Connie Sonne Accuses Banachek of cheating her

[Nankay]

I have heard that Connie Sonne is now accusing Banachek of cheating while handling the cards at the MDC. Is this true? I cannot find a link to her actual interview saying this. Thanks

[BartiDdu]

It's buried in the middle of this old thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132871&page=7 about 3/4 of the way down (post no. #271). The cheating claim was made by Connie Sonne as a post on this forum. I was hoping the mods would split the thread at that point to draw attention to this but it can still be found if you look hard enough!

[Bartmon]

Hi out there...now I know why Banacheck was "the card handler". I have been cheated. I did find the right cards. And there is one more thing. At the stage, Banacheck said to me BEFORE he even looked in the envelope I had cut...and here is spade ace, the one you looked for!!!! I first hit me now about that ....but maybe you can see it yourself if someone get the video. I don`t care about the money, that wasn`t the reason why I came. So no matter what you think out there......I was CHEATED!!!!!

Connie
------------------

I spent about 2.5 hours with Connie. 1.5 hours before the test, and about an hour after the press conference.

She repeatedly said that she was treated very fairly by the JREF. She said that we were honest and honorable. She said that the test was fair. She said the test was fair AFTER she failed the test. The reason she gave me for failing was that the entities that talk through her did not feel that it was time to show the world of their existence, or the truth (be that what it may).

Connie handled herself very well and she was pleasant company. I am disappointed that she feels this way.

From my perspective (about 15 feet behind Connie in the wings of the stage) Banachek either saw the corner of the card as he squeezed the envelope so that he could grab the edge of the card or it was the last card left in that set and therefore he knew that it HAD to be the Ace.

In my opinion the idea that someone cheated is not realistic. Such extraordinary lengths were went to in order to ensure that no one knew where the cards were, what they were, etc. and also to keep Connie from Banachek and Alison, etc., and also to ensure that Connie was agreeable and satisfied.

I hope Connie can take the high road here because she was treated with a lot of respect and she treated us with respect. This is not the way to end it. To say that the 'entities wouldn't let her win' is far more honorable than accusing someone like Banachek, the JREF, and heck, even myself, of cheating.

Bart

[Nankay]

Wow. So much for "taking the high road". Thanks for the link.

[Audible Click]

I don't think your post will help her climb back on "the high road" even if that was possible. Her reaction was to post on this forum and accuse the JREF of cheating her. She has plans to have a website up in September to address this. As has been asked before, why not just seek a legal remedy? Connie Sonne is not playing with a full deck.(pun intended)

[Audible Click]

Hi out there...now I know why Banacheck was "the card handler". I have been cheated. I did find the right cards. And there is one more thing. At the stage, Banacheck said to me BEFORE he even looked in the envelope I had cut...and here is spade ace, the one you looked for!!!! I first hit me now about that ....but maybe you can see it yourself if someone get the video. I don`t care about the money, that wasn`t the reason why I came. So no matter what you think out there......I was CHEATED!!!!!

Connie
------------------

I spent about 2.5 hours with Connie. 1.5 hours before the test, and about an hour after the press conference.

She repeatedly said that she was treated very fairly by the JREF. She said that we were honest and honorable. She said that the test was fair. She said the test was fair AFTER she failed the test. The reason she gave me for failing was that the entities that talk through her did not feel that it was time to show the world of their existence, or the truth (be that what it may).

Connie handled herself very well and she was pleasant company. I am disappointed that she feels this way.

From my perspective (about 15 feet behind Connie in the wings of the stage) Banachek either saw the corner of the card as he squeezed the envelope so that he could grab the edge of the card or it was the last card left in that set and therefore he knew that it HAD to be the Ace.

The idea that someone cheated is a joke. Such extraordinary lengths were went to in order to ensure that no one knew where the cards were, what they were, etc. and also to keep Connie from Banachek and Alison, etc., and also to ensure that Connie was agreeable and satisfied.

I hope Connie can take the high road here because she was treated with a lot of respect and she treated us with respect. This is not the way to end it. To say that the 'entities wouldn't let her win' is far more honorable than accusing someone like Banachek, the JREF, and heck, even myself, of cheating.

Bart
I don't think your post will help her climb back on "the high road" even if that was possible. Her reaction was to post on this forum and accuse the JREF of cheating her. She has plans to have a website up in September to address this. As has been asked before, why not just seek a legal remedy? Connie Sonne is not playing with a full deck.(pun intended)

[VisionFromFeeling]

My first impression of Banachek was that he seemed like any good old friendly JREF staff member, perhaps, I thought, someone who handles the post there, or deals with the archives, or some other good fellow like our Jeff Wagg (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3149122&postcount=12). Little did I know that Banachek is a foremost mentalist and magician (http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm), and that, in my opinion, makes him highly unsuitable as the person handling the cards during the test. However this also makes him highly suitable to stand aside as a supervisor for the test - out of arms reach, and with both hands behind his back.

In my opinion the idea that someone cheated is not realistic. Such extraordinary lengths were went to in order to ensure that no one knew where the cards were, what they were, etc. and also to keep Connie from Banachek and Alison, etc., and also to ensure that Connie was agreeable and satisfied. In all fairness, how about keeping Banachek and Alison from each other? Alison prepared the envelopes with the cards. Think about that.

When I begun watching the test I had no reason to expect any form of cheating by the JREF or by Banachek and rather my eyes were on Connie to watch for any suspicious behavior on her part. Yet something about some of the body language and gestures by Banachek came across as strange to me. At times I would have wished to see his wrists and hands from another angle, and I remembered seeing in the past how skilled some magicians are in swapping cards, yet I was confused since Banachek was just your average JREF staff member right? But he's a professional magician so good that he had scientists convinced that he is capable of mind over matter. I won't accuse the JREF of cheating, but I certainly acknowledge that the opportunity could have been there and I think we all need to see that video again.

If the procedure would have involved the claimant handling the cards I am sure the JREF would not have allowed her to wear a long-sleeved shirt. I was surprised that this simple but vital rule was not imposed on Banachek.

[Olowkow]

I can just picture the conversation in hushed tones the night before the MDC test:D:

James Randi: Banacheck, I'm worried about the million. This Sonne dame really has the gift, you know. I just know she's going to beat us.

Banacheck: B..b.but Amazing, I thought you didn't believe in this stuff! Don't worry, no way she's going to beat you out of your million.

JR: Look, I need you to pull the Chinese 3 card switch on her at the last minute on stage or we lose the mil!

B: What's in it for me, Amazin'?

JR: I'll buy you dinner...

B: Well, Ok, I'll do it.

[dblue]

I can just picture the conversation in hushed tones the night before the MDC test:D:

James Randi: Banacheck, I'm worried about the million. This Sonne dame really has the gift, you know. I just know she's going to beat us.

Banacheck: B..b.but Amazing, I thought you didn't believe in this stuff! Don't worry, no way she's going to beat you out of your million.

JR: Look, I need you to pull the Chinese 3 card switch on her at the last minute on stage or we lose the mil!

B: What's in it for me, Amazin'?

JR: I'll buy you dinner...

B: Well, Ok, I'll do it.

Well put sir. :)

[Eos of the Eons]

I was one of only a few people standing during the test (being a volunteer for the duration), and only a few feet away from Sonne and Banachek.

I know for a fact that Bannachek only announced the cards after he saw them. This was after she cut the envelopes open. The cards were in there so tightly that there was no way they could have been switched at any time. The cards were also double enveloped, so there was no way Banachek nor Sonne could see what they were until the second envelope was cut open by Sonne.

I know Bannachek saw every card before he announced any of them. Some he saw before he was able to wrestle them free from their individual envelopes, but always after Sonne cut the envelopes open.

[Eos of the Eons]

It is because Banachek is a mentalist that he could make sure Sonne didn't cheat.

Face it. NO matter who yanked the cards out, or who put the envelopes together in the first place, Sonne would never have accepted the inevitable outcome.

There is no doubt this was a fair test. There was no cheating on either side.

There is no doubt she failed because there is no special dowsing ability that can enable people to accurately name what cards are in envelopes they cannot see through.

[Uncayimmy]

My first impression of Banachek was that he seemed like any good old friendly JREF staff member, perhaps, I thought, someone who handles the post there, or deals with the archives, or some other good fellow like our Jeff Wagg (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3149122&postcount=12). Little did I know that Banachek is a foremost mentalist and magician (http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm), and that, in my opinion, makes him highly unsuitable as the person handling the cards during the test. However this also makes him highly suitable to stand aside as a supervisor for the test - out of arms reach, and with both hands behind his back.
Explain how he could have cheated while following the protocol. If you can do that, then it doesn't matter who was doing the testing because anybody could be taught sleight of hand. Are you going to run background checks on every person to make sure they're not card sharks? If you can't explain how it might be done, then it still doesn't matter who was doing the testing.

Why don't you tell us how cheating would have been carried out with the best sleight of hand expert in the world?

In all fairness, how about keeping Banachek and Alison from each other? Alison prepared the envelopes with the cards. Think about that.
Do you know for a fact that Alison prepared the envelopes? Do you know that those two were not kept apart?

Most cheating scenarios require the tester to know which card is which, and that requires collusion. What you don't seem to understand is that there is virtually no way prevent collusion among JREF testers. The steps required to be 100% certain of no collusion are extraordinarily complicated if not practically impossible. By that I mean every time I try to figure out a way to do it, I put on my Conspiracy Theory hat and find a potential flaw. Feel free to try me.

The main reason the JREF doesn't want the tester to know which cards are which is to avoid inadvertently or even deliberately ($0.5M is a lot of money) tipping off the claimant. Having the tester know the cards puts the JREF at a disadvantage. The only "reasonable" method of collusion would be for someone to somehow signal the tester if the claimant picked the right card. Without checking for electronic signal devices, coughs, touches on the face, and so forth, how are you going to know for sure this didn't happen?

You can't. So you rely on the protocol itself. The tester puts the selected card to the side and never touches it again until the test is over. The rest of the cards are collected and put back in the large envelope not to be touched again until the conclusion of the test. It's not like he mixed them all together or took the selected card out of sight.

Quite frankly, you're being silly.


When I begun watching the test I had no reason to expect any form of cheating by the JREF or by Banachek and rather my eyes were on Connie to watch for any suspicious behavior on her part. Yet something about some of the body language and gestures by Banachek came across as strange to me.
Funny how you didn't mention this to me before when you sent me IMs about the test. I don't believe you had any suspicions until you heard about Banachek's skills. I think you invented your suspicions after the fact.

If the procedure would have involved the claimant handling the cards I am sure the JREF would not have allowed her to wear a long-sleeved shirt. I was surprised that this simple but vital rule was not imposed on Banachek.
Why would the JREF need to cheat? That's the biggest hurdle you need to overcome. If they thought she were for real, they wouldn't have signed the paperwork in the first place. Why in the world would they risk the $1M, a costly court case, the reputation of the JREF, and possibly their non-profit status? Why would the individuals risk their own professional reputations and subject themselves to personal liability? It makes no sense to agree to a test stacked incredibly in your favor and then cheat.

BTW, if the JREF were ever to be part of discovering a new "force" in the universe, they would be absolutely thrilled. I know I would be. They would love to be part of it. If Connie has some "real" power, one little JREF test won't stop her, so it makes no sense for the JREF to try to suppress her. Think about it. If she turns out to be for real (I mean, in the real world of science, not the VFF world), then how will people judge the JREF for her failed test? There would be loud cries of cheating from all over the press. It would wipe out everything they have done to this point in regards to the MDC.

So, what am I missing? Why would the JREF cheat? What's there to gain?

[Wowbagger]

If Banachek was (hypothetically) going to cheat, he picked an awfully risky format to do it in: Hundreds watching it in person, and thousands more watching live on the Internet. Any sneaky moves would have been picked out, by now!

One thing I noticed was that Banachek was wearing short sleeves, and kept his arms above the table during the actual test. (He did lower them below the table, during the open phase, but that was just a "calibration" and practice round.) So, where would the replacement cards have come from?

[Eos of the Eons]

I'd like to know how anyone could have possibly told the envelopes apart. There was no way to cheat! Not by collusion, not by slight of hand, no way.

[Tricky]

If Connie Sonne had any objections to Banachek as a participant in the test, she should have voiced them before the test. Had she done this, I feel like they would have probably made other arrangements.

Since her complaint only was made after she failed, it is clear that it is the desperate screech of someone looking for any excuse for the failure, and refusing to believe that she might be wrong about her power. Sad, but not surprisising.

[prewitt81]

I can just picture the conversation in hushed tones the night before the MDC test:D:

James Randi: Banacheck, I'm worried about the million. This Sonne dame really has the gift, you know. I just know she's going to beat us.

Banacheck: B..b.but Amazing, I thought you didn't believe in this stuff! Don't worry, no way she's going to beat you out of your million.

JR: Look, I need you to pull the Chinese 3 card switch on her at the last minute on stage or we lose the mil!

B: What's in it for me, Amazin'?

JR: I'll buy you dinner...

B: Well, Ok, I'll do it.

I've documented a similar occurrence before: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1015465#post1015465

[rjh01]

I am wondering was it her who made that post or did someone hack into her account here and made the post? Has she made the accusation in real life? I find it strange that she would not have said something soon after the test, like when she was interviewed.

I know I am only speculating. The only evidence is that she has not made any posts until that one since April.

I only hope she comes back to the forum and apologizes to everyone for the post.

[Uncayimmy]

I'd like to know how anyone could have possibly told the envelopes apart. There was no way to cheat! Not by collusion, not by slight of hand, no way.

Oh, to be so innocent and trusting. The collusion part is incredibly easy.

1) Since we and presumably Connie did not see the cards being placed in the envelopes, they could have been inserted in a pre-determined order as dictated by Banachek.

2) If there were witnesses making sure the cards were inserted in random order, only one person needed to memorize the order. At most they only needed to memorize two sequences of ten since Connie only needed to miss one to fail the test. That's like memorizing two phone numbers - big whoop.

2a) This person tells Banacek the order, and he memorizes it.

2b) This person witnesses the test. If, and only if, Connie selects the right card, this person signals Banachek. How? Any subtle movement would work.

2c) This person watches the test over the webcam and signals Banachek electronically if and only if Connies selects the right card.

The collusion part is easy if extremely unlikely.

The virtually impossible part is the sleight of hand. He set the selected card (S) to the side and put the unselected cards (U) back in the large envelope. In order to cheat he needed to palm a U without being seen - no easy feat. He then needed to touch S a second time and swap U for S. That's even trickier. Then he needed to touch the large envelope a second time and place S inside the envelope with the others. All this without anybody noticing.

I'd have to review the video again to see if the number of touches matched up, but I don't think it does. Even if that does turn out to be the case, I don't see how he could do it without being detected, especially getting S back inside the large envelope.

What I can't recall is whether he wrote anything on S. The protocol posted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132844) says that he was supposed to write on the envelope and set it aside, then put the remaining envelopes back in the large envelope. If it happened like that, then he had to fake writing on the envelope, do the switch, then write on the newly swapped envelope without anybody seeing.

Thing is, I don't think he wrote on the envelope. I think he wrote on a card and placed that card on top of the envelope. Maybe the protocol was altered. Regardless, that eliminates the writting issue, but makes the swap even more difficult with something on top of the S.

[Eos of the Eons]

:rolleyes:

I'd like to see you collude with someone succesfully that way with identical envelopes. Especially since there were no doubles when all of the envelopes were opened.

Colluding or cheating was absolutely unnecessary. She only had chance on her side, and chance is fickle.

[Uncayimmy]

:rolleyes:

I'd like to see you collude with someone succesfully that way with identical envelopes. Especially since there were no doubles when all of the envelopes were opened.

I don't follow. The smaller envelopes had to go into the larger envelope in some order. It's very easy to memorize that order (10 digit phone number). The only risk is whether the smaller envelopes got out of order while sitting in the larger envelope.

If you'd like to offer me a financial challenge to prove that I could do it, I'd be glad to accept.

[zooterkin]

<deleted>

My mistake, I'm getting my woos confused.

ETA: She repeated the claim yesterday.
Gzuzkrytz, you are right about both. I can and will demonstrate everything. I can and will ensure you, that Ì have been cheated. I allready have the evidences. Check my name out in first in september. I will get a website where I will put it ALL, also in english. AND all the evidences about Maddie. So you can THEN decide if I´m deluded or not!! I can only say now....most of you people out there are wrong, very wrong. My last words here on this site.

Connie

and Jeff Wagg responded:
The JREF is aware of this post by Connie Sonne. We're in various states of travel as we return from TAM, and we'll respond when we've carefully considered what Connie has said. We do have video of the test and the press conference following the event.

[Lothian]

Connie knows the format. She can practice as much as she wants.

If she could pass the test she would be on every TV show in the land demonstrating it.

She is obviously disappointed that she failed spectacularly and is trying to find excuses to save face.

[Sideroxylon]

I am wondering was it her who made that post or did someone hack into her account here and made the post? Has she made the accusation in real life? I find it strange that she would not have said something soon after the test, like when she was interviewed.

