Million $ Paranormal Challenge / potential for discovery of any paranormal activity

[andylofgren]

Hello,

I am much appreciative of this organization’s existence, and of the extensive work and associated accomplishments of its founder, Mr. James Randi. As we all know, Mr. Randi has worked tirelessly throughout the course of his life, in dedicating himself for purposes of the greater public good through his debunking of false claims, in pursuit of the truth. I appreciate his work, and also the “JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge,” as is described elsewhere on this site. In relation to this specifically, I have the following letter to share:



Dear Mr. James Randi,

I am no doubt a believer in the existence of paranormal activity, I believe firmly in science and am much appreciative of your interest in providing for a possible means by which a claim relating to the paranormal could potentially be substantiated.

Considering however, that much of the paranormal activity that may actually be real does not lie under the control necessarily, of any fellow member of our human race (and is therefore not reproducible upon demand,) I am afraid that your challenge may have little potential to discover any of the real paranormal activity that may actually exist. Finding evidence of such paranormal activity therefore, may necessitate a little further investigation of your part, outside the confines of that which can be demonstrated in your local office. Although your million dollar prize may be sufficient to motivate a member of the human race, it unfortunately is likely to have no similar prospects in possibly motivating the entity (or whatever it may be,) that may be responsible for the paranormal activity that actually does exist and is in fact real. Therefore, it may be necessary for you to go to it rather than waiting endlessly, for the unlikely prospect that it may someday decide to come to you (that is, considering that it probably is not very likely to someday change its mind about taking interest in your prize money.)

As you know, not everything that we know to exist is reproducible upon our command. Although we may look into the sky, see the sun and therefore know it exists, this does not of course mean that we are necessarily able to reproduce the sun by making another one. We also furthermore, do not have the capability to control the time of day during which the sun happens to be visible, other than of course by manipulating our time scale around the behavior of the sun, as through legislation. Therefore the opportunity for substantiation that you are affording here in the matter of the paranormal may be likened to presenting an opportunity for someone to prove the sun’s existence, by only the allowed means of providing for its actual demonstration (by causing its appearance) within a setting that one knows is improbable, as in the middle of the night. If proving the existence of the sun in such an instance were to be contingent upon one’s ability to command its appearance in the middle of the night, the prospects of satisfying the burden of proof in such an instance, clearly would not be very promising.

Again I am no doubt appreciative of your goodwill gesture here in providing a humanly motivation, (in the form of financial compensation) for any successful demonstration of the paranormal however I am afraid it may not be likely to have much success, although be it that we perhaps might all take a great deal of interest in the event such an instance were to materialize. If you do in fact take interest in seeking a real answer in this matter, basic principles of logic dictate that evidence is more likely to be found in places where such activity is said to occur (such as on the civil war battlefields of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania) rather than where it is not. Limiting your scope of investigation to that which can be demonstrated in your local office, Mr. Randi, may be the equivalent of seeking to prove the sun’s existence by trying to observe it in the middle of the night. I therefore recommend, that your organization consider expanding the nature of its focus, as it relates to possibly substantiating anything of the paranormal.



Regards,
Andy Lofgren
Facebook.com/andylofgren

[TSR]

If you do in fact take interest in seeking a real answer in this matter, basic principles of logic dictate that evidence is more likely to be found in places where such activity is said to occur (such as on the civil war battlefields of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania) rather than where it is not. Limiting your scope of investigation to that which can be demonstrated in your local office, Mr. Randi, may be the equivalent of seeking to prove the sun’s existence by trying to observe it in the middle of the night. I therefore recommend, that your organization consider expanding the nature of its focus, as it relates to possibly substantiating anything of the paranormal.

.
I'm very sorry, but apparently my reading comprehension is less that I have always believed. Could you please point out to me exactly where in the Challenge it is specified that the evidence must be demonstrated at the JREF offices, or where a particular time of day is required?

Otherwise, your post is the equivalent of arguing that the sun does not exist because it is night where you are, when the Challenge would allow one (at one's own expense, of course) to travel the world and demonstrate that at that standard, objective moment it also does not exist elsewhere.

You might then go on to explain why, if your thesis that the time and place are dictated by JREF is true, why they do not also dictate every aspect of a given attempt to win the Challenge, rather than negotiating every relevant point in the testing protocol (which negotiation demonstrably has taken and does take place, just as spelled out in the Challenge itself)
.

[rjh01]

Here is the information about the challenge. Please read this including the links http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html. Here is the introduction
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives.

[Pixel42]

The point of the challenge is to give people who claim to have paranormal powers the opportunity to demonstrate those powers and win a million dollars. No-one is required to do anything other than that which they claim to be able to routinely do to win it. They don't even need to be able to do it 100% of the time, just more often than would be expected by chance.

And they can do it anywhere and anywhen that suits them. Randi has travelled all over the world to test people and there are trusted groups who can do preliminary tests on JREF's behalf in almost every country.

