing and moaning it is not clear and intelligible speech.


The problem, as far as any protocol is concerned, is that it is hissing and moaning that EVP enthusiasts claim can be interpreted as intelligible speech.

[The Professor]

I am pleased that everyone can clearly see that Jeff and I were discussing the "Location" as part of the Protocol. It is a very important part and one that JREF Forum members have been intentionally interfering with by telling the Lake Helen Police Department that I was performing a MAGIC SHOW in their Cemetery. A blatant lie.

Jeff made statements in the other emails that also support my claims.
Jeff refuses to name "Who told him" these things. Just that "He heard" but will not say just who. Curious?

The location is an important part of my protocol. It has been from the beginning and it has become the target of those who would prevent the JREF MDC from taking place.

Jeff must agree since he advises me NOT to post on the JREF forum any longer (But then HE does just a couple hours later)
Curious?

[Azrael 5]

I have deleted some of the above quote.

You forgot to include the links to the posts you quoted (the ones quoting Jeff are below)

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=285361&forum=251&start=78
AND
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=286063&forum=251&8



I always thought that to reach any sort of agreement both parties must show good faith and treat each other with respect. Then they can build trust between each other. How do the two parties (Jeff and the professor) measure up?

To add to post another begins:Jeff Wagg is CAUGHT OUT!!!!

After an email in which The Professors claim was mentioned at least EIGHT TIMES Jeff Wagg claims it never was brought up......

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=271179&forum=251&147&start=120

[remirol]

More specifically I am concerned solely with whether or not it is fair to reject, as objective evidence of the supernatural, clear, intelligible speech not from a living person.

You are still avoiding the issue. As originally requested, can you define "clear and intelligible" in a non-subjective manner?

First of all I don't think the different languages issue would be a problem. If I speak to an entity in English, why would it respond in another language?That is the entity's business, not ours. The possibility exists.

It would make no sense at all that an entity would comprehend the English language and decide to communicate back to this English speaker by then speaking in a different language.For example: I can understand most spoken French, but not speak it.

Even so, if it is clear and intelligible the language it is in will be able to be determined. First, you are again begging the question of what "clear and intelligible" is.
Second, simply hearing a language you are unfamiliar with is not sufficient to determine which language that is -- for example, could you identify spoken Sanskrit from hearing it alone? Of course you couldn't. I would wager that there are _many_ spoken languages on this planet you could not identify simply by hearing them. As such, it is not a safe assumption to make that anything which is said can be automatically identified.

As for a voice disguiser why would an entity have a voice disguiser?First, "sounds like" is different from "has". Again, read what is being said to you.
Second, again, that is the entity's business, not ours.

That's just weird. Even so, a disguiser does not make what is said unclear,In your opinion.

it alters the pitch or tone of the voice. Thus what is said is still identifiable while the voice of the person who says it is not.In your opinion. See the problem with judgment, and how it's not "self evident", as required by the MDC?


More insults. You can discuss things respectfully or you will be ignored. Either is fine by me.You have said nothing worth respecting, and you are an anonymous nobody on the Internet. If you can make a coherent argument while demonstrating that you can read what is being written, then that would be deserving of respect; at the moment, you strike me as someone who has very little understanding of either the intricacies involved in putting a million dollars on the line, or of what "self-evident" means.

Being ignored by an anonymous nobody doesn't bother me; others who read the thread can still see my responses picking apart your position, even if you try to bury your head in the sand.

To answer, you can't know the 2 aren't right. You cannot know anything with absolute certainty.You have the correct answer, but then you lead right into a strawman. Nobody has demanded absolute certainty; however, if 2 people hear one word while 8 hear another, that is nowhere near the realm of certainty you yourself specify later:

For many studies significance is based on a p<.05 or p<.01.Assume for the sake of this hypothetical situation, that measures have been taken to ensure that no cheating is going on.This assumption is meaningless; that's the entire point of this discussion, to try to identify a way in which this claim can be tested while both ruling out cheating and providing a self-evident result.

What would be the odds of the EVP, picking up words and phrases, the words and phrases are answers to my questions, they are answered in correct order and always after I ask the question, and were understood clearly and intelligibly by 95 out of 100 independent listeners?First: Not good enough. Again, you misunderstand the concept of "self-evident". I recommend reading up on it. There's a couple threads you might want to start with... :oldroll: I'm sure you can find them. ;)

Second: Not the claim under discussion.