I know I am only speculating. The only evidence is that she has not made any posts until that one since April.

I only hope she comes back to the forum and apologizes to everyone for the post.

I'd say its just that someone has been in her ear since the event and planted these suspicions.

[wardenclyffe]

I believe he wrote on the envelope in front of the applicant. He also wrote on a white card as a label. I think he wrote the suit on the label when they began dealing with that suit. Then when the card was selected, he wrote the number on the envelope and placed the envelope next to the white label so he could keep track of which number went with which suit.

That's how I remember it.

Ward

[Pixel42]

Connie knows the format. She can practice as much as she wants.
She didn't bother to practice beforehand, apparently because she thought her previous self-testing - which didn't include any of the precautions necessary to eliminate the ideomotor effect - was adequate. I suspect any practice she now does will again use the cardboard letter cards she made herself with which she convinced her family, and which will again confirm her "ability" to her own satisfaction.

I find myself wondering how she would have reacted if she had passed the test, following the protocol, and JREF had then accused her of cheating and objected to something in the protocol to which they had previously agreed.

[pakeha]

I found Bartmon's post about the demeanor of Connie Sonne most interesting, especially in light of an interview the lady gave afterwards which has been posted on the web.
Sorry not to post the link, but I'm not able to as yet.
I find it fascinating the lady cries "Cheat" (if in fact those posts ARE from her), knowing how many were in the hall at the time, as well as viewing by the stream.
Is there any way of 'proving' Connie Sonne actually made those posts?
Or 'proving' she did not?

[rjh01]

Is this the interview? http://skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/

If not post the link without the http: Someone will convert it to a link.

Or go to humour and make four posts proving you have a sense of humour.

[pakeha]

well, that was fun.
I'd finally sorted where I'd seen the interview, return here to post and find rhj01 had everything under control.
Well done and thanks for the advise about the humour
Would it count as a preliminary test for the $$challenge?
Back to ms Sonne.

[EHocking]

I have been watching carefully.

If the procedure would have involved the claimant handling the cards I am sure the JREF would not have allowed her to wear a long-sleeved shirt. I was surprised that this simple but vital rule was not imposed on Banachek.
...One thing I noticed was that Banachek was wearing short sleeves, and kept his arms above the table during the actual test...
So. Which is it?

Has a video of this Challenge at TAM been posted anywhere?
Will it be?

[Sideroxylon]

So. Which is it?

Has a video of this Challenge at TAM been posted anywhere?
Will it be?

This seems to be the end of the test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoW6_2H4aE

[steenkh]

This seems to be the end of the test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoW6_2H4aE
I do not see anything that suggests that Banachek was reading out the second card before he could see it. The main difference is that this car5d came easily out of its envelope, whereas the others were tight.

That said, I also think that it was a mistake to have a renowned magician read out the cards, or indeed if it had been a regular JREF employee. A more neutral person, or a person selected by Ms. Sonne would have prevented the accusations that we find now.

Besides, if Banacheck had cheated, it would be strange for him to do it also on the second card, when Ms. Sonne had already failed on the first card.

[VisionFromFeeling]

A more neutral person, or a person selected by Ms. Sonne would have prevented the accusations that we find now.That wouldn't have worked either, imagine had she had three correct.

[phyz]

I think we all need to see that video again.

If the procedure would have involved the claimant handling the cards I am sure the JREF would not have allowed her to wear a long-sleeved shirt. I was surprised that this simple but vital rule was not imposed on Banachek.

Oh Vision, you proclaimed that you were watching so carefully.

And yet you missed the fact that Banachek's sleeves were rolled up?

Sorry you're late to the knowledge that Banachek is a performer. Connie knew that going in. And Banachek makes no secret of his profession. Indeed, go to www.google.com, type in "banachek" and click the oft-ignored "I'm feeling lucky" button. Let me know what comes up.

Watching carefully? Honestly!

[steenkh]

That wouldn't have worked either, imagine had she had three correct.
What exactly could such a person do who had no prior possibility of palming an envelope or having one prepared of the same type in advance?

Skeptics would surely ponder what had happened, but I believe trickery on the part of the person who opened the envelope would be low on the list.

I cannot know, but I certainly hope that skeptics would be more graceful than Connie Sonne.

[Uncayimmy]

That wouldn't have worked either, imagine had she had three correct.

It sounds like you're saying that something didn't work. The test worked just fine. Anybody can make a vague accusation of cheating, but without a specific explanation and evidence, it's worthless. If Banachek didn't run the test, you'd be speculating about who the tester really was. If he's a buddy of Mr. Randi, then maybe he learned sleight of hand from hanging out with all his magician buddies. How suspicious it would be for them to use somebody that nobody knows! They should have used somebody that we knew!

I'm not surprised you're going in this direction. When you did your test wtih Dr. Carlson, you didn't say anything about a missing kidney. Only after Dr. Carlson revealed this information did you claim that you "knew" it but were too afraid of being wrong to mention it. The woman has had never been wrong before and who can see inside the body was afraid of being wrong about a major organ being missing. Right. You could have written "missing kidney" on a piece of paper and put it in your pocket, only to pull it out later if you it turned out you were right.

But no. All we have is your claim that you "really did" detect it. There's no evidence whatsoever, yet to this day you keep insisting you knew it. It's no different that Connie making vague accusations of cheating. Anything to protect the fantasy.

[MattusMaximus]

I see a pattern here... Ms. Sonne claims to have psychic powers, yet there is no evidence. And when she fails to provide said evidence in a preliminary test, she claims she was cheated... yet she provides no evidence, merely bald-faced assertions. :rolleyes:

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, and it is sad to see someone so obviously self-deluded as Ms. Sonne go around making false accusations about cheating when she knew, and agreed to, the protocol ahead of time.

Meh.

[Olowkow]

Hi out there...now I know why Banacheck was "the card handler". I have been cheated. I did find the right cards. And there is one more thing. At the stage, Banacheck said to me BEFORE he even looked in the envelope I had cut...and here is spade ace, the one you looked for!!!! I first hit me now about that ....but maybe you can see it yourself if someone get the video. I don`t care about the money, that wasn`t the reason why I came. So no matter what you think out there......I was CHEATED!!!!!

Connie
------------------


The "ace of spades" was the last card of the spade group that was cut open after the test was completed and failed. He was having her (painfully) open all the other envelopes just to demonstrate that the cards were all there. Upon opening all but one of the spade suit envelopes, he stated during the opening of the last spade envelope, something to effect that this will be (obviously) the ace of spades, since all the other spades were lying on the table. This had nothing to do with her passing or failing the test. Connie is just making waves over a very minor point.
She failed fair and square.

ETA: The only thing that I thought was odd was that the background was black, sort of a "magician's" set for disappearing things. I remember thinking that someone might claim that this could be to conceal hidden strings etc. Otherwise, Banacheck did an outstanding job.

[Miss_Kitt]

I was in the 'overflow' room watching via big screen, but listening live, to the test.

I noticed right away that Banacek had his forearms bare (either short-sleeved shirt or sleeves rolled up) and that he kept them clear of the table and especially, of the target card area. I also noticed him doing a lot of checking of the area below the table and glancing over at the selected cards during the dowsing proper--presumably checking for possible cheating--which was interesting to me.

It is still amazing to me that we had so many people interested in witnessing this test that we FILLED the room and had to put twenty-some folks into the overflow area! And that people were so quiet that the air conditioner was often the most apparent noise in the room.

I was struck at the time by Ms. Sonne's graciousness in defeat. Too bad it didn't stay that way (if indeed the post was by her).

Regards, Miss Kitt

[tkingdoll]

Connie's statements (if they are genuinely hers) and claims about Banachek and the JREF cheating are libellous and therefore actionable in law. I recommend, if I were her and were reading this thread, retracting the statement. Of course, I have no idea if Banachek or JREF are interested in suing to protect their respective reputations, but it's really not very clever or sensible to accuse public figures of trying to cheat an individual out of a million dollars.

Just sayin'.

[Olowkow]

Connie's statements (if they are genuinely hers) and claims about Banachek and the JREF cheating are libellous and therefore actionable in law. I recommend, if I were her and were reading this thread, retracting the statement. Of course, I have no idea if Banachek or JREF are interested in suing to protect their respective reputations, but it's really not very clever or sensible to accuse public figures of trying to cheat an individual out of a million dollars.
Just sayin'.

Perhaps "may be libelous" is a little better, since accusing someone of libel can be libelous...oh well. I'm not accusing you of accusing her of....:D
http://newspaper-journalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/recognizing_and_avoiding_libel

The only real defense against libel is to prove that the accusations are true. I remember the example that if you call someone a whore, it is not libelous if it can be proven to be true.

I believe for instance that accusing judge Sotomayor of being racist is very likely libel/slander. (BTW libel is "written" and slander is spoken) Latino is not a race, so their claims are disingenuous, or more likely just stupid.

I agree that Connie should first retract this statement somehow, convincingly, and if she still really believes her claim, to pursue trying to prove it, unlikely as that outcome might be. Oh, I almost forgot, she doesn't care about the money.
Just picture what the "spoon bender's" response would be to such an accusation!

[Lothian]

I suggest the UK courts would be the best place to sue. I understand that the JREF could sue in the UK as they have a reputation here. Obviously under UK law the assumption is that there has been a libel and Connie is guilty unless she can prove otherwise.

The costs of suing in the UK are at least 20 times greater than elsewhere but as the loser pays I don't think the JREF need worry. The good news is that UK libel verdicts are also enforceable abroad.

However I would suggest that any case is taken up ASAP as I understand that some people are lobbying to change the UK libel laws.

[Olowkow]

The problem with JREF suing anyone is that it would have a chilling effect on future applicants to the MDC. Frankly, my personal opinion is that the MDC is not worth the trouble it causes all concerned. I'm afraid all it does is enable a few unfortunate people without really proving anything.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it certainly is nice to be able to say to the wooists, why not take the MDC if you have the talent? It would be too bad if they could just then say, "No, I won't take it because they will sue me if I say the wrong thing."

[dahduh]

I don't know what the full protocol was, but it does seem an oversight that every precaution wasn't taken not just guard against cheating by Sonne (probably a low risk), but to guard against accusations that JREF cheated (a high risk!).

For example, why not have both Sonne and JREF each mark the cards with a distinctive mark directly before the test, to prevent substitution? Why not have Sonne prepare the the cards herself in one envelope and randomize, so JREF doesn't know where they are; and then have JREF put on the second envelope and randomize, so Sonne doesn't know; and then have Sonne pick the three for testing, and JREF the other seven? And then why not have Sonne herself open the envelopes and display the card?

With regard to how Banacheck may have cheated, I haven't a clue; but then I usually haven't a clue whenever a magician pulls off a clever trick! And that's why a lot of people might take Sonne's claim so seriously, no matter how baseless they may seem, and why it was not a good idea to have a known magician anywhere near the test.

[EHocking]

I don't know what the full protocol was, but it does seem an oversight that every precaution wasn't taken not just guard against cheating by Sonne (probably a low risk), but to guard against accusations that JREF cheated (a high risk!).

For example, why not have both Sonne and JREF each mark the cards with a distinctive mark directly before the test, to prevent substitution? Why not have Sonne prepare the the cards herself in one envelope and randomize, so JREF doesn't know where they are; and then have JREF put on the second envelope and randomize, so Sonne doesn't know; and then have Sonne pick the three for testing, and JREF the other seven? And then why not have Sonne herself open the envelopes and display the card?Mainly because both JREF and Sonne mutually agreed to the protocol that was used?

As it was, there was no substitution, all the envelopes in the test were opened. In pre-test preparation, the double-sealed envelopes were shuffled and then sealed in another bag. The target card values during the test were then determined by the roll of a die.
I can't see how having Sonne shuffle the envelopes or throwing the die could have affected this randomising process?

As it was, the test was the least complex it could have been. If others were used, I'm sure there would be complaints about the number of people on stage confusing Sonne and/or aiding an opportunity for cheating by palming envelopes etc.
With regard to how Banacheck may have cheated, I haven't a clue; but then I usually haven't a clue whenever a magician pulls off a clever trick! And that's why a lot of people might take Sonne's claim so seriously, no matter how baseless they may seem, and why it was not a good idea to have a known magician anywhere near the test.Banachek was put forward as the tester back at the start of May.
Plenty of time to object to a magician being used in the test.
But no protest was forthcoming that I'm aware of?

[dahduh]

I can't see how having Sonne shuffle the envelopes or throwing the die could have affected this randomising process?
The point is to divide responsibilities. Sonne doesn't want JREF to know where the cards are, because then they might try to cheat; but she might secretly mark the envelopes. JREF doesn't want Sonne to know where the cards are, but they also might want to cheat. So we can be sure Sonne will do her best to randomize the cards, and we can be sure JREF will ensure Sonne can't be sure which of her envelopes is inside which of JREF's.

But it's likely I'm whistling in the wind as I'm sure JREF have had quite a lot of experience in preparing protocols.

[William Smith]

Wouldn't the most simple mind go at like this:

1. Accuse the JREF of cheating (check).
2. Name a known institution to assist in repeating the test with THE EXACT SAME PROTOCOL.
3. Succeed.
4. Propose a retest and succeed again because, after all, the claimed power exists.
5. Collect.

[Uncayimmy]

I don't know what the full protocol was, but it does seem an oversight that every precaution wasn't taken not just guard against cheating by Sonne (probably a low risk), but to guard against accusations that JREF cheated (a high risk!).
Impossible. She has no basis for her claim of cheating, but that didn't stop her, did it?

For example, why not have both Sonne and JREF each mark the cards with a distinctive mark directly before the test, to prevent substitution?
Somebody forged my mark!!!

Why not have Sonne prepare the the cards herself in one envelope and randomize, so JREF doesn't know where they are; and then have JREF put on the second envelope and randomize, so Sonne doesn't know;
Sonne has the incentive to cheat, not the JREF, so it makes no sense to let her handle the cards in any way, shape or form. If the JREF doesn't see what she's doing with the cards, that's even more of a risk. And is she doesn't see what the JREF does with the cards, then she can still make an unfounded accusation of tampering.

and then have Sonne pick the three for testing, and JREF the other seven?
I don't understand what that means.

And then why not have Sonne herself open the envelopes and display the card?
They must have made the switch before I opened the envelope. Cheaters!

With regard to how Banacheck may have cheated, I haven't a clue; but then I usually haven't a clue whenever a magician pulls off a clever trick!

You most certainly have a clue. If it's a sleight of hand trick, you can have a very good idea of when it must have happened and what must have happened.

But if you really don't have a clue, then what good is taking more precautions against accusations of cheating? You'll still be able to make a vague claim of, "I don't know how he did it, but he did."


And that's why a lot of people might take Sonne's claim so seriously, no matter how baseless they may seem, and why it was not a good idea to have a known magician anywhere near the test.
So, instead of a known magician, what if it was an unknown person? What are you gonna do, run a background check? All Connie has to say is, "How do I know that Randi didn't teach the guy some sleight of hand tricks?"

A baseless claim is a baseless claim. All you're doing is exchanging one for another.

[Uncayimmy]

The point is to divide responsibilities. Sonne doesn't want JREF to know where the cards are, because then they might try to cheat; but she might secretly mark the envelopes. JREF doesn't want Sonne to know where the cards are, but they also might want to cheat. So we can be sure Sonne will do her best to randomize the cards, and we can be sure JREF will ensure Sonne can't be sure which of her envelopes is inside which of JREF's.

But it's likely I'm whistling in the wind as I'm sure JREF have had quite a lot of experience in preparing protocols.

Why would the JREF want to cheat? What's their motivation? What advantage would they gain by taking a course of action that we all agree would be risking everything they have built *and* the million dollars if caught?

Sonne wants a million dollars. That's plenty of incentive right there. Since she is claiming to do something that science cannot explain, her only way of winning is to cheat because she's not going to win by guessing.

[rjh01]

Motive for JREF to cheat? They do not want to risk losing $1m.

I like GzuzKryzt's proposal. I wonder why no other claimant has even proposed such a course of action? Instead they go back to where they come from.

[Improbable Joe]

Hmmm... I wasn't there, I don't know much about this situation, and I make no claim about anything involved... but wasn't it a bit of a mistake to involve a professional "cheater" like Banachek in the first place? Not for nothing, but I wouldn't have allowed any friends of the person attempting to complete a challenge to get anywhere near the cards. Why would you let a close associate of the person being challenged get close to the cards?

Again, I don't know any details, and if I'm way the hell off I'm sure someone will correct me... but my understanding of these sort of challenges is that every precaution is taken to prevent the possibility of cheating from the challenger. Shouldn't even more care be taken to make sure the challenger has no cause to claim that they are being cheated?

I don't think there's any validity to these sorts of claims. I also don't believe you should give these people an inch of wiggle room.

[rjh01]

Bit late now to complain of who is involved. That should be done before the test, not after.

[Olowkow]

... Why would you let a close associate of the person being challenged get close to the cards? ....