It's not the best way to demonstrate the existence (or non-exisence) of some kinds of paranormal phenomena, but that's hardly surprising as those are not the ones it was set up to investigate. It is the best way to test the claims made by dowsers, psychics, homeopaths etc who charge the public for services even though they are unable to provide evidence that they can provide them.

[andylofgren]

I'm very sorry, but apparently my reading comprehension is less that I have always believed. Could you please point out to me exactly where in the Challenge it is specified that the evidence must be demonstrated at the JREF offices, or where a particular time of day is required?

Otherwise, your post is the equivalent of arguing that the sun does not exist because it is night where you are, when the Challenge would allow one (at one's own expense, of course) to travel the world and demonstrate that at that standard, objective moment it also does not exist elsewhere.

You might then go on to explain why, if your thesis that the time and place are dictated by JREF is true, why they do not also dictate every aspect of a given attempt to win the Challenge, rather than negotiating every relevant point in the testing protocol (which negotiation demonstrably has taken and does take place, just as spelled out in the Challenge itself)



Upon preparing this reply, it now appears that most any applicable uncertainty, held by the initially responding member should hopefully by now have since dissipated, especially with that last post. Perhaps however I’ll extend, in any case (and as a courtesy for the situation,) my just previously conceived response, just in case any of this confusion may still remain:

One needn’t look far, or extend much consideration for this prospect in order to conclude that the nature of the protocols established by the organization in relation to this challenge, are not conducive to the discovery of anything “paranormal” that does not reside directly within a human being’s capacity to demonstrate, in a controlled environment. Regardless of the location of the office, or whether or not it has the flexibility to “move” in accommodating a potential applicant, the test still nonetheless relies on the ability of the applicant to provide for the applicable demonstration within an allowable timeframe. This is of course, a very different matter than proceeding with an investigation that may not immediately conclude, and which may thereby necessitate at least some degree of patience. My previous analogy relating to the sun was in no way unfair or not applicable, considering the challenge here provides for an opportunity of demonstration, not an offer of continuous or possibly ongoing investigatory observation. I’m afraid our initial responder may have missed the following sentence from section 4.2 of the Rules and Guidelines:

“Keep in mind that if you cannot reliably perform your claim on command, it will be difficult to perform during the Challenge test.”

Furthermore, rule 2.6 dictates the presence of news media, presumably for one or more of the tests. If the tests were of a nature such that they could not, reliably be scheduled in advance (if not, inconsistent by definition?) how could the media possibly be present without residing alongside what otherwise would be the investigation, which may not necessarily have an immediate experience by which their investigation would thereby conclude in short order?

Hopefully by now, we will have clarified any applicable uncertainty in this regard, as may have originally “be-troubled” our initial responder in relation to the recommendation I presented, having been done so on the premise of the (challenge’s) shortcoming which I identified. I’m not quite sure how this misunderstanding could have arose, considering the matter seems so obvious? Apparently however, explanations of this sort were in fact necessary…

[andylofgren]

It's not the best way to demonstrate the existence (or non-exisence) of some kinds of paranormal phenomena, but that's hardly surprising as those are not the ones it was set up to investigate. It is the best way to test the claims made by dowsers, psychics, homeopaths etc who charge the public for services even though they are unable to provide evidence that they can provide them.


In other words, the purpose of the challenge is more consistent with the explanation provided above, than of having any perceived value in simply substantiating the genuine existence of, the paranormal (which quite possibly may be, a much shorter order.)

[SezMe]

Please don't use such a small font.

What is so special about Gettysburg, PA?

[Lamuella]

Here's the thing:

There isn't any one challenge protocol.

In almost all cases, this is how the challenge works:

1) The person who claims to have an ability spells out in as clear language as possible what it is they claim to be able to do.
2) The JREF, or another group who test challenges of this kind, work with the person to develop a protocol to demonstrate this ability. The protocol is negotiated until the claimant is happy that it is something they can do, and the tester is happy that it would represent a paranormal act.
3) a preliminary test is performed. If successful, the applicant is then elligible to take the full test.

Andylofgren, can you give an example of a paranormal ability that you do not think the JREF would be able to test for? If possible could you give this in a regular size font?

[andylofgren]

Here's the thing:
Andylofgren, can you give an example of a paranormal ability that you do not think the JREF would be able to test for? If possible could you give this in a regular size font?

Yes, most certainly... Although I would think that certainly some indication as to this should likely have been provided for in the initial post, I certainly will be happy to further clarify. In this particular instance, I think we can increase the font size of this reply specifically for you (although you may want to note also, the existence of the different display options that might otherwise provide for, the applicable correction you may be seeking.)

Clearly, an example would be, any paranormal ability that appears to be possessed by an entity or process other than a human, or that necessarily does not reside under a (living) human's control such as that of ghost activity, some of which reportedly has been encountered at Gettysburg, PA.

[Darat]

I've gone through the thread and removed the font tag that was causing some folks some problems.