[remirol]

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.

There wasn't a single thing in that email regarding the actual protocol; on the other hand, there were many random accusations and rather a lot of whining on your part.

Professor, the contents of that email convince me that you are not acting in good faith; you are simply attempting to browbeat the JREF into accepting your magic trick as something paranormal, and the JREF is having none of it. From the start, you have employed classic "con-man" methods to try to secure agreement and acceptance of your trickery; unfortunately for you, we are all familiar with this type of thing, and are holding you to the actual facts, rather than the hand-waving and misdirection.

:bs:

I see no reason to attempt discuss the details of this magic trick any further; the goalposts have been moving since Day 1, and the Professor vigorously resists any attempt to actually discuss the protocol proper, instead preferring to make as much noise as he can about unrelated issues. I would recommend that his file be closed, so all of us can move on and spend mental effort on someone who seems a bit more sincere, such as Natal'ya Voronikova (sp?) and the man-in-a-box claim.

[RoboTimbo]

<ranting snipped>
As you now see the protocol and people interfering in it is the topic of discussion!


The Professor, you've painted yourself into another corner with your claim and that was painfully demonstrated to you on Halloween.

The JREF won't consent to a protocol that breaks the law and yours clearly does by having you in the cemetary at midnight. That is your claimed ability, right? That you will make paranormal voices appear on magnetic tape at midnight on Halloween at the Devil's chair.

I tried to dissuade you from including that in your claim. Bites you on the behind now, doesn't it?

[Mojo]

Well I'm not sure this is totally correct. In this email from several hours before your post (Not to mention the other emails) the Protocol was talked about at least 8 times. EIGHT TIMES! To say we have not discussed the Protocol is false.


It uses the word "protocol" eight times. This is not the same thing as "talking about the protocol". To be discussing a protocol, you need to be discussing the protocol itself (i.e. the procedures and equipment you propose to use), not just mentioning it while raising other matters, or merely saying that you're working on it.

Let's have a look at the mentions of the word "protocol" (uses of the word in bold):

David Koenig to jeff
show details 9:28 AM (14 hours ago)

...

In my last conversation with Shaun he said that "he" would contact you about my concern over JREF Forum members directly interfering in the JREF MDC Protocol as in their contacting the location's Police Department and telling them lies about me. (It appears that he did) They have publicly stated on the JREF forum that they told the Lake Helen Police Department that I was going to perform a MAGIC SHOW in their cemetery. I think that this would upset any authorities. Please show me where I claimed I'd perform a Magic Show. All of my conversations with the authorities have been on how meet in their cemetery in a respectful manner.


A complaint about interference from forum members - not discussion of a protocol.

I have never stated that I've been in contact with you other than the times that I have. I may have said that I hoped to email you when I'd finished my protocol, but I've never stated that we had any other contact.


A comment about your contacts with Jeff - not discussion of a protocol.


I can't agree. I have found my conversations with James Randi and Shaun (Hope the spelling is correct) very enlightening. Being a magician, speaking with Randi was a privilege. I feel that direct contact is very efficient. I have learned a lot about the way things are run and what is expected of me. I would think that the more direct contact the more information that could be utilized to help in the negotiations and development of the protocol.

Are you now saying that I am "Prohibited" from calling the JREF?


A justification of your having phoned the JREF - not discussion of a protocol.

If they Directly Interfere with my proposed protocol and the procurement of the necessary location wouldn't this be "Our" business as well? Both myself and the JREF?


More complaints about "interference" from forum members - not discussion of a protocol.

I am working on my Protocol as instructed.

I am attempting to focus on the Self Evident portion of the test. It is difficult to say the least and it seems at one time you were happy that I delayed the test to allow you more time to get volunteers together ( One month was not enough), but now you appear to be "Pushing".


A claim that you are working on your protocol - not discussion of a protocol.


So you see, I have been totally honest in my protocol negotiations even contacting the JREF office for additional information, but you seem to be supporting the interference by unnamed sources. Please let me know if I'm wrong here?


A claim that you have been totally honest in your negotiations - not discussion of a protocol.

I am and always have been acting in good faith. I have invested my Time. Money, and Effort into this Application. I've developed my Application as requested, my Media Presence as requested, an Academic Approval as requested, and my Claim as requested. I am doing everything that the JREF MDC requires. I am preceding with my protocol as requested in a fair manner.