Intgegrity? Trust? Agreed upon protocol?

[Uncayimmy]

Motive for JREF to cheat? They do not want to risk losing $1m.
That's a pretty silly premise. First off, this was the preliminary test. No money was at risk.

Second, the $1M is not ever at risk because Connie, like all other MDC applicants, doesn't have any special powers unknown to science. There's no way that the JREF thinks their $1M is at risk. That's why they make the offer in the first place. Sorry, but "Duh!"

But let's pretend that they thought it was at risk but only realized it after they agreed to have her take the test.

* As far as I know, the agreement isn't final until they all sign it at the actual test. If they wanted to get out of it, they could have refused to sign it.

* They could have insisted on protocol changes impossible to implement on short notice.

* They could have accused Connie of cheating and terminated the test.

* They could have claimed technical difficulty and postponed the test.

* They could have deliberately "violated" the protocol to force a retest at a later date.

* They could have let her win (that makes me laugh), and figured out a way to get out of having her take the final test.

After all, she's essentially a nobody living on the other side of the world. So, really, the idea of the $1M being at risk makes about as much sense as her accusation of cheating. It sounds good, but there's no substance.

[rjh01]

UncaYimmy, just for the record, I agree with you.

[gonut]

First, the obligatory preliminaries:
I am almost certain that Banachek, et.al., did NOT cheat Ms. Sonne. Yes, I know that Ms. Sonne understood and agreed to the protocol. I estimate the probability of anyone being able to dowse cards as zero. And I am an enthusiastic JREF supporter. (phew!)


HOWEVER...

Surely a SIMPLE card dowsing protocol exists that would satisfy BOTH parties that cheating is extremely unlikely, i.e., NOT a protocol in which one of the parties has fingerprints all over the cards and envelopes, and the other party has none. If so, why in skepticism's name wasn't such a protocol used?! For example, how about this protocol sketch:


Forget about using envelopes; forget about sets of 10 cards. Simply have someone deliver to the table a tray with one face-down card. The tray goes between Banachek and Ms. Sonne.
Assume that Ms. Sonne only has to guess the card's rank and not the suit. After Ms. Sonne dowses the card and guesses, both Banachek and Ms. Sonne simultaneously grasp and turn over the card.
Repeat above protocol 2 more times.


Protocol notes:

Ms. Sonne should have no problem naming a given card, because she has said that she can dowse a card behind concrete. In any event, this protocol is a lot easier for her than the actual protocol she agreed to.
Banachek's main purpose is to ensure that Ms. Sonne doesn't cheat before everyone and the cameras see the card turned over.
Until they both turn the card over, Banachek doesn't know what the card is.
The person who prepares and delivers the card and tray doesn't even have to know what the card is! That person only needs to ensure that no one else knows what the card is.


Where am I being naive?

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, just for the record, I agree with you.

I figured you did. I think the problem is that people here are trying to figure out how to prevent a claimant from making an accusation of cheating. My point is that you can't. Period. Unfounded claims of cheating are incredibly easy to make because, well, they are unfounded.

So, the next step is to try to win in the court of public opinion. You'll never convince people who believe the Connie Sonnes of this world have real abilities and that the JREF is stupid enough to voluntarily put $1M at such great risk that the only way to protect it is to cheat. That battle was lost long before it ever started.

If you're the JREF, you know that cheating on the part of the applicant is a very real possibility. Who do you want conducting the test? I would want someone who knows what to watch for having the closest view. And since this was a public test in front of a thousand people and another 2,000 on the web, I would also want someone with experience in front of a crowd rather than some intern.

I would have been disappointed if they picked anybody but an experienced magician.

[Quinn]

I'd say its just that someone has been in her ear since the event and planted these suspicions.


That would be my guess too. In fact, I would bet more than a little money on it. It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out, and what kinds of alliances arise from it.

[pakeha]

Wouldn't the most simple mind go at like this:

1. Accuse the JREF of cheating (check).
2. Name a known institution to assist in repeating the test with THE EXACT SAME PROTOCOL.
3. Succeed.
4. Propose a retest and succeed again because, after all, the claimed power exists.
5. Collect.

Well thought, in my opinion.
Still, the lady insists on dragging her EVP about a missing child into the mix.
I'd include the stipulation that the dowsing claims and the EVP claims be treated separately.
I understand the failed claimant has the right to re-apply after a year?

[EHocking]

The point is to divide responsibilities.The other consideration is to keep the testing procedure simple. But I do see you point on blinding.Sonne doesn't want JREF to know where the cards are, because then they might try to cheat; but she might secretly mark the envelopes.OK. This was why Sonne did not "bag" the cards.JREF doesn't want Sonne to know where the cards are, but they also might want to cheat. So we can be sure Sonne will do her best to randomize the cards, and we can be sure JREF will ensure Sonne can't be sure which of her envelopes is inside which of JREF's.Taking that on board for discussion. Given the protocol, the only opportunity I can see for JREF to cheat is to have Banachek palm the envelopes at the testing table, with 200 people (some magicians) watching and at least 2 video cameras recording the event. You'd need to consult an experienced magician to see where the opportunity to cheat by swapping envelopes is with that set up. I can't, but that doesn't mean anything, 'cos I'm not a magician. But to be meaningful, just say "They could have cheated" is not sufficient, you'd need to show where or when the opportunity to cheat is for this discussion to be useful beyond mere conjecture.

I see Sonne handling the cards and marking the envelopes as a better opportunity to cheat that to have the tester attempt some slight of hand in front of quite a number of experienced magicians.


But it's likely I'm whistling in the wind as I'm sure JREF have had quite a lot of experience in preparing protocols.
Note the Stipulations in the protocol:
Stipulations (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4343938&postcount=2)

No speaking aloud, except as noted within the protocol.

No walkie-talkies, aside from those used by testers, within the test.

No cameras, camcorders, camera-phones, etc. aside from those used by the JREF or testers within the test.

No sleight-of-hand, trickery, or cheating.
If the JREF representative cheated, JREF are in direct breach of this contract and Sonne has grounds for a legal suit that she'd win.... if she can demonstrate that cheating occurred.

Again, except for palming envelopes at the table, I cannot see an opportunity for this.

I understand that after the 3 cards were shown the remaining envelopes were then opened to show that all the expected cards were in the set?

[NCPhysicist]

I understand that after the 3 cards were shown the remaining envelopes were then opened to show that all the expected cards were in the set?

This is correct. Most people have said this is what made the challenge so difficult to watch. After she failed the challenge, she had to spend another 10-15min cutting open all of the envelopes. This was a necessary part of the protocol to prevent accusations that the JREF rigged the test from the beginning by not including all of the ten cards for each suit.

The one thing which surprised me the most was that there wasn't more video coverage of the table. Was there an equipment limitation? Was it just not something that was thought about? If we'd had more cameras at multiple angles, with closer views, it would have helped to prevent/disprove accusations of cheating from the claimant or the JREF.

[alfster]

Initially, I thought having Banachek as the tester was a problem as the accusation of cheating could be made...cough...amazing precognitive powers!!!! :D

However, it did mean someone who could handle cards made the test run smoothly rather than someone who did not have the experience of being comfortable with cards under that scrutiny.

I saw it via the weblink...from the UK. Double :D

He wore long sleeves which were rolled up.

When Connie chose the envelope he wrote the number it was meant to be on the envelope. Hence, he would have had to swap the envelope between picking it up and moving it 18inches across the table. Or swap it just before he opened it having had to write the number on the envelope...or he swapped it after he removed it from the envelope. He also only had to swap the first one she could have got the 2nd two cards correct.

He did not get a chance to write the second choice on the folded card as has been said. I think this threw him and he forgot to pick up the remaining cards from the previous test stage.

I noticed him supposedly call a card before it had been removed from the envelope but noticed on other envelopes he did the same thing. As has been said bending the envelope is enough to see the card index.

More cameras would have been a good idea but not if they cut between them during the test. The fixed single camera meant no possible cheating even live. The other recordings could be used to show no cheating occurring.

However, there really was no need to cheat.

[Uncayimmy]

More cameras would have been a good idea but not if they cut between them during the test. The fixed single camera meant no possible cheating even live. The other recordings could be used to show no cheating occurring.

I disagree that more recordings are better because it incorrectly implies that the JREF has an obligation to demonstrate to the audience that there is no cheating on their part. This is an untenable position. There's always another angle, better camera (someone wanted to see the actual card faces), better lighting, and so forth. They took the proper course of action, which is to design a protocol where cheating would be self-evident from any angle.

[firecoins]

I have heard that Connie Sonne is now accusing Banachek of cheating while handling the cards at the MDC. Is this true? I cannot find a link to her actual interview saying this. Thanks
who is connie sonne?

What did Banacheck do to cheat her?

[wackyvorlon]

Methinks the Magic Cafe is the source of this cheating accusation:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:SYcv4zwPZAEJ:www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php%3Ftopic%3D321179%26forum%3D15%2637+c onnie+sonne+cheat&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

[TSR]

Methinks the Magic Cafe is the source of this cheating accusation:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:SYcv4zwPZAEJ:www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php%3Ftopic%3D321179%26forum%3D15%2637+c onnie+sonne+cheat&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

.
And isn't it *funny* that the thread has been deleted?



Trick question: no, it's pathetic
.

[wackyvorlon]

.
And isn't it *funny* that the thread has been deleted?



Google knows all, sees all and neatly archives it on tape backup :D

[Quinn]

.
And isn't it *funny* that the thread has been deleted?

Trick question: no, it's pathetic
.

*Sigh.* But not at all surprising.

Incidentally, my intent in starting that thread was not to stir up a hornets' nest. I was approaching it as a fun and interesting thought experiment for myself and my fellow mentalism geeks. Then it turned into... well, what it turned into.

ETA: Anybody got a Google cache of the second page? My Google-fu isn't up to the task.

[Cavemonster]

For me, the most ludicrous part is that for anyone from the JREF, including Banachek to decide to cheat, they would need to think that there was a strong possibility that Connie really possessed a power.

Not only that, but they would need to have some motivation to want the world not to know about these powers beyond "risking the million". After all, the organization that finally brought real psychic powers to the notice of the scientific community through the challenge would have no shortage of donors and fame in the future.

So you need a hidden motive.

So Banachek, or the JREF in general, actually despite all evidence to the contrary, believe in the likelyhood of not just psychic powers in general, but Connies in particular, and have some hidden reason for working to keep the world in the dark.

Lord knows there are no other channels that Connie could go through to share her powers with the world. /s

[Uncayimmy]

For me, the most ludicrous part is that for anyone from the JREF, including Banachek to decide to cheat, they would need to think that there was a strong possibility that Connie really possessed a power.

Not only that, but they would need to have some motivation to want the world not to know about these powers beyond "risking the million". After all, the organization that finally brought real psychic powers to the notice of the scientific community through the challenge would have no shortage of donors and fame in the future.

So you need a hidden motive.

So Banachek, or the JREF in general, actually despite all evidence to the contrary, believe in the likelyhood of not just psychic powers in general, but Connies in particular, and have some hidden reason for working to keep the world in the dark.

Lord knows there are no other channels that Connie could go through to share her powers with the world. /s

I agree, but there's a point that needs elaboration. The people who believe in this kind of stuff clearly do so without adequate evidence. Some of them view skepticism like a religion - again, without evidence. So, to those people it makes perfect sense that the JREF would try to suppress a new discovery - the JREF is protecting their religion so to speak.

Those same people will believe in accusations of cheating without evidence - that's how they think. There's nothing you can do about it. No amount of controls will satisfy them.

[steenkh]

I agree, but there's a point that needs elaboration. The people who believe in this kind of stuff clearly do so without adequate evidence. Some of them view skepticism like a religion - again, without evidence. So, to those people it makes perfect sense that the JREF would try to suppress a new discovery - the JREF is protecting their religion so to speak.
Yes. They know that they would do the same for their own beliefs.

Those same people will believe in accusations of cheating without evidence - that's how they think.
After al, they are used to believe in stuff without evidence!

some also think that James Randi has powerful paranormal abilities that he uses to suppress all those other paranormal wielders in the world. After all, things always seem not to work when mr. Randi as around, or even if he thinks about them.

[TSR]

I suggest the UK courts would be the best place to sue.

.
Except for the tiny details that neither JREF nor Sonne are based in the UK, nor did the test happen there.
.

The good news is that UK libel verdicts are also enforceable abroad.

.
Tell that to Deborah Lipstadt.
.

[tkingdoll]

Except for the tiny details that neither JREF nor Sonne are based in the UK, nor did the test happen there.


That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, you can sue for libel in the UK regardless of where either party is. It's called 'libel tourism' and it's a major problem. The comments on this forum and the live stream of the challenge were on the internet which can and is viewed in Britain, so a case could be brought here. Lothian did cover that in his post.

Of course, I am not suggesting or recommending that either party sue. I am suggesting and recommending that Connie withdraw her comments though.

[EHocking]

I disagree that more recordings are better because it incorrectly implies that the JREF has an obligation to demonstrate to the audience that there is no cheating on their part. This is an untenable position.While I agree that not much more could be done with extra cameras, I do have to disagree that JREF was not under any obligation to demonstrate that there was not cheating on their part.

It was written into the protocol (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4343938&postcount=2), vis;

Stipulations

No speaking aloud, except as noted within the protocol.

No walkie-talkies, aside from those used by testers, within the test.

No cameras, camcorders, camera-phones, etc. aside from those used by the JREF or testers within the test.

No sleight-of-hand, trickery, or cheating.I realise that this may be splitting hairs/semantics, but I do think that JREF were obliged to show that they were not cheating just as much as they were obliged to ensure that Sonne didn't cheat. I interpreted that the stipulations apply to all participants.
There's always another angle, better camera (someone wanted to see the actual card faces), better lighting, and so forth. They took the proper course of action, which is to design a protocol where cheating would be self-evident from any angle.Thus, they were obliged to ensure that they didn't cheat either. I know, splitting hairs.

[alfster]

I disagree that more recordings are better because it incorrectly implies that the JREF has an obligation to demonstrate to the audience that there is no cheating on their part. This is an untenable position. There's always another angle, better camera (someone wanted to see the actual card faces), better lighting, and so forth. They took the proper course of action, which is to design a protocol where cheating would be self-evident from any angle.

UncaYimmy. I agree with your reasons...but you are coming at this from a rational point of view. It was not unlikely that such a cheating accusation could be levelled at any challenge and a good way to *try* to show these people that no cheating occurred is to have extra footage.

We are talking about closing routes of people being able to challenge the test and where it's simple to shout 'CHEAT' even after all the protocols and agreements then 'sef-evident'/untenable position' etc does not come in to it.

From the point of view of people who wish to dis-credit the challenge the very fact that the JRF 'only' had one camera angle and did not have more 'to show cheating was not happening' can be called equally untenable *if* you wanted to cast doubt on the test.

They took the proper course of action, which is to design a protocol where cheating would be self-evident from any angle.

I know that and you know that but for people who actually believe they can dowse or do any other such thing, looking at it from a rational, self -evident point of view does not come into it...it's 'self-evident' that dowsing doesn't work so it's not going to be self-evident that a good protocol and one camera (plus top notch magician!) will remove any chances of cheating.

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh Gee whiz! The people at wackyvorlon's link are indeed digging:


Quinn:With the test as it went down, I can't imagine a way she could have cheated it.
I can imagine a way the JREF could have cheated it, to make it seem like she had failed even if she had succeeded (d***** envelopes). That's not to say I think they actually did cheat,which I don't. But if I were her, I would have modified the protocol.
__________________________________________________ ______
Psychic Samurai:
They put me in a "Special " chat room and here's some of the discussion ...
4:58 ustreamer-15315: A card trick with envelopes!!! No way!!
4:58 Dizzi800: if she handled them she could have switched them just as you are claiming banachek to have
4:59 ustreamer-15315: If you are a magician you know that there are two ended envelopes right???
4:59 Dizzi800: so you are in disbelief someone claiming to have psychic powers be wrong? :S
4:59 Dizzi800: yes I am aware. and I am also aware that they are not handled in that way
4:59 ustreamer-15315: I'm claiming that if you even KNEW the right cards I could make you fail in the exact same way as she did!!!
5:00 ustreamer-15315: Banacheck is deciding which END of the envelope she is to cut!!!
5:00 ustreamer-15315: HE decides which card she reads
5:01 ustreamer-15315: Why does he bang the envelopes?

She gets to cut while he handles the envelope ...Double envelopes Envelopes within envelopes.
Who is making sure that Steve is not manipulating this situation as any mentalist could?
They have banned me from the chat room for asking these questions
He could be banging the envelope to move the CARDS to a safer location
Was anyone checking the envelopes AFTER they were opened?
Was anyone making sure there were no magnets involved to give the Douser inaccurate readings from her pendulum (metal chain and and all)?
Were there any card manipulators (magicians) watching Steve closely?
Do you think that anyone could have affected the outcome in any way .... personally? Pro or con?