[bluesjnr]

Andylofgren, you seem to be missing the fact that the people who claim to be able to produce paranormal results, claim that they can produce them at will in almost all cases. When asked to commence the protocol phase the majority then start to backtrack and obfuscate.

If an individual says they can divine gold using a twig then they should be able to repeat that anywhere at any time. If an individual says they can see your kidneys and diagnose illnesses via some kind of vision from feeling then that should be repeatable, anywhere at any time. If an individual maintains they can fly then...................

You see where I'm going with this?

[andylofgren]

Please don't use such a small font.

What is so special about Gettysburg, PA?

Many reports of paranormal ghost activity are reported to have been encountered in this area, to possibly include witnesses that many may regard as credible. Although the original post of mine, from which the following is taken originates from a different discussion I had elsewhere, I think it may also have some relevance for our purposes here, and appears also in my personal Facebook note at: facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2088482339678

Please note that I am not intending to consume a lot of space here with the following restatement of text, and have therefore chosen to have it reside here in a thereby less imposing font size, presuming the previous problem to this effect may have related more closely to the previously used "Times New Roman" font, which has subsequently been removed from the posts in this discussion:

“You had inquired previously as to my background in terms of some of the beliefs I had during my development in childhood. I had firmly rejected the concept of ghosts as having any real legitimacy for much of my whole life, until some time around the year 2006 or 2007 when I became aware of what I believed deservingly was genuinely a credible account from someone I consider to be a reliable witness who’s testimony I would trust. Specifically, this was that of talk show host Michael Medved who recounted (on his radio show while I was listening) an experience he had at the age of fifteen, when him and a friend supposedly climbed over a fence in Pennsylvania, rolled out their sleeping bags and spent the night on a Gettysburg battlefield. According to his account they both awoke at around 05:00 am to the sound of men walking around and metal clanking at which time they both found themselves quite startled with the situation and decided it was definitely time to take off. It is my understanding that there are actually many reports of unusual activity in this area, some of which reportedly have been captured on video.

<SNIP>

It is therefore my belief that we have credible evidence to the contrary of any claim of certainty on your part such as the one below, considering all the other uncertainties we have to which I would think someone such as yourself might have little more to offer in response other than the strategy of denial…”

Snipped to comply with Rule 4. The origional is part of post #858107, found here (http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/642102-a-current-scientific-thought-repository/comments?page=6).

[andylofgren]

Andylofgren, you seem to be missing the fact that the people who claim to be able to produce paranormal results, claim that they can produce them at will in almost all cases. When asked to commence the protocol phase the majority then start to backtrack and obfuscate.

If an individual says they can divine gold using a twig then they should be able to repeat that anywhere at any time. If an individual says they can see your kidneys and diagnose illnesses via some kind of vision from feeling then that should be repeatable, anywhere at any time. If an individual maintains they can fly then...................

You see where I'm going with this?

I think I understand what you are saying, however I'm afraid that it does not appear that you are going anywhere not previously addressed by myself. If you have made any effort to consider the case I have presented here, to any extent at all (especially some of the recent posts,) you may have noticed that this was not the nature of the claims that my letter here intended to address as not being within the capability of this challenge to adequately evaluate. I am afraid we may need to refer back to the content that you apparently presume to be commenting on, I'm afraid. Perhaps this might have been even further clarified with my most recent post? If any uncertainties remain in this regard, you are welcome to bring them forward.

[bjornart]

The JREF is about more than the million dollar challenge:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html

But it's not about promoting and fostering research into possible paranormal activity because of a belief that such phenomena remain undiscovered. Neither is it about discouraging such research. What it is about is examining and informing the public about the shoddy quality of existing arguments and evidence for such phenomena, and although James Randi is a paragon of openmindedness when entering or discussing investigations, most JREF supporters and the people frequenting these forums considered the chances of paranormal phenomena existing to be slim to none.

[bluesjnr]

I think I understand what you are saying, however I'm afraid that it does not appear that you are going anywhere not previously addressed by myself. If you have made any effort to consider the case I have presented here, to any extent at all (especially some of the recent posts,) you may have noticed that this was not the nature of the claims that my letter here intended to address as not being within the capability of this challenge to adequately evaluate. I am afraid we may need to refer back to the content that you apparently presume to be commenting on, I'm afraid. Perhaps this might have been even further clarified with my most recent post? If any uncertainties remain in this regard, you are welcome to bring them forward.

I find your writing style to be difficult to parse at times, therefore it's possible that I'm missing the point

I understand why you might believe that I am not addressing any new ground. I feel that you have not adequately addressed the reason why you feel that the JREF should conduct what is, in essence, field research with no quantifiable boundaries and as such I'm trying to pull you back to this.

You seem, to me, to be suggesting that the foundation should visit sites where paranormal activity has, in your opinion, been observed (you'll correct me if I'm wrong). What I'm saying is why should that be required when they have any number of people who insist that they can contact the deceased, at will, at any time. It's far simpler to arrange for them to be tested at a mutually agreeable venue. The foundation do not claim that paranormal activity exists at all and is not in the business of seeking to prove that it doesn't. What it does do is offer those that do make the claim an opportunity to prove it. To date, nobody has.