A claim that you are preceding [sic] with your protocol - not discussion of a protocol.

If a JREF Forum Member is falsely accusing me of criminal activities involved in the JREF MDC protocol, I'm sure you would want to get to the truth of the matter. Where is the proof and who is the accuser?


Another complaint about other forum members - not discussion of a protocol.

...

- Show quoted text -
__________________________________________________ ___________

As you now see the protocol and people interfering in it is the topic of discussion!


Nope. The alleged interference, yes, but the protocol itself, no.

[eirik]

Edited to remove issue that is not related to the protocol.

Can you please get on with your protocol instead? Is that too much to ask for? I'm betting you are this close to getting your file closed after your rather strange communications with Jeff.

[Azrael 5]

Professor,why don't you actually post a protocol? Or some previous results of an EVP experiment you must have performed(otherwise how do you know you can?)such as ITC with dead NASA launch controller(whose name I forget).

You have been asked soooo many times to provide evidence,you ignore it and jsut post more rants.
The JREF are have more intelligence than you credit them;they have been dealing with paranormal claimants for years.Your bullying tactics are not going to work.Jeff Wagg must have a high threshold of patience;I would have told you to [rule 8]months ago.
I claim no superiority on this forum but I'm sure everyone is bored with your nonsense now.There are two options:
1.Provide either a protocol or prior examples of EVP/ITC you have procured so a protocl can be suggested.
2.Go away,withdraw your claim and stick to The Magic Cafe with the other loons.

[The_Animus]

Edited for topic.

The_Animus it doesn't matter(to me anyway)wether voices are clear.it's wetehr they are paranormal(belnging to the dead).
How do you make that self evident?!


There is no way to be absolutely certain. I guess I'm not sure what exactly the JREF considers paranormal. I would consider it to be something currently thought to be unnatural. By that I mean that there is no current scientific explanation for the event, or that the event is considered to clash with our observed scientific principles. Should evidence of ghosts be found it would no longer be considered paranormal, but a natural phenomenon for science to then understand. I'm sure someone could give a better definition. As I've said I'm not concerned with the cheating. I'm concerned about clear, intelligible words/phrases from a non living person or electronic device. Let's say upon completing the test there were words/phrases picked up, they are clear and intelligible, they answer the questions asks, they answer them after I ask them (correct timeline). And of course measures were taken to ensure no cheating. So the recording isn't some friend speaking from behind a tree, or transmitting a signal to the EVP or some sham like that. Ideally the location of the test would be tested beforehand to see if anything else is picked up by the EVP that would interfere with the test. Even so some on here have mentioned the possibility of picking up radio signals, or some other thing which could be mistaken as an entity. It's possible, but again I think the likelihood of such a thing producing the results of the basic protocol I've outlined would be very slim. Slim enough to meet the 1/1000 odds? That's debatable, but I think so.

[Jeff Wagg]

I am pleased that everyone can clearly see that Jeff and I were discussing the "Location" as part of the Protocol. It is a very important part and one that JREF Forum members have been intentionally interfering with by telling the Lake Helen Police Department that I was performing a MAGIC SHOW in their Cemetery. A blatant lie.

Jeff made statements in the other emails that also support my claims.
Jeff refuses to name "Who told him" these things. Just that "He heard" but will not say just who. Curious?

The location is an important part of my protocol. It has been from the beginning and it has become the target of those who would prevent the JREF MDC from taking place.

Jeff must agree since he advises me NOT to post on the JREF forum any longer (But then HE does just a couple hours later)
Curious?

I've explained "who" several times in the e-mail I've sent you. The answer is Sean, a JREF employee who you talked to on the phone.

[Jeff Wagg]

I have instructed RemieV to close The Professor's file, and I have sent him this e-mail:

Based on your recent posts on several forums, I'm am closing your application permanently. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have not acted in good faith, and we will not waste our time with you.

Jeff Wagg
JREF

[Paul2]

The biggest lack of good faith on the Professor's part, in my opinion, was his lack of answering fundamental and important questions directly, completely, or at all. He did this far more than he didn't.

When communication is not entered into in good faith, everything else will suffer.

[Darat]

Given there is now no potential protocol to discuss thread is closed.