I have more questions but this is enough to start.
(They booted me off of the chat for asking these basic Skeptical questions .. weird)

I'm only asking this because you are aware that the last time they tried this it was so Unscientific that they decided it must be done again. NOT KIDDING.


__________________________________________________ __________



Magnets, card switching, being booted for asking questions during chat.

From what I saw, she didn't swing the pendulum over the envelopes, so why would magnets matter (the pendulum made no sudden moves)? I'd like to see someone even try to switch the cards in that situation, really I would.

I will say again, as many others have, the JREF didn't have to cheat. It wouldn't have mattered one whit who was sitting where Banachek was.

[Cleon]

Alison has written up an account of the test, and a response to Sonne's accusations, in today's Swift (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/641-connie-sonne-preliminary-challenge-test-at-tam-7.html).

[Quinn]

Oh Gee whiz! The people at wackyvorlon's link are indeed digging:

As one of the people quoted and bolded above (I am also the Quinn on that board), let me reiterate that I was not "digging." I was treating the situation as a mental exercise, a sort of challenge to myself: "If I were involved, and I wanted to cheat (from either side), how would I go about it given what I saw?" I was hoping others would contribute in the same spirit, which rather spectacularly failed to happen. I'll also add that I had a very positive and productive email exchange with Banachek shortly after the test ended.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Connie, if you still read this, the best and perhaps only way for you to claim that you were cheated on the MDC Test, is for you to have other tests and arranged by other credible people that follow the same protocol and to successfully pass those tests.

I would also like to remind other applicants that the JREF is not the *only* place to attempt to verify a paranormal claim. It should be the final stage after having already successfully verified the claim elsewhere. The JREF should by no means have more resources or willingness to prove an actual paranormal claim than the countless of other possibilities that are out there. The reason some go straight for the MDC is because of the million dollar prize, suggesting what the real motives behind the claim might be. Because if instead it were done for the sake of proving a claim, there are always ways to do so locally rather than to travel across continents.

[Uncayimmy]

While I agree that not much more could be done with extra cameras, I do have to disagree that JREF was not under any obligation to demonstrate that there was not cheating on their part.

It was written into the protocol (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4343938&postcount=2), vis;
I realise that this may be splitting hairs/semantics, but I do think that JREF were obliged to show that they were not cheating just as much as they were obliged to ensure that Sonne didn't cheat. I interpreted that the stipulations apply to all participants.
Thus, they were obliged to ensure that they didn't cheat either. I know, splitting hairs.

The JREF, like Connie, is obligated not to cheat. That's part of the contract. Both parties have the obligation to negotiate a protocol so that they are satisfied that the other cannot cheat without it being readily apparent to the participants and the witnesses. This is exactly what happened.

What I said was that the JREF is not obligated to demonstrate to the audience (mere observers) that they did not cheat.

[tkingdoll]

Connie, if you still read this, the best and perhaps only way for you to claim that you were cheated on the MDC Test, is for you to have other tests and arranged by other credible people that follow the same protocol and to successfully pass those tests.

I would also like to remind other applicants that the JREF is not the *only* place to attempt to verify a paranormal claim. It should be the final stage after having already successfully verified the claim elsewhere. The JREF should by no means have more resources or willingness to prove an actual paranormal claim than the countless of other possibilities that are out there. The reason some go straight for the MDC is because of the million dollar prize, suggesting what the real motives behind the claim might be. Because if instead it were done for the sake of proving a claim, there are always ways to do so locally rather than to travel across continents.

This is actually a good point. However, I must say that I was very concerned when reading about Connie - just the fact that she claims to "hear voices" should be enough for suspicions of mental illness. I would strongly encourage Connie to seek professional mental health advice before attempting to validate her claims through any paranormal challenge again. If any psychological illness was the cause of the voices, then taking challenges, in the public eye or privately, would surely not help.

Becoming a curiosity to be mocked or vilified would be difficult for anyone, let alone someone who already claims to hear voices. Publicity- or attention-seeking could also be considered a symptom, I'm sure.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Is there a full video of the whole test available yet?

I have no doubt that there was no cheating, but I can’t really nail down all possibilities unless I see the whole thing. I can think of way to cheat against the applicant without having to hide multiple packs of cards or using loaded dice as the recent SWIFT posts rebuts. However, it would require a great deal of slight of hand, and I think some of the protocols and actual processes prevented that.

If Banachek pulled off the type of cheating that I think Sonne is accusing him of, I think he may have a better shot at winning the MDC by cheating. I would have to se the whole thing, but it would be some amazing trick. I expect that the video show that any cheating is impossible.

[Audible Click]

As far as I know there is no complete video released.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's how Banachek could have cheated:

He knows the order of the packets as he arrays them out in front of Sonne. If she picks the wrong packet, he lets it go. If she picks the correct packet, he switches it out for a different packet, say a 4. Then, when he is picking up the remaining packets and setting them aside, he switches out the 4 for the correct packet. This requires him to have eight packets on his person, two for each suit.

Of course, he is a mentalist, but he has to perform this sleight-of-hand in front of Penn, Teller, Swiss, Randi, King, and other magicians that the JREF doesn't even know. The entire audience would have to be complicit. Well, except me, because I wasn't.

~~ Paul

[wackyvorlon]

I think to pull that off is extraordinarily improbable.

[Eos of the Eons]

Here's how Banachek could have cheated:

He knows the order of the packets as he arrays them out in front of Sonne. If she picks the wrong packet, he lets it go. If she picks the correct packet, he switches it out for a different packet, say a 4. Then, when he is picking up the remaining packets and setting them aside, he switches out the 4 for the correct packet. This requires him to have eight packets on his person, two for each suit.

Of course, he is a mentalist, but he has to perform this sleight-of-hand in front of Penn, Teller, Swiss, Randi, King, and other magicians that the JREF doesn't even know. The entire audience would have to be complicit. Well, except me, because I wasn't.

~~ Paul
He immediately wrote on the packet she chose though. So, he had to find some way to switch the cards. I'd like to see him try.

The most vital point though, is that he didn't need to even try to cheat.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Here's how Banachek could have cheated:

He knows the order of the packets as he arrays them out in front of Sonne. If she picks the wrong packet, he lets it go. If she picks the correct packet, he switches it out for a different packet, say a 4. Then, when he is picking up the remaining packets and setting them aside, he switches out the 4 for the correct packet. This requires him to have eight packets on his person, two for each suit.

I'd like to make a slight correction. He would not need eight packets. Connie Sonne needed to get all three trials correct in order to pass the test, so all Banachek would have needed would be two packets, of one suit that was going to be part of the test. Then, if she guessed correctly on that one suit, then he could switch it out, otherwise, the test would be null and void anyway, with no need for him to do anything, as two out of three would have also been a fail. A worst case scenario, involving only him with no complicity from the JREF, he would need at most four packets, to ensure that he had at least two packets that were from one of the trials, since the test involved only three out of the four possible suites.

I am hereby stating for the record, once again, that I think the whole notion that Banachek or the JREF cheated to be absolutely and patently ridiculous. For one thing, the odds were already massively stacked against Ms. Sonne. For another, this was not actually the MDC. This was a Million Dollar Challenge preliminary test. No actual money was at risk, so the need to cheat, if anyone actually believes there could be one, was next to zero. If anything, I'd have to say that the greater odds would be in favour of someone assisting Ms. Sonne cheat, since she had more to gain by cheating. I was watching quite closely from home via the live internet feed, and I could see no signs of cheating by either party. I think Alison, Banachek, and everyone else at the JREF did a fantastic job of arranging the test in such a large and quite open and public location. Kudos all around!

[wackyvorlon]

I watched much of the test, and I certainly didn't see any untoward actions.

[Olowkow]

Connie might want to buy a deck of cards, remove the face cards, shuffle, pick 10, arrange them face down, write down a number from 1 to 10, get the dowsing thingy, and dowse for the card number corresponding to the written number. No one in the room but Connie.
Repeat three times.

If it does not work, Connie has no one to blame but herself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

He immediately wrote on the packet she chose though. So, he had to find some way to switch the cards. I'd like to see him try.
He would have to switch out the packet immediately, before writing on it.


I'd like to make a slight correction. He would not need eight packets. Connie Sonne needed to get all three trials correct in order to pass the test, so all Banachek would have needed would be two packets, of one suit that was going to be part of the test.
Yes, that is all he would need to do to ensure she didn't pass. But she failed all three trials, so he must have done it each time. Otherwise surely she would have picked the correct packets. :D

~~ Paul

[pakeha]

hi, TheSkepticCanuck
I liked your latest post and am reposting it's conclusion:
I am hereby stating for the record, once again, that I think the whole notion that Banachek or the JREF cheated to be absolutely and patently ridiculous. For one thing, the odds were already massively stacked against Ms. Sonne. For another, this was not actually the MDC. This was a Million Dollar Challenge preliminary test. No actual money was at risk, so the need to cheat, if anyone actually believes there could be one, was next to zero. If anything, I'd have to say that the greater odds would be in favour of someone assisting Ms. Sonne cheat, since she had more to gain by cheating. I was watching quite closely from home via the live internet feed, and I could see no signs of cheating by either party. I think Alison, Banachek, and everyone else at the JREF did a fantastic job of arranging the test in such a large and quite open and public location. Kudos all around!

I quite agree.
In fact as I mull this test over, and read more and more threads on past challenges, it seems to me that as a newbie here I'm showing surprise at a reaction which more experienced folk have seen time and time again- negation, and, as another poster has already stated, very much along the lines of a failed talent show contestant.
The fact Connie Sonne has used the MDC to tout her EVP about a missing child is something I find way out of line and can find no reason to explain why the lady has chosen to go there.
After all, as a former Danish constable (correct me if I'm wrong) Connie Sonne must be aware of how to get information to the police without trying to dowse card numbers in Las Vegas.
It will be interesting to see if Connie Sonne takes on other psychic challenges.

[Pixel42]

Connie might want to buy a deck of cards, remove the face cards, shuffle, pick 10, arrange them face down, write down a number from 1 to 10, get the dowsing thingy, and dowse for the card number corresponding to the written number. No one in the room but Connie.
Repeat three times.

If it does not work, Connie has no one to blame but herself.
In order to eliminate any visual clues which could fuel the ideomotor effect it should be someone else who selects the cards and places them face down, and then leaves the room before Connie enters. It's doing tests like the one you describe without taking such necessary precautions that led her to conclude she had paranormal powers in the first place.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/613-interview-with-connie-sonne-dowser.html

I have tested all my abilities in different way with different witness many times. The first time ever, I told my parents of this, I convinced them like that: I wrote all the letters down on cardboards. Placed them in a horseshoeshape on the table with the backsid up. It was very thick cardboards, so I couldn`t see the letters at all. My dad mixed the cards and placed them on the table in front of me. His name is Viggo, and I spelled his name, by dowsing, without one missing letter ! He was convinced.

That's why she didn't bother to practice the JREF protocol beforehand; she was under the mistaken impression that it was not substantially different to the self-testing she'd already done.

[Stacy Head]

As one of the people quoted and bolded above (I am also the Quinn on that board), let me reiterate that I was not "digging." I was treating the situation as a mental exercise, a sort of challenge to myself: "If I were involved, and I wanted to cheat (from either side), how would I go about it given what I saw?" I was hoping others would contribute in the same spirit, which rather spectacularly failed to happen. I'll also add that I had a very positive and productive email exchange with Banachek shortly after the test ended.

Maybe not digging, but stirring. I was in the stream chat as a registered user, those who were not were being obnoxious. I was glad for the non registered users to be booted, the questions weren't skeptical or relevant. It was a lot of juvenile jiberish. The silence was nice. Quinn, wouldn't you agree, being a registered user would have been polite? Lots of anonymous ustreamers were typing things like "DRINK" everytime Banacheks name was mentioned. It was pandomonium.

[wafonso]

Am I correct in saying that there was a small breach of protocol by Banachek at the transition from the second to the third set of cards? The third envelope was opened before the nine remaining cards from the second test were collected from the table and placed back in their envelope. This caused a small shuffle of envelopes back and forth over the table, and I was fully expecting some complaint by Connie centering around this issue.

Not that I think that there was anything going on; but I do think that, strictly speaking, protocol was not followed all the way through.

[William Smith]

Connie might want to buy a deck of cards, remove the face cards, shuffle, pick 10, arrange them face down, write down a number from 1 to 10, get the dowsing thingy, and dowse for the card number corresponding to the written number. No one in the room but Connie.
Repeat three times.

If it does not work, Connie has no one to blame but herself.

Olowkow, you procedure would make sense to most rational entities.



In Connie's mind however, she possesses the claimed powers - when the forces she ascribes them to consider it necessary to reveal them to the world.

There is not one doubt in her mind. Which makes her a classical believer.

Should she fail, either the forces she ascribes them to did not consider it necessary to reveal them to the world or she simply has been cheated. That's not just one but two sure-thing outs. It's foolproof.



Given her age and the time she already has invested in this it seems safe to assume she will not change her mind about her alleged powers. Come evidence or high water.

[HawaiiBigSis]

Am I correct in saying that there was a small breach of protocol by Banachek at the transition from the second to the third set of cards? The third envelope was opened before the nine remaining cards from the second test were collected from the table and placed back in their envelope. This caused a small shuffle of envelopes back and forth over the table, and I was fully expecting some complaint by Connie centering around this issue.
Yes, I wondered about that too.

That's why she didn't bother to practice the JREF protocol beforehand; she was under the mistaken impression that it was not substantially different to the self-testing she'd already done.
She agreed with the protocol well in advance of the testing. She knew it was not handwritten letters on pieces of cardboard.

[Pixel42]

She agreed with the protocol well in advance of the testing. She knew it was not handwritten letters on pieces of cardboard.
Indeed. But I don't think she understood why using cards she'd never seen before might produce very different results to using cards she'd made herself, which is why she saw no need to duplicate the JREF protocol to ensure her ability still worked under those conditions before going to TAM. IOW she doesn't understand how the ideomotor effect works. Very few people do.

[BillyJoe]

The cards were in there so tightly that there was no way they could have been switched at any time.
...not even by a master magician. :rolleyes:

There is no doubt this was a fair test.
There was no way to cheat! Not by collusion, not by slight of hand, no way.
Oh the naivete! :cool:
There is no doubt she failed because there is no special dowsing ability that can enable people to accurately name what cards are in envelopes they cannot see through.
So why the hell do the test, then, it you already know the result with 100% total absolute certainty? :confused:

[BillyJoe]

If Connie Sonne had any objections to Banachek as a participant in the test, she should have voiced them before the test.

Connie's acquiescence doesn't excuse the JREF for not realising that it was not a good idea for Banachek to be anything more than an observer, and ensuring he did not get anywhere near those cards.

[Pixel42]

...not even by a master magician. :rolleyes:
I'd never heard of Banachek before the test but according to Alison Smith's account of the test he's a mentalist, not a magician. Is she lying?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/641-connie-sonne-preliminary-challenge-test-at-tam-7.html

Sonne now claims that Banachek, who she agreed to accept as the official tester, had cheated her out of passing the preliminary test. As it happens, many individuals on both the JREF forums and attending the in-person press conference wondered aloud at our willingness to allow a "magician" to run the test, so I want to set the record straight.

Firstly, Banachek is a mentalist, not a magician. My response to the dissent in the press conference was pretty simple - Banachek simply did not have the opportunity to cheat in any way whatsoever. Even if you call him a "magician," he is not actually magical. If I give a magician a top hat that I bought and searched, and never gave the magician any information on it before putting it in his hands, and then demanded that he make a rabbit appear from inside it, he would most probably be unable to do so. Magic seems unfathomable to an audience, but let's face it, there is an explanation for each illusion that fits the laws of physics.

[Elvis666]

So why the hell do the test, then, it you already know the result with 100% total absolute certainty? :confused:

It's not a test, it's a challenge, as in, "You claim you can use dowsing to select specified cards that have been hidden inside double envelopes. OK, do it twice and you get a million dollars." It was up to Connie to create a protocol that would allow here to do that and the JREF to create one that would prevent it.

I haven't been around here all that long, but it's always been stressed that MDC is NOT a scientific test, it just attempts to use scientific methods to prevent a claimant from cheating their way to riches.

[BillyJoe]

This seems to be the end of the test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoW6_2H4aE
This is the first time I have seen a video of the test.

As the cards are being exposed, Connie seems not to care at all that she is failing the test - almost like she expected to fail; there are no looks or exclamations of surprise at all, just a matter of fact acceptance of her failure. That was the really surprising for me watching that video.

I wonder what it could mean?

Has she perhaps used JREF?
....for some free publicity?
Is her accusation of cheating a way of negating the negative effect of failing the test whilst reaping the benefits of the free publicity this has given her?

BJ

[BillyJoe]

I'd never heard of Banachek before the test but according to Alison Smith's account of the test he's a mentalist, not a magician. Is she lying?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/641-connie-sonne-preliminary-challenge-test-at-tam-7.html

There is effectively no difference.
Have a look at this demonstration....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeND2djUnZ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.banachek.org%2Fnonflash%2Fvi deo.htm&feature=player_embedded

Would you agree that he used sleight-of-hand to pull off this "mentalist trick"?