I'm further confused by your assertion that Gettysburg would be a good place to start. Have you stopped to consider the billions upon billions of people that have already died?

To get to the crunch - are you making claim that paranormal activity can be observed over time at Gettysburg and in a way that is not subjective but is measurable and quantifiable? If so would you care to lay the bones of your claim bare?

[bobhope2112]

andylofgren,

I couldn't agree more that the JREF's testing requirements are overly stringent.

My paranormal ability is to become invisible. That power is controllable, but has a constraint: I can only become invisible when no one (or video recorder) is looking at me.

It's patently unfair that JREF does not immediately forward $1M to me on my word.

[andylofgren]

_

I appreciate the additional clarification. Perhaps my inquiry here, may more squarely fall into the category of seeking to capitalize on James Randi’s presumed, open-mindedness in relation to the prospect of actually discovering the truth as to the existence of any paranormal phenomenon at all, rather than simply presenting a seemingly less useful opportunity than one might otherwise have expected on the basis of his original interest in this regard, as he may have expressed according to the following statement: "The Challenge was first introduced in 1964 when James Randi offered $1,000 of his own money to the first person who could offer proof of the paranormal."

The conclusion that one may derive from this (your comment) is that while James Randi remains very open minded in his considering possible arguments to the contrary, James Randi does not wish himself to possibly prove his own beliefs false in the course of any legitimate effort undertaken for the sake of truth discovery. Although not entirely the most neutral scientific viewpoint, it is no doubt understandable that one would not take any interest in dedicating the least of possible resources in pursuit of such a measure… However, considering the funds which Randi, along with all the others have thus far dedicated this cause (and presumably for no less than, discovery of the truth, hopefully?) one might think that it might be time to go ahead and take this matter all the way, should this option be relatively inexpensive (as it may, in fact be, were it to consist of little more than some personal observation…) I’m not intending to suggest anything may necessarily be accomplished in this respect, however I would argue that considering the resources the James Randi organization has thus far already invested in the pursuit of truth in this matter (in disproving false claims, as well as interviewing all the problematic, potential candidates) perhaps there might be at least some room for the prospect of disproving what one might believe to represent their current convictions, relating to this earth’s state of affairs? (That is of course, intended to have relevance only in relation to the topic I have addressed here.)

Considering that James Randi has spent his whole life supposedly, not believing in the paranormal one might ask "who better might there be, other than perhaps James Randi, to potentially make himself available to what the truth might actually be, for perhaps what may be, the greater good of all our community?”:)

Please note this is only a suggestion, and you are no doubt free to regard it as you wish.

[andylofgren]

You seem, to me, to be suggesting that the foundation should visit sites where paranormal activity has, in your opinion, been observed (you'll correct me if I'm wrong). What I'm saying is why should that be required when they have any number of people who insist that they can contact the deceased, at will, at any time. It's far simpler to arrange for them to be tested at a mutually agreeable venue.

...A very simple series of questions here, for which very simple answers may thereby suffice:

Although certainly your organization is under no obligation, and furthermore certainly is not "required" to pursue truth by means of any such measure, the alternative you present is not the least bit equivalent as for its potential nature of validity for the simple fact that it is very different. I could very well present a question to you conceived in this very same spirit, such as why not just imagine what you could see on television, instead of actually watching television? The relationship is the same, and as for whether or not any claims of "communicating with the dead" in actuality have any validity, this of course represents an entirely different matter for which I, myself do not have any information on by which to use as a basis for moving in this direction, just as you may not have any basis to presume in advance that you could learn the same thing by imagining what the television news may say instead of actually watching it.

I'm further confused by your assertion that Gettysburg would be a good place to start. Have you stopped to consider the billions upon billions of people that have already died?

Perhaps my previous answer might have offered some clue as to how this consideration might be problematic as for its potential to possibly be useful in this matter in any way? What matters of course, in relation to this is the evidence, in the form of reported sightings that we have. Some places having sightings, however most don't; therefore, any attempt to witness such sightings, logically should be directed on locations where such are said to occur as opposed to those where such are not said to occur, which might include the JREF office building I had previously mentioned.


To get to the crunch - are you making claim that paranormal activity can be observed over time at Gettysburg and in a way that is not subjective but is measurable and quantifiable? If so would you care to lay the bones of your claim bare?

We have credible reports of such sightings, one example of which was provided in my earlier post today at 04:34 PST (the third prior of my posts here this morning.) For the sake of avoiding unnecessary duplication, I'll ask that you please reference it where it currently resides (on this same page,) thank you.

[andylofgren]

andylofgren,
My paranormal ability is to become invisible. That power is controllable, but has a constraint: I can only become invisible when no one (or video recorder) is looking at me.