(edit: I have corrected the link so it actually works)

[BillyJoe]

It's not a test, it's a challenge
What essentially is the difference between the two?

It was up to Connie to create a protocol that would allow here to do that and the JREF to create one that would prevent it. I believe it was the JREF, after having Connie define what exactly what it is that she claims to be able to do, who came up with a protocol. Connie subsequently agreed that this would be a fair test of her claimed abilities.

I haven't been around here all that long, but it's always been stressed that MDC is NOT a scientific test, it just attempts to use scientific methods to prevent a claimant from cheating their way to riches.Again what is the difference?

[Pixel42]

There is effectively no difference.
Have a look at this demonstration....

http://http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm (http://http//www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm)

Would you agree that he used sleight-of-hand to pull off this "mentalist trick"?
That link doesn't work for me, but I'm utterly useless at working out how mentalists/magicians do any of their tricks so I'm probably the last person to ask anyway.

[BillyJoe]

That's a pretty silly premise. First off, this was the preliminary test. No money was at risk.
But NOBODY has ever passed the preliminary test!
So it would certainly be a newsworthy feat...
...akin to actually winning the million dollars!

Second, the $1M is not ever at risk because Connie, like all other MDC applicants, doesn't have any special powers unknown to science.That, of course, is exactly the wrong attitude when conducting a test/challenge of this sort.

There's no way that the JREF thinks their $1M is at risk. That's why they make the offer in the first place. Sorry, but "Duh!"So you think Randi is lying when he says that he truely wants to find an example of a paranoramal ability?

But let's pretend that they thought it was at risk but only realized it after they agreed to have her take the test.

* As far as I know, the agreement isn't final until they all sign it at the actual test. If they wanted to get out of it, they could have refused to sign it.
* They could have insisted on protocol changes impossible to implement on short notice.
* They could have accused Connie of cheating and terminated the test.
* They could have claimed technical difficulty and postponed the test.
* They could have deliberately "violated" the protocol to force a retest at a later date.
* They could have let her win (that makes me laugh), and figured out a way to get out of having her take the final test. And you actually think any of this would sound convincing?

[BillyJoe]

That link doesn't work for me, but I'm utterly useless at working out how mentalists/magicians do any of their tricks so I'm probably the last person to ask anyway.

Sorry, I don't know what happened there.
Try this link direct from the youtube site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeND2djUnZ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.banachek.org%2Fnonflash%2Fvi deo.htm&feature=player_embedded

(I have edited the original post)

[BillyJoe]

For me, the most ludicrous part is that for anyone from the JREF, including Banachek to decide to cheat, they would need to think that there was a strong possibility that Connie really possessed a power.
She has a 1 in 1000 chance of winning without any "power". ;)

[Pixel42]

Sorry, I don't know what happened there.
Try this link direct from the youtube site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeND2djUnZ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.banachek.org%2Fnonflash%2Fvi deo.htm&feature=player_embedded

(I have edited the original post)
Fascinating. I've no idea how it was done but my understanding is that mentalists influence the subject without them realising it, so I would guess that the piece of paper had the word bean written on it all along and Banachek somehow suggested to the woman that that was the word she should choose. So no sleight of hand, he just turned the card over when he removed the cloth so the side that had the word on was now uppermost.

[laca]

Connie's acquiescence doesn't excuse the JREF for not realising that it was not a good idea for Banachek to be anything more than an observer, and ensuring he did not get anywhere near those cards.

They ensured he did not get anywhere near the cards. Until opening time. He did not know what kind of cards were in the envelopes.

What you don't seem to realize is that no matter who they would have put in place of Banachek, the same accusations would have been brought up by Connie. Also, in my opinion the JREF did everything they could within reason to stop anyone from cheating.

[laca]

But NOBODY has ever passed the preliminary test!
So it would certainly be a newsworthy feat...


Yep.


...akin to actually winning the million dollars!


Not by a long shot.


That, of course, is exactly the wrong attitude when conducting a test/challenge of this sort.


The attitude doesn't matter as long as the results are interpreted correctly. There are plenty of things eveyone is sure of (including you) that have smaller probability than Connie not having said powers.


So you think Randi is lying when he says that he truely wants to find an example of a paranoramal ability?


Who wouldn't want to find proof for paranormal abilities? That would be exciting. Just like meeting Santa in person. ;)

[athon]

Fascinating. I've no idea how it was done but my understanding is that mentalists influence the subject without them realising it, so I would guess that the piece of paper had the word bean written on it all along and Banachek somehow suggested to the woman that that was the word she should choose. So no sleight of hand, he just turned the card over when he removed the cloth so the side that had the word on was now uppermost.

Mentalism is a class of magic that tends to focus on tricks that have something to do with the mind, typically 'mind reading' sort of stuff. They do it using pretty much the full box of tricks open to all magicians, though. Forcing, mirrors, sleight of hand...the works.

I tend to agree that using Banachek to do the actual handling of the cards was probably a bad call as far as accusations of cheating go. I know the likelihood of an applicant crying foul is always high, but in this case having somebody else perform the simple act of handling the cards is one less point of contention. It's hardly a major issue, but I would have thought it smarter to address, IMO.

As for Billy Joe's comments on people who state that there is unequivically no chance for anybody to succeed in the challenge, I happen to agree this essentially goes against the spirit of the entire challenge. It's unreasonable, illogical and arrogant to state that the challenge cannot be won. We can only state that it hasn't been won, and going on current evidence we agree it's damn unlikely to ever be won in the future.

Certainty is definitely not compatible with skepticism.

Athon

[laca]

As for Billy Joe's comments on people who state that there is unequivically no chance for anybody to succeed in the challenge, I happen to agree this essentially goes against the spirit of the entire challenge. It's unreasonable, illogical and arrogant to state that the challenge cannot be won. We can only state that it hasn't been won, and going on current evidence we agree it's damn unlikely to ever be won in the future.

Certainty is definitely not compatible with skepticism.

Athon

Exactly. It is damn unlikely to be won in the future. Not 100%. But highly unlikely. Most people when not trying to be pedantic take things that are highly unlikely as not existing in regards to their actions, i.e. one doesn't take into consideration things that are highly unlikely, otherwise there would be too many things to consider.

So, while the statement "the null hypothesis - Connie does not have dowsing powers - has not been disproved under these circumstances and on this occasion" is technically correct, it does give too much undeserved credit to Connie.

[athon]

Exactly. It is damn unlikely to be won in the future. Not 100%. But highly unlikely. Most people when not trying to be pedantic take things that are highly unlikely as not existing in regards to their actions, i.e. one doesn't take into consideration things that are highly unlikely, otherwise there would be too many things to consider.

No arguments here. When making a decision on anything, 'highly unlikely' and 'impossible' are virtually equivalent in effect.

However, stating that they are the same thing when the nature of the challenge is to state 'if you can do it, then show it' is unreasonable.

Athon

[Pup]

I tend to agree that using Banachek to do the actual handling of the cards was probably a bad call as far as accusations of cheating go.

I agree, especially in hindsight when it's clear she wasn't even close to passing. But I can see some of the logic beforehand: how does one know that the applicant isn't just the best sleight-of-hand manipulator out there, rather than yet another deluded douser who'll fail quickly under controlled conditions? If she'd passed, people would be saying, "why did they let some clueless schmuck handle the cards? They should have had an expert in control of everything who'd be able to notice any sleight of hand."

As for Billy Joe's comments on people who state that there is unequivically no chance for anybody to succeed in the challenge, I happen to agree this essentially goes against the spirit of the entire challenge. It's unreasonable, illogical and arrogant to state that the challenge cannot be won. We can only state that it hasn't been won, and going on current evidence we agree it's damn unlikely to ever be won in the future.

I think what's confusing is the duality of the challenge. On the one hand, it is a challenge, and being unreasonable, illogical and arrogant goes with the territory. "So you think you can beat me at tennis? Hah! I'm unbeatable. You're on!"

And yet, since it borrows heavily from scientific experiments, there's the careful, logical aspect: "While the evidence shows that I've always won tennis matches against opponents with your level of skill in the past, which leads me to predict that I'll win this match as well, it's possible that in this particular case you may win, so let's play a match to see if that unlikely event occurs."

That gets approximately the same idea across, but it takes half the fun out of it being a challenge. :) And, seriously, with other challenges, if the applicant is equally confident and cocky, the trash talk just adds to the excitement. If the applicant isn't all that sure of him/herself, and is clearly out-matched, it just seems like rude bullying--and so far, the JREF seems to clearly out-match the other side, so the JREF and its supporters can find themselves on a fine line between confidence and bullying.

[Cleon]

I really think the "mentalist not magician" bit was a bit disingenuous. Most of Banachek's current performance routine is mentalism, but he is an extremely gifted "traditional" magician as well.

[Pixel42]

Mentalism is a class of magic that tends to focus on tricks that have something to do with the mind, typically 'mind reading' sort of stuff. They do it using pretty much the full box of tricks open to all magicians, though. Forcing, mirrors, sleight of hand...the works.
Hmmm. That wasn't my understanding, and wiki seems to agree ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism

Mentalists generally do not mix "standard" magic tricks with their mental feats. Doing so associates mentalism too closely with the theatrical trickery employed by stage magicians. Many mentalists claim not to be magicians at all, arguing that it is a different art form altogether.

... but there are clearly exceptions, and room for disagreement.

I tend to agree that using Banachek to do the actual handling of the cards was probably a bad call as far as accusations of cheating go. I know the likelihood of an applicant crying foul is always high, but in this case having somebody else perform the simple act of handling the cards is one less point of contention. It's hardly a major issue, but I would have thought it smarter to address, IMO.
I agree. However unlikely the objection is to be true, it's one that should have been anticipated and avoided by having someone Connie trusted - her father, perhaps - handling the cards under Banachek's watchful gaze. Of course it's easy to say that now, with the benefit of hindsight. I can well understand how, before the event, the need to ensure that Connie herself didn't cheat made the choice of Banachek seem ideal.

[tkingdoll]

I really think the "mentalist not magician" bit was a bit disingenuous. Most of Banachek's current performance routine is mentalism, but he is an extremely gifted "traditional" magician as well.

I agree. And that's true of all the mentalists I know. In fact many standard mentalism routines are performed using what you'd call magic methods (cameras, microchips etc). Mentalism is a branch of magic, perhaps, but a mentalist is still a magician. If I read your mind (via a tapered deck) to tell you what card you picked, am I a mentalist, or a magician?

However, it's a moot point, because Banachek didn't cheat. I'd put up a million of my own (if I had it) over this issue. There is no benefit to him cheating. There is actually a HUGE PR benefit to Connie winning the challenge. If she had passed this stage of the challenge at TAM, in Vegas, in front of a live audience including famous magicians, and streamed live on the internet, every news outlet in Vegas would have rushed to the scene. It would have brought untold publicity to JREF, Randi and the MDC.

As it was, she didn't win, Banachek didn't cheat, everyone goes home and the mainstream media and the public don't care, as usual. I have no idea what JREF or Connie got from this experience, but I do know that cheating is not in anyone's interests, JREF's least of all.

[William Smith]

...
I tend to agree that using Banachek to do the actual handling of the cards was probably a bad call as far as accusations of cheating go.
...
Athon

I agree, especially in hindsight when it's clear she wasn't even close to passing. But I can see some of the logic beforehand: how does one know that the applicant isn't just the best sleight-of-hand manipulator out there, rather than yet another deluded douser who'll fail quickly under controlled conditions? If she'd passed, people would be saying, "why did they let some clueless schmuck handle the cards? They should have had an expert in control of everything who'd be able to notice any sleight of hand."
...

Good point, Pup.



However, let's not forget one important point: Connie could have nixed Banachek during the protocol negotiations and even one minute before the test. She knew who he was and she accepted his presence and role.

[laca]

No arguments here. When making a decision on anything, 'highly unlikely' and 'impossible' are virtually equivalent in effect.

However, stating that they are the same thing when the nature of the challenge is to state 'if you can do it, then show it' is unreasonable.

Athon

Yes, that might be unreasonable. However, after she failed, it is reasonable to assume again that she does not have those powers.

[Uncayimmy]

Connie's acquiescence doesn't excuse the JREF for not realising that it was not a good idea for Banachek to be anything more than an observer, and ensuring he did not get anywhere near those cards.

Nonsense. If the person was an unknown, people would be speculating that this person might have been trained in sleight of hand techniques. Plenty of people can do it extremely well but are not professionals. You can't stop unfounded claims of cheating.

The JREF needed someone experienced working in front of a large crowd. They needed someone they could trust not to cheat the JREF ($500K is a lot of incentive). The protocol prevented cheating, which is all that counts.

[Wowbagger]

Connie is accusing Banachek of cheating her? I didn't even know they were a couple.

:duck:

[tkingdoll]

Connie is accusing Banachek of cheating her? I didn't even know they were a couple.

:duck:

Yeah, but something like this was always on the cards.

Our posts moved in 3...2...1...

[BillyJoe]

Fascinating. I've no idea how it was done but my understanding is that mentalists influence the subject without them realising it, so I would guess that the piece of paper had the word bean written on it all along and Banachek somehow suggested to the woman that that was the word she should choose. So no sleight of hand, he just turned the card over when he removed the cloth so the side that had the word on was now uppermost.Banachek hasn't said how he does this trick, but Randi can do this trick as well and, by his discription, he does it by sleight of hand. So I think it's a reasonable guess that Banachek does it the same way.
(And maybe you didn't notice all that activity going on under the cloth ;))

BJ

[BillyJoe]

What you don't seem to realize is that no matter who they would have put in place of Banachek, the same accusations would have been brought up by Connie. How about Connie doing it under the watchfull eye of Banachek.

Also, in my opinion the JREF did everything they could within reason to stop anyone from cheating.
And you are a professional magician?

[BillyJoe]

But NOBODY has ever passed the preliminary test!
So it would certainly be a newsworthy feat...
..akin to actually winning the million dollars!
Not by a long shot.
What I mean is that, seeing as no one has ever won the preliminary test, if suddenly out of the blue some one does win it, it will be the same in most of the public's mind as having won the million dollars.

That, of course, is exactly the wrong attitude when conducting a test/challenge of this sort. The attitude doesn't matter as long as the results are interpreted correctly.
The correct attitude is very important for those conducting the test. Their sole aim should be to help Connie to disprove the null hypothesis.

[BillyJoe]

Connie's acquiescence doesn't excuse the JREF for not realising that it was not a good idea for Banachek to be anything more than an observer, and ensuring he did not get anywhere near those cards.Nonsense. If the person was an unknown, people would be speculating that this person might have been trained in sleight of hand techniques.
How about Connie herself under tha watchfull eye of Banachek?

You can't stop unfounded claims of cheating.
But you can make them sound ridiculous.

The JREF needed someone experienced working in front of a large crowd. They needed someone they could trust not to cheat the JREF ($500K is a lot of incentive).
But they didn't need that person to actually handle the cards.

[Ocelot]

A mentalist is a type of illusionist. I think Alision's write up is ambiguous, it certainly jarred with me but in reading the sentances that followed it seems to me that while Banacheck is clearly a magician in the same illusionist/entertainer sense that Randi is a magician he's doens't have any real magical powers.

At least so he claims.

Remember however that from the believer viewpoint there are people who have real magic powers and so the mere fact that it might have been physically impossible for Banachek to cheat is just a small obstacle if he is one of those people.

If they want to avoid such accusations then tests should be conducted by scientists...

like Richard Wiseman ;-)

[Olowkow]

Banachek hasn't said how he does this trick, but Randi can do this trick as well and, by his discription, he does it by sleight of hand. So I think it's a reasonable guess that Banachek does it the same way.
(And maybe you didn't notice all that activity going on under the cloth ;))

BJ
It's a good trick. I have watched it several times and can't figure it out. But one important thing is that she reveals the word before he reveals his "prediction". Why should that be? But he really doesn't touch the paper after that. Just dumps it out with "bean" on it. Beats me. I am assuming she is not in on it.

ETA The activity under the cloth is all going on before she tells him the word though.

[EHocking]

Good point, Pup.



However, let's not forget one important point: Connie could have nixed Banachek during the protocol negotiations and even one minute before the test. She knew who he was and she accepted his presence and role.And another point to remember is that JREF approaches their Challenge in good faith.

Let's not forget that when Corrina Landin appealed that her protocol was not followed correctly JREF agreed to resit her Challenge without prejudice from her initial "fail".

[laca]

How about Connie doing it under the watchfull eye of Banachek.


Huh?


And you are a professional magician?

No. What does that have to do with anything?

[laca]

What I mean is that, seeing as no one has ever won the preliminary test, if suddenly out of the blue some one does win it, it will be the same in most of the public's mind as having won the million dollars.


Yes, I knew that you meant that. I figured from the use of the word "akin".


The correct attitude is very important for those conducting the test. Their sole aim should be to help Connie to disprove the null hypothesis.