Keep up the good efforts there Bob Hope, I'm afraid you've got a long way to go. Unfortunately however, it is not so obvious as to how, if at all your post here has any relevance to anything we are discussing in this thread. ...but please know, that I am not objecting to your hope, and you are certainly entitled to hang on.

[bobhope2112]

The relevance is that it would be foolish of me to expect my extraordinary claims to be believed without a controlled test. My hope would be that you could recognize how that parallels your own position.

[Jack by the hedge]

Andylofgren, I don't see that a few anecdotal ghost stories constitute reason to believe that travelling to Gettysburg and waiting for something to happen would be a fruitful use of anyone's time.

The JREF offer a prize to "anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event". It's not their intention to seek out things previously unknown to science, but rather to offer a fair test to those people who claim they can demonstrate something of this kind.

It's not at all clear to me what precisely it is that you suggest the JREF ought to do about ghost stories from Gettysburg.

[andylofgren]

The relevance is that it would be foolish of me to expect my extraordinary claims to be believed without a controlled test. My hope would be that you could recognize how that parallels your own position.

A controlled test... how about, consideration of my earlier analogy relating to the sun? For clarification, your claims fall into a category having been previously addressed (by myself) as being within the presumed capability of this challenge to adequately evaluate. Not all such paranormal matters though, purported to exist fall into the category of being reproducible upon demand, something previously addressed earlier in this thread.

…As for the sun analogy, (which otherwise might be the next relevant matter of consideration,) I did in fact have some yet un-posted commentary, consisting of a further reply to our “initial responder,” who didn’t quite seem to properly grasp this analogy and its intended meaning. My further commentary in this regard is as follows, and you are welcome to follow it yourself or to provide any feedback you may have. It could help however, to read the initial analogy to this regard, as presented in my first post at the beginning of this thread.

The following three paragraphs relate specifically to my analogy with the sun which I presented in my first post, and the resulting misunderstanding that it seemed to have caused for at least one site member who was the first to respond. As these three paragraphs relate specifically to this analogy they need not be considered necessarily, within any other context:

To possibly further assist the initial misunderstanding expressed: The analogy with the sun was a reference to the organization dictating that the demonstration be provided for within the context of a “test,” not that of a continuous investigation of their part that may not necessarily even offer any grounds in providing for an immediate, preliminary assurance (for their purposes) as to it’s legitimacy potential, by means of anything convincing by their standards which they may actually observe with their own eyes. This is of course, unlike the standard described for the preliminary “tests” to be afforded the potential applicants.

Such a “test,” as presumably intended by the organization within the capacity with which it intended to convey this meaning would not, in relation to the meaning ascribed by nature of the analogy I presented, dictate that an alternate location could not be chosen for possible, simultaneous observations of the sun or that the time of day would necessarily be insisted upon by the organization. Rather, the reference to observing the sun “in the middle of the night” related directly to the insufficient nature of the opportunity afforded for the demonstration of paranormal activity not residing under human control, and the likelihood of a paranormal event consistent with those ascribed to the example location referenced (Gettysburg, PA) of occurring in an office building chosen for the occasion, regardless (for the most part) of the area of the region in which it resided.

Although I may have since been corrected with a suggestion that such “tests” need not occur necessarily in an office building, the analogy is still valid in the extent it illustrates that the opportunity afforded is not at all optimal or sufficient to provide for much likelihood of any success at all, in consideration of the nature of which the, perhaps more plausible paranormal activity, might actually be… That is, as opposed to (of course,) that which supposedly could be demonstrated upon demand, whether it be in an office building or not.

[andylofgren]

Andylofgren, I don't see that a few anecdotal ghost stories constitute reason to believe that travelling to Gettysburg and waiting for something to happen would be a fruitful use of anyone's time.

You are certainly correct in relation to the prospect of this being uncertain, no doubt... However, another consideration one might consider would be the extent of investment thus far, and whether or not it might justify perhaps even a comparatively quite small investment, if for no other purpose than to serve as an additional control element in what otherwise might consist of your researching these mostly frivolous claims. As yourself, if you're willing to dedicate this much effort to all these claims of supernatural capability residing under the control of, say anyone to include your neighbor across the street, might there possibly, by that token be any logic in pursuing your search in another direction that, arguably might have more hope of yielding the applicable, sought after result (at least as sought on the part of your contestants?) It doesn't seem necessarily, to amount to all that significant or unworthy of a check measure to me, considering credible reports of such sightings exist, and the phenomenon is believed to be ongoing...

The JREF offer a prize to "anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event". It's not their intention to seek out things previously unknown to science, but rather to offer a fair test to those people who claim they can demonstrate something of this kind.

It's not at all clear to me what precisely it is that you suggest the JREF ought to do about ghost stories from Gettysburg.

Certainly, no doubt an entirely fair position to maintain... It is only my suggestion, that perhaps there may be some merit in expanding slightly the nature of your organization's attention, considering the great investment of time and other resources your organization has thus far dedicated the matter... Again, this is just a suggestion, and is intended as little else; you are by no means obligated to take any interest in my suggestion.