I disagree. IMO their sole aim should be to:

arrive at a protocol that ensures that the contestant cannot succeed by chance only (i.e. has a very low probability of doing so)
make sure that the protocol is followed


But it sure as hell isn't to help Connie. Or any contestant.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Has anyone mentioned the possibility that the packets actually contained two cards each, so that Banachek could pull out the alternate card if Sonne chose correctly?

Anyway, I went up on stage after the challenge and looked at the open packets lying in a pile. They looked perfectly normal to me. Also, Sonne looked inside one or two of them as she cut them open.

~~ Paul

[Pup]

It's a good trick. I have watched it several times and can't figure it out. But one important thing is that she reveals the word before he reveals his "prediction". Why should that be? But he really doesn't touch the paper after that. Just dumps it out with "bean" on it. Beats me. I am assuming she is not in on it.

ETA The activity under the cloth is all going on before she tells him the word though.

I'm no magician and am lousy at figuring out magic tricks. My first inclination was to assume that the girl was just a stooge who was told to say "bean," but I think that's way too easy.

So my next thought is that without paranormal powers, Banachek first learned of the word "bean" after she said it, so the word couldn't have been on the paper before then. Both his left hand and the paper are hidden briefly after she says bean and before the paper is revealed. (And I'm not so sure that cloth doesn't have a hole in it.)

Wonder if he could do the trick as well if someone else lifted the cloth off the paper at the end? I mean, the pen's done writing, the word is already on the paper, so who cares who lifts the cloth off, right? :D

[Uncayimmy]

Has anyone mentioned the possibility that the packets actually contained two cards each, so that Banachek could pull out the alternate card if Sonne chose correctly?


That's certainly thinking outside the box. Of course, it would be incredibly easy for Connie and witnesses to notice the extra cards still sitting in each envelope. It would also require Banachek know the contents of each envelope and the relative positions of each card within so he could effectively perform the swap.

He would only need to do it on set. Since she failed on all three sets, the implication would be that they rigged all 30 envelopes. That's a huge risk to take.

[BillyJoe]

Huh?
Get Connie to also play the role Banachek played in the trial (pick up the envelopes, cut them open, pull out the card, and show us what card it is, comparing it with the one she chose and indicating whether she guessed correctly or incorrectly) - but under the watchful eye of Banachek to ensure no cheating on Connie's part.

No. What does that have to do with anything?If you are not a professional majician, perhaps we can dispense with your opinion that no cheating occured as being not worth the paper it was written on.

Yes, I knew that you meant that. I figured from the use of the word "akin". So, when you said "not by a long shot" you weren't being contradictory?

I disagree. IMO their sole aim should be to:

arrive at a protocol that ensures that the contestant cannot succeed by chance only (i.e. has a very low probability of doing so)
make sure that the protocol is followed


But it sure as hell isn't to help Connie. Or any contestant. Well, okay, but then they would not be approaching this test in a scientific manner. The scientific method is to disprove the null hypothesis. In other words, to disprove that what they believe to be true - that Connie does NOT have paranormal abilities - is, in fact, false. They should be helping Connie to pass the test under controlled conditions so as to prove their own hypothesis wrong. That's what scientists do.

BJ

[Uncayimmy]

Well, okay, but then they would not be approaching this test in a scientific manner. The scientific method is to disprove the null hypothesis. In other words, to disprove that what they believe to be true - that Connie does NOT have paranormal abilities - is, in fact, false. They should be helping Connie to pass the test under controlled conditions so as to prove their own hypothesis wrong. That's what scientists do.


Of course they are not approaching it in a purely scientific manner. First off, scientists don't put up $1M based on the results of a single test (Randi calls it "reward money"). Second, they don't do just one test with one person.

The preamble to the rules reads:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html
I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations:


It is not a scientific experiment. It is a challenge for people who claim a paranormal ability to demonstrate that ability in a way that could only be "explained" by it actually being paranormal. Everything flows from that.

If a claimant wants scientists to be involved, then let her approach some scientists, drum up some grant money, and approach it scientifically. The MDC doesn't interfere with that at all.

[BillyJoe]

UJ,

That there is a prize doesn't preclude the test from being a scientific test.
Also, you don't need a scientist, non-scientists can use scientific tests quite easily.

[Uncayimmy]

That there is a prize doesn't preclude the test from being a scientific test.

Do you have any examples of peer-reviewed "scientific tests" where a single experiment included a personal financial reward for the subject that was dependent on the outcome? And did they require the subject to have a media presence?

Also, you don't need a scientist, non-scientists can use scientific tests quite easily.
Sure, you can do it without scientists, but I doubt they will get much grant money or have their results published anywhere meaningful.

I don't want to get into a semantic argument about what constitutes a "scientific test" because it's pointless. The JREF offers a challenge with a financial reward for twice-repeated success. They employ "scientific" methods in the process, but it is first and foremost a challenge. To me the challenge is not at all about the "sole aim" being "to help Connie to disprove the null hypothesis."

The challenge is, "you said you could do it, you got the press to say you did it, so now prove it."

[Quinn]

Maybe not digging, but stirring. I was in the stream chat as a registered user, those who were not were being obnoxious. I was glad for the non registered users to be booted, the questions weren't skeptical or relevant. It was a lot of juvenile jiberish. The silence was nice. Quinn, wouldn't you agree, being a registered user would have been polite? Lots of anonymous ustreamers were typing things like "DRINK" everytime Banacheks name was mentioned. It was pandomonium.

I think we're talking about two different things. I can't comment on the stream chat, as I wasn't involved in it and paid no attention to it (though I realize others in the Cafe thread kept harping on it). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Maybe not digging, but stirring." Again, I can only speak for my own intentions, which had nothing to do with digging, stirring, or any other variation of trouble-causing. The fact that things quickly deteriorated in that direction anyway was disappointing, though not surprising in retrospect.

[arthwollipot]

Indeed. But I don't think she understood why using cards she'd never seen before might produce very different results to using cards she'd made herself, which is why she saw no need to duplicate the JREF protocol to ensure her ability still worked under those conditions before going to TAM. IOW she doesn't understand how the ideomotor effect works. Very few people do.I'd just like to point out a minor issue here. Connie did not dowse. What she did was pure clairvoyance.

Well... "clairvoyance".

She held the pendulum steady as she thought about each of the cards. She did not move the pendulum over the cards, nor did the movement of the pendulum change in any way while she was thinking about the cards. There was no opportunity for the ideomotor effect to come into play.

That's how I saw it, anyway. I was in the front row, off to one side ("press" credentials).

[arthwollipot]

As the cards are being exposed, Connie seems not to care at all that she is failing the test - almost like she expected to fail; there are no looks or exclamations of surprise at all, just a matter of fact acceptance of her failure. That was the really surprising for me watching that video.

I wonder what it could mean?

Has she perhaps used JREF?
....for some free publicity?
Is her accusation of cheating a way of negating the negative effect of failing the test whilst reaping the benefits of the free publicity this has given her?

BJHer statement in the press conference after the test is that "they" (ie, the mysterious entities that she won't identify but she claims are the source of her insights) would not allow her to succeed at the test because "the world is not ready". She also claims to have had a premonition as she was leaving Denmark that she would fail the test. Given these, it is not particularly surprising that she did not express shock or uncertainty once she failed.

[Patricio Elicer]

I'd just like to point out a minor issue here. Connie did not dowse. What she did was pure clairvoyance.

Well... "clairvoyance".

She held the pendulum steady as she thought about each of the cards. She did not move the pendulum over the cards, nor did the movement of the pendulum change in any way while she was thinking about the cards. There was no opportunity for the ideomotor effect to come into play.

That's how I saw it, anyway. I was in the front row, off to one side ("press" credentials).


I noticed that, as well.

[Uncayimmy]

I'd just like to point out a minor issue here. Connie did not dowse. What she did was pure clairvoyance.

Well... "clairvoyance".

She held the pendulum steady as she thought about each of the cards. She did not move the pendulum over the cards, nor did the movement of the pendulum change in any way while she was thinking about the cards. There was no opportunity for the ideomotor effect to come into play.

That's how I saw it, anyway. I was in the front row, off to one side ("press" credentials).

So she cheated. Hmm....

[arthwollipot]

So she cheated. Hmm....I didn't say that. :p All I said was that she didn't dowse.

[rollickingsunshine]

It is because Banachek is a mentalist that he could make sure Sonne didn't cheat.

Face it. NO matter who yanked the cards out, or who put the envelopes together in the first place, Sonne would never have accepted the inevitable outcome.

There is no doubt this was a fair test. There was no cheating on either side.

There is no doubt she failed because there is no special dowsing ability that can enable people to accurately name what cards are in envelopes they cannot see through.

I don't believe Banachek cheated, mainly because he and the JREF had absolutely nothing to gain by cheating. He is a skeptic and knew that she would fail, so why do anything when she was going to do it to herself anyway? I do have to say that I think it would have been better to have Banachek there as an observer so he could use his skills to make sure nothing fishy went on, but I believe he acted very well as the tester as well.

[Pixel42]

She held the pendulum steady as she thought about each of the cards. She did not move the pendulum over the cards, nor did the movement of the pendulum change in any way while she was thinking about the cards. There was no opportunity for the ideomotor effect to come into play.

How strange. I saw she was holding the pendulum in front of the cards rather than over them, but I assumed that the pendulum was swinging slightly and she was judging which card it was swinging towards. If not then I agree she's not dowsing and it's not the ideomotor effect, and the question of how she convinced herself she had this power in the first place just got harder to answer.

[pakeha]

This is the first time I have seen a video of the test.

As the cards are being exposed, Connie seems not to care at all that she is failing the test - almost like she expected to fail; there are no looks or exclamations of surprise at all, just a matter of fact acceptance of her failure. That was the really surprising for me watching that video.

I wonder what it could mean?

Has she perhaps used JREF?
....for some free publicity?
Is her accusation of cheating a way of negating the negative effect of failing the test whilst reaping the benefits of the free publicity this has given her?

BJ
This is my impression, BillyJoe.
No matter how thoroughly thought out the protocol, calling out 'cheating' is inevitably an option, or tactic, if you will.

[GimmePepsi]

How strange. I saw she was holding the pendulum in front of the cards rather than over them, but I assumed that the pendulum was swinging slightly and she was judging which card it was swinging towards. If not then I agree she's not dowsing and it's not the ideomotor effect, and the question of how she convinced herself she had this power in the first place just got harder to answer.

Who cares? Maybe she can feel through her fingers which way the pendulum wants to move. :) Just because she's holding a pendulum in her hand, why should anyone assume it's the visible motion of the pendulum that she's looking for? Did she ever claim that? Maybe the pendulum changes color, or gets heavier, or talks to her in her mind. Whatever. No matter what, it's self-delusion.

[alfaniner]

She lost. End of story.

[Pixel42]

Whatever. No matter what, it's self-delusion.
Perfectly intelligent, rational people can be fooled by the ideomotor effect into thinking they have some kind of paranormal ability. No self-delusion is required. If that's not the explanation for Connie's belief in her ability other less, um, charitable possibilities have to be considered.

[BillyJoe]

I don't want to get into a semantic argument about what constitutes a "scientific test"...Except that you already have. :D
(BTW, I think you have a very narrow view of what constitutes a sceintific test ;))

The JREF ... employ "scientific" methods in the process...Well, let's just leave it at that then. :)
(Except that that scientific method requires that you attempt to disprove the null hypothesis :D)

BJ

[BillyJoe]

Her statement in the press conference after the test is that "they" (ie, the mysterious entities that she won't identify but she claims are the source of her insights) would not allow her to succeed at the test because "the world is not ready". She also claims to have had a premonition as she was leaving Denmark that she would fail the test. Given these, it is not particularly surprising that she did not express shock or uncertainty once she failed.Hmmm, okay, I think that would explain her strange reaction. She was actually expecting to fail long before the test began.

[BillyJoe]

This is my impression, BillyJoe.
No matter how thoroughly thought out the protocol, calling out 'cheating' is inevitably an option, or tactic, if you will.But I think you can devise a test so that making a call like that just sounds ridiculous.

[Ocelot]

Perfectly intelligent, rational people can be fooled by the ideomotor effect into thinking they have some kind of paranormal ability. No self-delusion is required. If that's not the explanation for Connie's belief in her ability other less, um, charitable possibilities have to be considered.

Isn't wehat you describe - perfectly rational people fooled by the ideomotor effect just another way of saying self delusion.

Why is it that some people people think that delusion is such a prejorative thing or even the sole preserve of mental illness. Earlier this morning I thought that my tube was pulling into St James Park, In fact I was one stop early, it was Westminster. That's a delusion.

[BillyJoe]

Why is it that some people people think that delusion is such a prejorative thing or even the sole preserve of mental illness. Earlier this morning I thought that my tube was pulling into St James Park, In fact I was one stop early, it was Westminster. That's a delusion.


Delusion has two meanings

A delusion can simply be "a false belief".
But a delusion can also be "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence".

Your delusion clearly falls into the first category.
The second type of delusion is often a symptom of mental illness.

BJ

[laca]

Get Connie to also play the role Banachek played in the trial (pick up the envelopes, cut them open, pull out the card, and show us what card it is, comparing it with the one she chose and indicating whether she guessed correctly or incorrectly) - but under the watchful eye of Banachek to ensure no cheating on Connie's part.


I get it. But how is that different (better?) from Banachek doing it under the watchful eye of the whole room and the cameras?


If you are not a professional majician, perhaps we can dispense with your opinion that no cheating occured as being not worth the paper it was written on.


Right back at you, buddy!


So, when you said "not by a long shot" you weren't being contradictory?


No. I knew what you meant and I disagreed. How is that being contradictory?


Well, okay, but then they would not be approaching this test in a scientific manner. The scientific method is to disprove the null hypothesis. In other words, to disprove that what they believe to be true - that Connie does NOT have paranormal abilities - is, in fact, false. They should be helping Connie to pass the test under controlled conditions so as to prove their own hypothesis wrong. That's what scientists do.

BJ

In case you missed it, I'm don't like your use of the word helping. It sounds almost like cheating in this context. They should be neutral, i.e. neither helping nor obstructing. IMO that would be what scientists would do.

[pakeha]

But I think you can devise a test so that making a call like that just sounds ridiculous.
Hmmm. I doubt very much you could come up with a definition of 'ridiculous' which would satisfy everyone.
I, for example found the lady's explanation of her failure, based on her 'powers' not wanting to be revealed at this time to be flatly and totally ridiculous.
Remember, the lady is said to be an ex-constable, so obviously not entirely a stranger to notions of logic, evidence and credibility.

[BillyJoe]

I get it. But how is that different (better?) from Banachek doing it under the watchful eye of the whole room and the cameras?
In the first case, the watchful eye is that of a professional magician.

Right back at you, buddy!Not really. I didn't make any inexpert judgements.

No. I knew what you meant and I disagreed. How is that being contradictory?In one post you seemed to disagree and then, in the next post, you seemed to agree, so I can't make out what you actually think.

In case you missed it, I'm don't like your use of the word helping. It sounds almost like cheating in this context. They should be neutral, i.e. neither helping nor obstructing. IMO that would be what scientists would do.Well, obviously, I wouldn't be suggesting they help Connie to cheat. I said they should help Connie to pass the test under controlled conditions.
And I don't agree that they should be neutral. They should be bending over backwards trying to disprove the null hypothesis. It's when scientists bend over backwards trying to disprove the null hypothesis and continually fail despite their best efforts that the null hypothesis gains traction.

BJ

[arthwollipot]

How strange. I saw she was holding the pendulum in front of the cards rather than over them, but I assumed that the pendulum was swinging slightly and she was judging which card it was swinging towards. If not then I agree she's not dowsing and it's not the ideomotor effect, and the question of how she convinced herself she had this power in the first place just got harder to answer.Well, in the background materials that were provided to those of us on the VIP list (which included me because I had a press pass) she explains that she has always had some degree of clairvoyance, but when a friend suggested she try using a pendulum, her powers increased. My guess is that she is using the pendulum as a focus, and not as a dowsing instrument.

[laca]

In the first case, the watchful eye is that of a professional magician.


Oh, so there weren't any professional magicians in the room. And no professional magician could ever watch the recordings. I see...


Not really. I didn't make any inexpert judgements.


How can you tell then that my opinion is worth nothing? Are you an expert on me? :boggled:


In one post you seemed to disagree and then, in the next post, you seemed to agree, so I can't make out what you actually think.


Well, you should try a bit harder, because I can't remeber when I agreed.


Well, obviously, I wouldn't be suggesting they help Connie to cheat. I said they should help Connie to pass the test under controlled conditions.
And I don't agree that they should be neutral. They should be bending over backwards trying to disprove the null hypothesis. It's when scientists bend over backwards trying to disprove the null hypothesis and continually fail despite their best efforts that the null hypothesis gains traction.

BJ

The null hypothesis already has huge traction. It had for ages. Even Randi has been doing it for decades. Now it seems that it is time for the contestants to do all the bending over backwards.

[Pixel42]

Well, in the background materials that were provided to those of us on the VIP list (which included me because I had a press pass) she explains that she has always had some degree of clairvoyance, but when a friend suggested she try using a pendulum, her powers increased. My guess is that she is using the pendulum as a focus, and not as a dowsing instrument.
That obviously makes sense to her as a believer, but it doesn't tell us non-believers how she came to believe in the first place. How, for example, did she manage to spell out her father's name using her home made cards if the ideomotor effect wasn't helping her unconsciously identify the cards from the back from their small differences?

[arthwollipot]

That obviously makes sense to her as a believer, but it doesn't tell us non-believers how she came to believe in the first place. How, for example, did she manage to spell out her father's name using her home made cards if the ideomotor effect wasn't helping her unconsciously identify the cards from the back from their small differences?No idea. We didn't witness this event - we have only her word that this event actually took place. If I were to venture an uninformed opinion, I would say that it never happened in the way that is described. But without some kind of knowledge other than her word, there is no way I or anyone else can judge.

[pakeha]

Well, in the background materials that were provided to those of us on the VIP list (which included me because I had a press pass) she explains that she has always had some degree of clairvoyance, but when a friend suggested she try using a pendulum, her powers increased. My guess is that she is using the pendulum as a focus, and not as a dowsing instrument.
hi, arthwollipot.
Thanks for that information.
In the background materials, was there any mention of the Anthropology prof who apparently signed the required affadavit (sp)?
Is it true Connie Sonne was a Danish constable?

[Pixel42]

If I were to venture an uninformed opinion, I would say that it never happened in the way that is described.
As I said, having eliminated the ideomotor effect as an explanation any alternative explanation is going to be less charitable. A combination of faulty memory and confirmation bias would be the next most charitable, and would also be my next guess.

[Eos of the Eons]

The null hypothesis already has huge traction. It had for ages. Even Randi has been doing it for decades. Now it seems that it is time for the contestants to do all the bending over backwards.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's about time these claimants didn't just get away with making crazy claims. They should have to bend over backwards to prove that they aren't lying/making things up/fooling themselves.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmmm. I doubt very much you could come up with a definition of 'ridiculous' which would satisfy everyone.
I, for example found the lady's explanation of her failure, based on her 'powers' not wanting to be revealed at this time to be flatly and totally ridiculous.
Remember, the lady is said to be an ex-constable, so obviously not entirely a stranger to notions of logic, evidence and credibility.

Maybe there is a reason she is an EX-constable.

[William Smith]

Maybe there is a reason she is an EX-constable.

Maybe it is ovarish to write the above statement.

[BillyJoe]

They should have to bend over backwards to prove that they aren't lying/making things up/fooling themselves.
You may have gotten this out of context.

We were talking about contestants for the MDC. We should make things as easy as possible for them to win the prize whilst still maintaining "controlled conditions". We should help them in every way possible to articulate exactly what they think they can do and under what experimental conditions they think they can do it. Then if or when they lose it will be not for lack of our trying to help them to win. To not help them in every way possible, makes it look like we think they have could win and we're going to do everything possible to make sure they don't.

Do you disagree?

BJ

[Audible Click]

Maybe it is ovarish to write the above statement.

Defne "ovarish" please.

[Uncayimmy]

You may have gotten this out of context.

We were talking about contestants for the MDC. We should make things as easy as possible for them to win the prize whilst still maintaining "controlled conditions". We should help them in every way possible to articulate exactly what they think they can do and under what experimental conditions they think they can do it. Then if or when they lose it will be not for lack of our trying to help them to win. To not help them in every way possible, makes it look like we think they have could win and we're going to do everything possible to make sure they don't.

Do you disagree?

BJ

I disagree:

* The JREF shouldn't be involved in trying to "help" them articulate what it is they can do. The applicant needs to bring that to the table. The JREF just needs to be sure that the claim is clear. Trying to "help" them find the right words could be troublesome.

* The goal of the JREF should not be to make things "easy" but to ensure that there are no known processes at work and that the only process at work is their paranormal ability. It is up to the applicant to negotiate a protocol that allows their abilities to work.

* How can the JREF make it "easier" for someone to do something that they don't think is possible in the first place?

The challenge is by definition adversarial, not cooperative.

[rjh01]

You may have gotten this out of context.

We were talking about contestants for the MDC. We should make things as easy as possible for them to win the prize whilst still maintaining "controlled conditions". We should help them in every way possible to articulate exactly what they think they can do and under what experimental conditions they think they can do it. Then if or when they lose it will be not for lack of our trying to help them to win. To not help them in every way possible, makes it look like we think they have could win and we're going to do everything possible to make sure they don't.

Do you disagree?

BJ

I disagree:

* The JREF shouldn't be involved in trying to "help" them articulate what it is they can do. The applicant needs to bring that to the table. The JREF just needs to be sure that the claim is clear. Trying to "help" them find the right words could be troublesome.

* The goal of the JREF should not be to make things "easy" but to ensure that there are no known processes at work and that the only process at work is their paranormal ability. It is up to the applicant to negotiate a protocol that allows their abilities to work.

* How can the JREF make it "easier" for someone to do something that they don't think is possible in the first place?

The challenge is by definition adversarial, not cooperative.

YncaYimmy, you have not said anything to contradict BilllyJoe. The rest of what you have said is correct.

To BillyJoe - How can JREF make it any easier for contestants to demonstrate their abilities?
I say this forum does a good job of helping contestants with just about everything, including helping write their application and telling them to practice their ability. It is a pity Connie did not do so or she will have found that her abilities did not exist.

[Eos of the Eons]

I disagree:

* The JREF shouldn't be involved in trying to "help" them articulate what it is they can do. The applicant needs to bring that to the table. The JREF just needs to be sure that the claim is clear. Trying to "help" them find the right words could be troublesome.

* The goal of the JREF should not be to make things "easy" but to ensure that there are no known processes at work and that the only process at work is their paranormal ability. It is up to the applicant to negotiate a protocol that allows their abilities to work.




That's what I can agree with. The JREF is cooperative as well, and very accomodating. It is up to the applicant to be coherant, and to understand that things must be put in place to prevent any cheating from "either side".

It is therefore "easy" to apply.

[arthwollipot]

hi, arthwollipot.
Thanks for that information.
In the background materials, was there any mention of the Anthropology prof who apparently signed the required affadavit (sp)?
Is it true Connie Sonne was a Danish constable?Yes and yes.

We got a copy of the affidavit, which basically affirms that someone with letters after their name was fooled. And I don't think there's been any question whether she was with the police force.

[Uncayimmy]

I'd just like to point out a minor issue here. Connie did not dowse. What she did was pure clairvoyance.

Well... "clairvoyance".

She held the pendulum steady as she thought about each of the cards. She did not move the pendulum over the cards, nor did the movement of the pendulum change in any way while she was thinking about the cards. There was no opportunity for the ideomotor effect to come into play.

That's how I saw it, anyway. I was in the front row, off to one side ("press" credentials).

After reviewing the video on YouTube, I'm going to disagree that the pendulum did not change in any way. From what I could tell it seemed to change directions and velocity. Also, sometimes it appeared to be going in more of a circle. However, she definitely didn't move it over the cards. And from what I could tell, I couldn't see any change immediately before she made a selection. Whether she made use of any of this variations I can't say.

The most amazing thing of all was how quiet the audience was.

[arthwollipot]

The most amazing thing of all was how quiet the audience was.That has been remarked by quite a few people.

[rjh01]

She should in another application for the MDC. The ability to keep a large group of people quiet for a period of time. That was almost a paranormal feat in itself.

[pakeha]

Yes and yes.

We got a copy of the affidavit, which basically affirms that someone with letters after their name was fooled. And I don't think there's been any question whether she was with the police force.

Thanks for the information, arthwollipot.
I question everything about the lady.
I find it difficult to believe a member of any police force would publicly affirm having an EVP about a missing child in a press conference after failing to correctly dowse some playing cards in Las Vegas.

[laca]

I find it difficult to believe a member of any police force would publicly affirm having an EVP about a missing child in a press conference after failing to correctly dowse some playing cards in Las Vegas.

Why? What makes members of any police force so special?

[rjh01]

The test is up on youtube. Has been last six hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qiG9PUiaQ part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USw7XXT0RXk part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zavQQe76xS8 part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coLE93t1R0A part 4

One comment. At the start he says that this is the three which is one you did not get. But he said that BEFORE removing the card. This may be because he looked at the card before removing it. Either that or he is eligible for the MDC himself.

rjh01 now runs away.

This seems to be the end of the test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoW6_2H4aE

<snip> At the stage, Banacheck said to me BEFORE he even looked in the envelope I had cut...and here is spade ace, the one you looked for!!!! I first hit me now about that ....but maybe you can see it yourself if someone get the video.<snip>
Connie

Just reviewed everything to see if connie had any point here. The answer is yes, but only on a technicality. The point in question is not on the video provided by JREF earlier and quoted by Sideroxylon above. It is when they are opening the rest of the cards, the one that was the three which was what she should have chosen Banacheck said it was the three. However the video is not 100% clear from the video if Banacheck looked at the card before saying what it was.

Edit. This thread had no tags so I added some. Same as the other thread.

[BillyJoe]

I disagree:
I don't know that you do entirely.

The JREF shouldn't be involved in trying to "help" them articulate what it is they can do. The applicant needs to bring that to the table.As in Connie's case, the applicants often have a whole range of claimed skills. The Jref helps to identify one that can be tested.

The JREF just needs to be sure that the claim is clear.This is part of what I mean by "help".
And it seems to contradict your quote above ("The JREF shouldn't be involved in trying to "help" them articulate what it is they can do")

Trying to "help" them find the right words could be troublesome.Unless they help them to use words that make it clear what exactly it is they can do. ;)

* The goal of the JREF should not be to make things "easy" but to ensure that there are no known processes at work and that the only process at work is their paranormal ability.As I said "whilst still maintaining controlled conditions".
And why shouldn't they facilitate the process of testing the claim?

It is up to the applicant to negotiate a protocol that allows their abilities to work. ...and they negotiate this with the JREF.

* How can the JREF make it "easier" for someone to do something that they don't think is possible in the first place? The question is, why would they not make it easy seeing as they don't think it is possible. What have they got to lose by helping the claimant in every way possible (whilst still maintainig the control conditions)? In fact, they have everything to gain, I would have thought.

The challenge is by definition adversarial, not cooperative.I disagree. :)

BJ

[BillyJoe]

YncaYimmy, you have not said anything to contradict BilllyJoe. The rest of what you have said is correct.
How perceptive :)

To BillyJoe - How can JREF make it any easier for contestants to demonstrate their abilities?
I say this forum does a good job of helping contestants with just about everything, including helping write their application and telling them to practice their ability. It is a pity Connie did not do so or she will have found that her abilities did not exist.I didn't say that they don't.
I'm disagreeing with those who think they should not.
The JREF's attitiude is, I believe, not only not adversarial, not only cooperative, but in fact pointedly helpful.
I am essentially supporting their position on this.

BJ

[rjh01]

Yes, helpful. One of the major ways it is helpful is via the existence of this forum, where applicants are actively encouraged to post.

However the challenge itself is adversarial (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adversary). It is a win / lose situation. One must win the other lose. So they are on the opposite sides.

I do wish people would see if one person says a coin has a head and the other says it has a tail they both can be right. The previous posts are arguing over what a coin has a head or tail as if one must be right and other wrong. I have seen this in so many threads.

[BillyJoe]

However the challenge itself is adversarial (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adversary). It is a win / lose situation. One must win the other lose. So they are on the opposite sides.
The challenge does not fit that definition.
The JREF doesn't ever win, it just either loses or doesn't lose (and so far it hasn't lost)
It's not a boxing match or a footy game.

BJ

[rjh01]

If you look at it like that the applicant either wins or does not win (and so far no applicant has won). You cannot win by such tactics. Please do not try them again.

[Christian Klippel]

The point in question is not on the video provided by JREF earlier and quoted by Sideroxylon above. It is when they are opening the rest of the cards, the one that was the three which was what she should have chosen Banacheck said it was the three. However the video is not 100% clear from the video if Banacheck looked at the card before saying what it was.

To me it looks that he looked into the envelope after Connie cut it open. Now, given the fact that he is used to cards, he would surely recognize the number with only a very short peek. Especially when there are only a four choices left. Also note that the three was the card she missed, so i think that he was looking more to see a three. Kind of a raised level of expectation/awareness to find a three.

Greetings,

Chris

[wardenclyffe]

Also, two cards later, he does the same thing with the 8. It was not out of the envelope when he announced the number.

Ward

[pakeha]

Why? What makes members of any police force so special?
I understand your question, laca and obviously the police are as vulnerable to woo as any other profession.
Still.
In this particular case, one of the most high profile cases in recent times, I cannot believe/accept that a constable would not know how to communicate their idea/vision/whatever to the Portuguese or English police in a credible way.
Remember, this EVP was in November/December of 2007.
Could you wait a year and a half to communicate to the world where a missing child is being held?
Especially with the 2.5 million sterling reward which has been offered for her return?
The lady's story makes no sense whatsoever to me.
None. Precisely because she is a former constable.

[BillyJoe]

If you look at it like that the applicant either wins or does not win (and so far no applicant has won). You cannot win by such tactics. Please do not try them again.

Now you've got it. :)

The JREF can either lose or not lose the million dollars.
The applicant can either win or not win the million dollars.

There is an obvious lack of symmetry here between host and applicant (hey even the fact that cannot both be called contestants or applicants!) that argues against this being adversarial.

:cool:

BJ

[vIQleS]

Hmmm. That wasn't my understanding, and wiki seems to agree ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism



... but there are clearly exceptions, and room for disagreement.


I agree. However unlikely the objection is to be true, it's one that should have been anticipated and avoided by having someone Connie trusted - her father, perhaps - handling the cards under Banachek's watchful gaze. Of course it's easy to say that now, with the benefit of hindsight. I can well understand how, before the event, the need to ensure that Connie herself didn't cheat made the choice of Banachek seem ideal.

Mentalists use different methods (and are seperate from magicians) in the same way a telephone technician has a different toolbox from an electrician...

They're both doing the same thing, just in slightly different ways and with a few specialised tools... And at different voltages. (I think I just lost control of my analogy :D)

[Richard]

Hear the press conference of Connie Soone. www.skepticzone.tv

She was very happy with the test and Banachek at that time.

[pakeha]

Thanks for posting that up, Richard.
It was fascinating to hear the lady actually saying that she 'knew' where this missing girl is.
And also to hear her say the testing was fair and above-board.
Thanks again.

[Questioninggeller]

1) I don't think Banacheck would cheat.
2) Banacheck has no reason to cheat anyone.
3) As this is a serious, Connie should either back up her claim that he cheated or supply evidence.
4) Considering the whole thing was taped and is on the internet (thanks to the JREF filming and posting), Connie could tell us the moment she thinks she was cheated and we can watch the film and consider her claim per the video. But alas she doesn't give any specifics nor and proof that she has every independently verified she has paranormal powers.

If anyone knows the moment she supposedly was tricked, highlight it:

Part 1
U_qiG9PUiaQ
Part 2
USw7XXT0RXk
Part 3
zavQQe76xS8
Part 4
coLE93t1R0A

I didn't see any cheating, but saw what was expected with random chance.


If she wants to continue to post on the JREF forum and make such a claim (about being cheated) maybe she can point to anytime in the video where she was tricked. However, I doubt she will.

[dropzone]

Yeah, but she IS kinda hot.

[Olowkow]

I just watched video 4 for the third time, looking at the spades suit opening of all envelopes. The order was (beginning at 4:35) 10,5,4,7,8,6,9,A,3. (The 2 was already out)

Connie stated that she thought the cheating occurred at the "spade ace" (Ace of spades), the opening of which happens at 7:25. As Banachek had done on several other cards, he peeked inside before he removed the card and stated the card as "ace of spades".
No cheating. It is obvious to me that he looked inside after she cut the small envelope as he was pulling on it.

[Klaymore]

Of course there was no cheating; Connie's just whining like all the woos before her.

I loved the first three videos in which the test actually takes place and Connie makes a dick out of herself getting none of the cards right. The fourth video, where she has to snip open all of the envelopes to make sure that there was no trickery, is like watching maggots eating human flesh. It's just so horrible and uncomfortable and real.

If Connie truly thought she'd been cheated, she'd point to the exact spot on the tape where it happened. Like The Professor, T'ai Chi, Canadian Malcontent, and just about every other woo who haunts this forum, she instead makes vague, unsubstantiated accusations, and then expects the members of the forum to prove her wrong.

Take a few minutes out of your busy schedule; tell us exactly where in the video you were cheated, and how you think it happened. Edited for rule 12
As Connie is a member here at JREF, she is entitled to the same courtesy as any other member, and this means not making personal attacks.

[Eos of the Eons]

I like how Klaymore put it *grins*

[HawaiiBigSis]

<snip>The fourth video, where she has to snip open all of the envelopes to make sure that there was no trickery, is like watching maggots eating human flesh. It's just so horrible and uncomfortable and real.