[Lanzy]

Are you suggesting the JREF become an organization that actively pursues proving the paranormal? Specifically ghosts? If so I could have said that with fewer words, oh wait..

[andylofgren]

I think I may have spent enough time on this for now, as of this morning and, perhaps I may now conclude here... that is, unless of course, I observe that any subsequently occurring inquiry may potentially benefit in any meaningful way from an applicable response, of my part... Not sure as of the moment, however I do remain fairly satisfied with my explanation thus far provided. If anyone has any serious inquiries representing any area on which I have not previously commented, with any relevance to the topic I have introduced here in this thread, perhaps I likely will be happy to respond... As for the meantime however, I may now be getting some rest, shortly.

[AvalonXQ]

I concur that the Million Dollar Challenge is not well-suited to test a claim that ghosts exist, or any other claim that is not based on the abilities of the claimant.

It's interesting to think about how to a controlled-condition test for such a thing might be conducted. For example, let's say I wanted to devise a test to prove that deer exist. Waiting in the woods certainly wouldn't produce one "on demand", as it were.

[Ocelot]

Supernatural claim: Building X is haunted
Specifics: Objects in the house move around of their own volition at least once a month.
Suggested Protocol: Set up full coverage lights and cameras to record activity in the house. If something moves on it's own a distance of over 30 cm, test passed.
Feedback: There are ways of making objects appear to move on their own - safeguards Y and Z must be taken.
Agreed.

Possible outcomes:
1) Object seems to move. Evidence is examined extra safeguards may possibly be introduced for final test. If same happens again $1m awarded

2) Nothing happens. Claimant is poorer to the tune of whatever it cost to mount the claim. Perhaps a suggestion that the spirits may have been mischievously inactive to foil the claim.

It's not the typical claim but I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable. Quite an expensive test to mount mind you.

[JohnnyG]

The world has enough ghost hunters. If they ever find concrete evidence of one, I'm sure the JREF would be glad to review it.

[Jack by the hedge]

...perhaps there may be some merit in expanding slightly the nature of your organization's attention...

You ought to be aware, andylofgren, that I and other people responding to your posts here do not represent JREF. We are just fellow forum posters like yourself.

[AvalonXQ]

The world has enough ghost hunters. If they ever find concrete evidence of one, I'm sure the JREF would be glad to review it.

I can find concrete evidence of more than one ghost hunter, but I'm not sure the JREF cares. :D

[Max_mang]

A few years ago I worked with a guy who said his uncle owned a house in or near Gettysburg. He stated that doors and windows open/closed by themselves, there were voices, objects in the house moved or fell over all the time, etc. I said "Let's get some video cameras and go there next weekend!". He said the place was too scary and he'd never go back. I bugged him for 2 months about it but he wouldn't budge. I'm not sure that the ghosts are what he was really afraid of...

[GrandMasterFox]

andylofgren, you got it all wrong.

You say there's something in getysburg that warrents investigating?
Fine. I think there's something going on in a house in chicago as well. And preety much all over the globe. There are probably millions of stories of haunted houses all across the globe. Not to mention stories of psychics, shamanic medicine, bigfoot and other monsters, alien abductions, remote viewers and so much other garbage out there that how on earth do you expect any organization to go and cover each and every one of those?

It's completely naive to even assume such a thing is possible. Oh, and how long do you plan of observing each location? Since it doesn't happen "on command" how long do you stay? A day? 2 days? 3 days? a year? For each location?

And another thing you got wrong is Randi's position. He is not a scientist. If a person passes the MDC, that doesn't make it a scientific proof of the paranormal. All it does is give you a $1,000,000 check.

Randi's job is more like a detective investigating fraud. He is not going to prove to you whether psychics are real or not. What he will do however, is prove you that Uri Geller and his ilk cannot perform their tricks when the proper control conditions are set - in other words, they cannot cheat.

[andylofgren]

The world has enough ghost hunters. If they ever find concrete evidence of one, I'm sure the JREF would be glad to review it.

If the JREF does in fact take the level of interest as you suggest (something I personally somewhat doubt) in legitimate, paranormal activities that may actually have occurred and are in fact well documented, one such possibility (although not ongoing) might be the following, which I commented on in one of my Facebook notes: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2088436538533
http://shop.history.com/ufo-files-brazils-roswell-dvd/detail.php?p=69363

Perhaps this may be a good one for our trusty James Randi to possibly try to dispel? One might think it possibly could be a candidate, considering the seemingly outlandish nature of which it is... Surely therefore it must be false, right? (it is however, supported by some evidence and many of the affected people are still alive today.) Although no real grounds may actually exist for anyone to dispel the legitimacy of this claim, perhaps such an aspect might be duly noted, were it to be looked into, perhaps on the part of this organization? …and perhaps also maybe, perhaps some consideration afforded the possibility that all the affected witnesses, as well as the Brazilian air force documents, may actually be telling the truth?

This situation is not ongoing, has entirely concluded as far as anyone is aware, and therefore does not present the uncertainty of remaining on the radar to possibly prove itself right by means of a recurrence (although other, non-directly related activity could potentially have a like effect.) An applicable disadvantage of course (as for research value,) in comparison with that of the Gettysburg, PA ghost activity (and that existing elsewhere) is the apparent lack of any potential this situation might offer in providing for a highly noticeable, personal experience of such unmistakable nature as to possibly suffice in eliminating any applicable, otherwise remaining doubt one might have regarding the legitimacy of such phenomenon.

I have absolutely no objection to any legitimate search for truth, regardless of the associated, motivating predisposition. It would however be nice, if any discovery of significance was actually made in relation to such a matter that it, necessarily be shared publicly without undue censorship in connection with the nature of which it happens to be, in relation to any predispositions for contrary belief the researcher may previously have had… The truth is the truth, and of course need not be hidden regardless of the nature of which it may happen to be, as for any particular, individual situation, or as may be representative more broadly… Presumably, the JREF organization would agree with this as well, considering its interest in at least evaluating many of the less worthy claims, as may be presented by, quite possibly the majority of its challenge applicants.


For clarification, I don’t think this immediately preceding commentary (above) necessarily deserves to necessitate much discussion in and of itself, considering there presumably is little here anyone might find disagreeable, and it also may represent a little bit of a diversion from the nature of the preceding discussion and the subject matter addressed by the thread. If however, anyone wishes to make an observation or otherwise comment, I certainly have no objection.

[Kid Eager]

You used legitimate and paranormal in the same sentence. Isn't that begging the question somewhat?

PS - You really need to take more time constructing your posts. Too verbose.

[andylofgren]

andylofgren, you got it all wrong.

You say there's something in getysburg that warrents investigating?
Fine.

Very likely so, and perhaps quite a bit more so, than does the majority of that which may currently constitute the subject of Randi's investigations, that is, if he does in fact travel the world as someone suggested earlier in interviewing the potential contenders for your organization's prize.

I think there's something going on in a house in chicago as well.

I was not able to sufficiently ascertain as to whether this may have been more of a joke or other half-hearted and insincere gesture, or if you actually believe this. If so, presumably you would have some evidence. If not, presumably you would have to concede to that for which evidence does exist, as opposed to that for which evidence does not (your claim here.)

There are probably millions of stories of haunted houses all across the globe. Not to mention stories of psychics, shamanic medicine, bigfoot and other monsters, alien abductions, remote viewers and so much other garbage out there that how on earth do you expect any organization to go and cover each and every one of those?

I certainly, have no such expectation of your organization, and would thereby afford your organization my best wishes in this regard, as for its ability to differentiate among the garbage in identifying what actually may be worthy of further investigation, as opposed to that which does not. As I mentioned earlier, it is not my belief that your prize money, or the efforts your organization has exerted in reviewing the cases presented by its applicants are likely to amount to anything of any real significance, other than maybe hurting the feelings of the many delusional applicants your organization presumably attracts.

It's completely naive to even assume such a thing is possible. Oh, and how long do you plan of observing each location? Since it doesn't happen "on command" how long do you stay? A day? 2 days? 3 days? a year? For each location?

Affording a reasonable attributed degree of credibility for something corroborated by the highly reliable, eyewitness testimony of multiple parties is in no way naive. I myself, if already as well invested in this matter as is your organization's founder, might be willing to afford the situation perhaps at least a night or two... Doesn't Randi supposedly travel the world as it is, affording his attention to what very well may be, frivolous claims of a significantly lesser deserving nature? Why not consider something possibly more plausible, while you're at it?

And another thing you got wrong is Randi's position. He is not a scientist. If a person passes the MDC, that doesn't make it a scientific proof of the paranormal. All it does is give you a $1,000,000 check.

I appreciate the clarification here, and admit that I may have expected more.

Randi's job is more like a detective investigating fraud. He is not going to prove to you whether psychics are real or not. What he will do however, is prove you that Uri Geller and his ilk cannot perform their tricks when the proper control conditions are set - in other words, they cannot cheat.

I was aware of this, although I perhaps may now realize more clearly that any expectations or hopes I may have had, as for anything greater in this regard may very well have therefore been unfounded.

[andylofgren]

you used legitimate and paranormal in the same sentence. Isn't that begging the question somewhat?

Perhaps... Although, I would argue that it is a question that deserves to be addressed, and may perhaps even be more worthy of a question than those currently consuming this organization's resources to this regard.

[Cainkane1]

Theres supposedly a haunted house here in Conyers. So if I can get the owner to open lt up for us in and if a spook appears do I get the dough?

951 Railroad St Nw, Conyers, GA 30012

[andylofgren]

PS - You really need to take more time constructing your posts. Too verbose.

As for my posts, I do in fact afford them what I consider to be quite a fair level of consideration. What matters here in actuality is the degree of relevance and significance, in addition to the matter of accuracy as it relates to clarifying possible misconceptions and or answering questions as they may arise. If this subject matter is not of interest to you, you are certainly welcome to afford your attention elsewhere.