And those of us watching the live video couldn't agree more.

[William Smith]

Of course there was no cheating; Connie's just whining like all the woos before her.

I loved the first three videos in which the test actually takes place and Connie makes a dick out of herself getting none of the cards right. The fourth video, where she has to snip open all of the envelopes to make sure that there was no trickery, is like watching maggots eating human flesh. It's just so horrible and uncomfortable and real.

If Connie truly thought she'd been cheated, she'd point to the exact spot on the tape where it happened. Like The Professor, T'ai Chi, Canadian Malcontent, and just about every other woo who haunts this forum, she instead makes vague, unsubstantiated accusations, and then expects the members of the forum to prove her wrong.

That's not how proof works Connie, Take a few minutes out of your busy schedule; tell us exactly where in the video you were cheated, and how you think it happened. Edited to remove quote of modded post.

I reported this post, Klaymore. I think I understand why you feel this way, but the beginning of the last paragraph seems grossly inadequate.

[Klaymore]

I like how Klaymore put it *grins*

I'd love to take credit for the "like maggots eating human flesh" line, but actually James Woods used it referring to a scene in "Alfie" (the original version, not the remake). As testiment to what a great line it is, Woods used it in an interview that was published in about 1988, and I've never forgotten it.

It sure does fit, though, and I don't think James Woods would mind!

[Klaymore]

I reported this post, Klaymore. I think I understand why you feel this way, but the beginning of the last paragraph seems grossly inadequate.

:blush:

[BillyJoe]

Alison Smith, as representative for the JREF, said at the beginning of tape 1: "...and we all want to see her perform well". Better sentiments than those expressed above, although I accept that one is before and the other after the event. Still, I think we have everything to gain by remaining civil and everything to lose by being abusive, regardless of how Connie conducted herself after the test.

[BillyJoe]

BTW, I see no evidence of dowsing. She must be using that pendulum to "concentrate her mind" or "channel the energies" or something.

[laca]

I reported this post, Klaymore. I think I understand why you feel this way, but the beginning of the last paragraph seems grossly inadequate.

I agree it's a bit harsh... But does it break any rules? Yes. It breaks rule 12. If it were a non-member it would be okay, but Connie Sonne is a member here.

[William Smith]

I agree it's a bit harsh... But does it break any rules? Edited to remove quote of modded post.

We shall see, since I reported this post, too.

I report very, very few posts - and only those whose authors seem well capable of voicing their opinion in a more civil way.

[laca]

We shall see, since I reported this post, too.


Thank you.


I report very, very few posts - and only those whose authors seem well capable of voicing their opinion in a more civil way.

Thank you.

[Moochie]

One word, about this whole sorry nonsense: bêtise.


M.

[arthwollipot]

Hear the press conference of Connie Soone. www.skepticzone.tv (http://www.skepticzone.tv)

She was very happy with the test and Banachek at that time.Darn you Richard. You scooped us with that report. We were going to do a very similar thing on the Nonsense Podcast. :(

[connie sonne]

I think many had misunderstood me...it was not only Banachek, but the whole JREF who has cheatened not only me, but a lot of people. And another misunderstanding, I have never said WHEN I was going to tell about it, I only said when I would start on my website. And I did. The other things will come....when the right time comes!

Another thing , from the beginning I gave JREF and Bart Farkas and Mark Edward a cd rom containing voices from behind. It is real, and NOONE can manipulate that kind of voices. And they know, but they NEVER mentioned it at all. WHY NOT? Because they know I am right.

[connie sonne]

Bart Farkas wrote a mail to me:

Sent monday, august 3 2009 8.43

Connie,

I hope your trip back to Denmark went well.

Thank you again for the dowsing string and for the CD with the audio files. I want to get the full effect out of the audio file so I need to ask you again at what speed I need to play the audiofile? You told me once but I can`t remember exactly what speed I need to play it at in order for me to be able to hear properly. I can tell there sounds like a voice on the CD but it`s not clear when I listen at regular speed.
Thanks!
Bart.

[Eos of the Eons]

Bart is nicely asking you what speed. So, what speed? Pretty much any shaky recording can sound voicey, so if nothing can actually be heard, then it could be just the usual same old same old. That's pretty boring. So, one must get a clear message or clear voice out of it to be sure. So far, no go. *yawn*

[connie sonne]

I wrote:

sent 7 august 2009 8.10

Hi Bart, and thank you. It was nice to meet you, but I`m right about the cheating, and it`s not only Banachek, what I meant...It was the whole JREF. I will and can prove it. I don`t know, if you know something, but actually I don`t care. I still think you were a very good company. The 15 august I will get my websit in danish, and the 15 september in english. I will write about the JREF there too.

About the cd-rom. I thought I had written it in a document on the cd, but maybe you can`t open the file. I dont know, but here it comes again:

Play the voices again and again, get your ears used to hear only the voices, not the noises. You must be very patient and play it on a computer with very good speakers.
Play it on the regular speed....1,0 until you can hear this:

a little girl: why I dont know why?...a man: A? I do think so...they punished you...then the litlle girl say some words I can`t hear but then...why it means double kick??

When you hear that more clearly (and you will, if you are patient) then play it on the speed of 0,6.

Here it again and again...then you will hear:

Where the man says BECAUSE THEY PUNISHED YOU, another voice says : HE IS HURTING ME HERE! The word PUNISHED is now transformed to HURTING!

and when the little girl says: WHY IT MEANS DOUBLE KICK, another voice says: WHY YOU GO AWAY! The word DOUBLE KICK is now transformed into AWAY!

I will send this email for Mark Edward too, eventhough he is a big liar. Because if you can`t open the document on the cd, he can`t either. So I still think he should have the oportunity to hear the cd rom.

Regards Connie

[connie sonne]

Eos: I did`nt ask you of anything:D

[LashL]

Oh, look, a zombie thread resurrection.

What, not enough attention in real life these days, Connie, since you failed spectacularly a year ago?

Nobody "cheated" you. You failed.

Spectacularly.

Deal with it.

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos: I did`nt ask you of anything:D

I was there last year, during your spectacular fail, and nobody cheated. I saw the whole thing with my own eyes. Now you want us to interpret white noise as words too?

You are asking me to believe you when you're being so dishonest about everything now.

[connie sonne]

I never heard something, and then I wrote a mail for Bart :

sent 16.may 2010 20.23



Hi Bart, I just want to say that I am sure now, that you (like Mark Edward) are unfortunately not the same person you gave yourself out to be when we met at TAM 7.

You were hired to win my trust with the only purpose: to find out some more about me, things JREF could use somehow. For that reason you recorded our conversations and the same with the conversation between Mark Edward and me. You told me that you would use it for your book about the Million Dollar Challenge, which I don`t expect to be published.
At that time I trusted you and JREF. Therefore I gave you the permission. But I know now, that you and JREF are very dishonest and your backgrounds are very different from what you want the public to believe you are. So therefore: If you use some of my words in your book or other places I will sue you!!

I know you only do your "job" like many others, and I realize that IF the skeptics REALLY want the claimants of the paranormal to come through, to show the world out there that great powers DO excist, the skeptics and others would loose their control. And they will NOT want that!!

You know, like the rest of JREF that there is much more huge powers than your crab and nonsens you spread out, and James Randi and "his" Foundation has NO connection with science ...... well.....skeptics or scientists...... it`s nearly the same! And funny enough....you talk about convincing about the paranormal excist...what about science??? Nearly ALL science is theories!! Prove me :) You have NOT heard the last word from me.

best regards Connie Sonne

[connie sonne]

Eos Yes...you saw it with you own eyes....but there was a lot you did`nt see. They will just have it to look like fair....but it will come, I promise!

[connie sonne]

About the voices...it is NOT a new thing...they knew it from the beginning...it was a part of my request for being tested !!!

[rjh01]

Where is the evidence of cheating?
Where is the evidence that you have supernatural powers?

The test was nearly a year ago, so "it will come" is not good enough.

[connie sonne]

rhj01 : Things are not going to happen like YOU wan`t it to... there is another order!

[Pixel42]

About the voices...it is NOT a new thing...they knew it from the beginning...it was a part of my request for being tested !!!
Yes, and it was rejected as suitable material for a test because there is nothing paranormal about auditory pareidolia.

Give it up, Connie. You took a properly designed and supervised test. You didn't bother to do a dry run of it first, because you were already convinced of your abilities. You failed it, as everyone here predicted.

Have you repeated the exact same test under the same conditions and got a different result? Because until you have, no-one is going listen to anything you have to say about Banachek/JREF cheating.

[Sean84]

Again?

:v:

Fraud.

[Obviousman]

What do you get when you mix a delusion with sour grapes? Connie Sonne.

[alfaniner]

Has it been a year? I believe you can try again...

[RoboTimbo]

At that time I trusted you and JREF. Therefore I gave you the permission. But I know now, that you and JREF are very dishonest and your backgrounds are very different from what you want the public to believe you are. So therefore: If you use some of my words in your book or other places I will sue you!!

I think you'll find it even more difficult to successfully sue now that you've admitted in the same post that you gave permission. Be sure to show this to any attorney you intend to retain.

[Marcus]

I think many had misunderstood me...it was not only Banachek, but the whole JREF who has cheatened not only me, but a lot of people. And another misunderstanding, I have never said WHEN I was going to tell about it, I only said when I would start on my website. And I did. The other things will come....when the right time comes!

Another thing , from the beginning I gave JREF and Bart Farkas and Mark Edward a cd rom containing voices from behind. It is real, and NOONE can manipulate that kind of voices. And they know, but they NEVER mentioned it at all. WHY NOT? Because they know I am right.
If there were any substance to your accusations, you would have come out with them in the days following your failed test, on this site, not asked people to pay attention to your site, in the hopes that maybe in a year you would deign to reveal them.

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos Yes...you saw it with you own eyes....but there was a lot you did`nt see. They will just have it to look like fair....but it will come, I promise!
Your promises to be fair have fallen flat, while the JREF staff have not waffled on a thing. You agreed to the whole process from beginning to end, and now YOU are the one whining and spreading falsehoods. There is video too.

[connie sonne]

Edited for civility. ...actually I feel sorry for you..what have I mentioned all the time?? YOU out there can NOT decide the way it has to go....but ... you can decide yourself if you will read my website or not...I DONT CARE:D... AND the video shows NOTHING !
Connie

[Audible Click]

Edited quote of modded post. actually I feel sorry for you..what have I mentioned all the time?? YOU out there can NOT decide the way it has to go....but ... you can decide yourself if you will read my website or not...I DONT CARE:D... AND the video shows NOTHING !
Connie

The video shows nothing because there was nothing. When you are reduced to calling people "stupid" and "blind" it only shows how desperate you've become. You failed the test, no one cheated, and you can keep saying the opposite until the end of time but it will not change that fact one iota.

[Eos of the Eons]

Edited quote of modded post. :D.actually I feel sorry for you..what have I mentioned all the time?? YOU out there can NOT decide the way it has to go....but ... you can decide yourself if you will read my website or not...I DONT CARE:D... AND the video shows NOTHING !
Connie
Name calling. Sweet of you. The JREF staff have been nothing but kind and professional, especially in comparison. I've read your website. It is baseless, like the names you are calling me.

Thank you for proving what you really are, yet again.

[Safe-Keeper]

Edited quote of modded post. actually I feel sorry for you..what have I mentioned all the time?? YOU out there can NOT decide the way it has to go....but ... you can decide yourself if you will read my website or not...I DONT CARE:D... AND the video shows NOTHING !
ConnieDamnit, Connie, that's a brand new glass house you're standing in! Leggo the rocks!
Seriously, I love it when conspiracy theorists, psychics and the like tell people they're blind. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Dancing David]

Edited quote of modded post. .actually I feel sorry for you..what have I mentioned all the time?? YOU out there can NOT decide the way it has to go....but ... you can decide yourself if you will read my website or not...I DONT CARE:D... AND the video shows NOTHING !
Connie

In what way did the JREF violate the agreement? You know the signed document?

[Czarcasm]

Edited for civility.

[Pixel42]

It must be awful to be so emotionally invested in something which has been proved not to exist, but Connie makes it hard for anyone to have much sympathy for her.

[Obviousman]

It must be awful to be so emotionally invested in something which has been proved not to exist, but Connie makes it hard for anyone to have much sympathy for her.

When she first failed the test but still believed she had some type of power, I thought "Okay, she's done this with dignity. I don't believe she has any special ability but she's polite".

Then she launched on the standard 'they cheated', 'they lied', 'the dog are my homework' excuses, calling respected members - who treated her with nothing but respect - names. From that point on, she lost any credibility and any right to mutual respect.

[connie sonne]

Oh my "God":D....I wished there were a smiley which shakes it`s head....I can just see one thing....some of you (only some) are so brainwashed and naive, that it hurts. But you know what? Still I feel pitty for you, because you can`t help it! I only laugh. You will see later on:)
Connie
And by the way.....JREF are hoping that you....the fundamentalistic skeptics....will get me down in the mud... but that will NOT happen:)

[Audible Click]

Oh my "God":D....I wished there were a smiley which shakes it`s head....I can just see one thing....some of you (only some) are so brainwashed and naive, that it hurts. But you know what? Still I feel pitty for you, because you can`t help it! I only laugh. You will see later on:)
Connie
And by the way.....JREF are hoping that you....the fundamentalistic skeptics....will get me down in the mud... but that will NOT happen:)

You've done a fine job of that all by yourself.

[Ririon]

Oh my "God":D....I wished there were a smiley which shakes it`s head....(...)
You could always try this one:

:viking1

[arthwollipot]

And another misunderstanding, I have never said WHEN I was going to tell about it, I only said when I would start on my website. And I did. The other things will come....when the right time comes!Actually, I'm pretty sure I have a recording of you saying the words "August or September" at the press conference. I'll have to check it again though.

[Marcus]

Maybe if you use enough adjectives people will believe you. So far we have stupid, blind, brainwashed , and naive. Not very creative, really, but I understand English is not your first language, so we should cut you some slack.

And no, I don't think I will visit your website, thanks so much for the kind invitation.

[KarlG]

Connie, do you forget that hundreds of us saw your test live, and even more have watched the video. We saw no cheating of any kind, just a well administered test. Do you think we all missed the cheating (the audience were deceived as well) or are we all in on the conspiracy (we know the cheating happened but won't admit it)?

[arthwollipot]

And no, I don't think I will visit your website, thanks so much for the kind invitation.It's... interesting. You might need to Google Translate it from Danish, and I hope you're okay with long pages of text.
http://www.conniesonne.dk/

I haven't actually seen anything on it so far about who/what the voices are that tell her what to do, which is what she said she'd explain in "August or September" last year.

[GrandMasterFox]

And of course the obvious question, why does Connie not simply do the test again?

[Foolmewunz]

Connie has no intention to answer anything. This is a pathetic attempt to pick a fight so she can drum up hits for her website, IMHO. She never had so much attention as in the short time that she was the focus of attention for her challenge, I feel.


Just you wait, you'll see! (Channeling Paul Bethke? Will this game go on for eight more years? Probably. As long as it drums up interested passersby.)

[Sean84]

And of course the obvious question, why does Connie not simply do the test again?

That would not be the obvious question if I actually thought I was cheated out of a million dollars.

Connie wants to keep her evidence to herself. :eye-poppi

[arthwollipot]

I believe that there's an exclusion clause of some kind - after failing the test, she's not permitted to take it again. Mind you, there are plenty of other tests around. Like the Australian Skeptics $100,000 Prize (http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/).

[BillyJoe]

Edited for incivility and rule 10.

[Marcus]

I believe that there's an exclusion clause of some kind - after failing the test, she's not permitted to take it again. Mind you, there are plenty of other tests around. Like the Australian Skeptics $100,000 Prize (http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/).
Isn't she eligible to apply again after one year? No doubt she would come up with a second set of excuses after failing the new test, but to be fair, they all do. She really missed a chance to be exceptional, to admit she doesn't really have her superpowers, after a test.

I must admit I actually am curious as to what her excuses are this time, perhaps you could tell us when she finally thinks of some to post on her website.

[Mojo]

Oh my "God":D....I wished there were a smiley which shakes it`s head....I can just see one thing....some of you (only some) are so brainwashed and naive, that it hurts. But you know what? Still I feel pitty for you, because you can`t help it! I only laugh. You will see later on:)
Connie
And by the way.....JREF are hoping that you....the fundamentalistic skeptics....will get me down in the mud... but that will NOT happen:)


:nope:

[GrandMasterFox]

That would not be the obvious question if I actually thought I was cheated out of a million dollars.

Connie wants to keep her evidence to herself. :eye-poppi

I did not say with the JREF... She could do it with anyone.
She could do it on any number of other organization (skeptics or woos) just to show that she could do what she says she does.

Yet she has made no such attempts. I wonder why...

[Tricky]

However tempting it may be, you must adhere to the Membership Agreement. Please stop the personal insults.