[SezMe]

...which I commented on in one of my Facebook notes: facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2088436538533 [shop.history.com/ufo-files-brazils-roswell-dvd/detail.php?p=69363]

Here you go: First link (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2088436538533). Second link (http://shop.history.com/ufo-files-brazils-roswell-dvd/detail.php?p=69363).

[bobhope2112]

@andylofgren: I believe Kid Eager's advice to be constructive criticism. Take this as a second that your writing is tedious, and detracts from your attempts to communicate your ideas.

[Gr8wight]

As for my posts, I do in fact afford them what I consider to be quite a fair level of consideration. What matters here in actuality is the degree of relevance and significance, in addition to the matter of accuracy as it relates to clarifying possible misconceptions and or answering questions as they may arise. If this subject matter is not of interest to you, you are certainly welcome to afford your attention elsewhere.

Andy, you are using overly complex syntax, grammar, and vocabulary, I presume in an attempt to sound more intelligent. Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect. I have been entirely unable to read any of your longer posts, because they are confusing. It just takes far too much work to parse them than I am willing to exert on an Internet message board.

We're all just folks here. Try talking to us in a language we can understand and you'll get a much more favourable response.

[SezMe]

Perhaps this may be a good one for our trusty James Randi to possibly try to dispel?
You still haven't read the FAQ have you? Randi/JREF is not the least bit interested - at least as far as the $1 mil challenge is concerned - with investigating things that happened in the past. The challenge is solely focused on a live, current demonstration of a paranormal capability. Floating garbage can lids and things that go bump in the night are just so much nonsense for the credulous to play with like a shiny new object.

Would it be possible for you to write in 21st century grammar and usage and just use the default font? Thanks.

[andylofgren]

Here you go: First link (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2088436538533). Second link (http://shop.history.com/ufo-files-brazils-roswell-dvd/detail.php?p=69363).

Thanks, I had in fact just made that correction now that my user account is allowed to post hyperlinks, as a result of reaching the fifteen post mark.

[andylofgren]

I appreciate the advice expressed, and believe that I may primarily have concluded my commentary here, at least for the time being. As for the "Times New Roman" font, I'm not so sure what objection to this may remain, beyond the initial complaint of the small default font size which I have since corrected for in subsequent posts. I apologize if any portions of my commentary were difficult to understand, as it certainly was not my intention to cause any confusion here. I think I have probably, in the course of answering the questions received more than sufficiently elaborated on the subject matter I intended to address with this site, and may thereby conclude here on this note.

[SezMe]

I think I have probably, in the course of answering the questions received more than sufficiently elaborated on the subject matter I intended to address with this site, and may thereby conclude here on this note.
"I've made my point."

36 words down to 4. Get the idea?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"I've made my point."

36 words down to 4. Get the idea?

And the Word of the Day is "Prolix".

:th:

[Jack by the hedge]

I might have believed that exaggerated verbosity reflected his usual writing style if the punctuation had been better.

[andylofgren]

"I've made my point."

36 words down to 4. Get the idea?

Well... I'm afraid, your example here is lacking in terms of communicating the applicable detail intended with the original message to this regard. A simple, poorly conceived presumption of this sort, of thirty-six necessarily being equal to four I am afraid, may constitute an unnecessarily shallow analysis. I do not however, consider this to be a point worthy of much further debate and may prefer quite simply, to conclude here as I may have indicated just prior. Meaningless, useless debate of such observations was not my purpose in joining the site, and likely will not constitute any reason for staying.

[Kid Eager]

Well... I'm afraid, your example here is lacking in terms of communicating the applicable detail intended with the original message to this regard. A simple, poorly conceived presumption of this sort, of thirty-six necessarily being equal to four I am afraid, may constitute an unnecessarily shallow analysis. I do not however, consider this to be a point worthy of much further debate and may prefer quite simply, to conclude here as I may have indicated just prior. Meaningless, useless debate of such observations was not my purpose in joining the site, and likely will not constitute any reason for staying.

Translation: I disagree, and I probably won't post any more on this site.

ETA - I'm pretty sure somebody is taking the mickey with these posts, as they appear to value word count over the value of communicating and nobody could be *that* oblivious to the error, could they????

[SezMe]

"You're full of crap, SezMe."

:)

ETA: The Kid beat me to the point but I like my translation better. :)

[often mrunderstood]

Finding the paranormal is like finding a coherent message in andylofgren posts.

I hope Randi responds to his letter.

[SkepticScott]

Perhaps this may be a good one for our trusty James Randi to possibly try to dispel?I think you have this backwards. It is not up to someone else to disprove another person's claim, it is up to the person claiming something to provide evidence and convince other people. I have proven that this stance is 100% correct. If you doubt that, prove that I haven't.

:p

[Pantaz]

... As for the "Times New Roman" font, I'm not so sure what objection to this may remain, beyond the initial complaint of the small default font size which I have since corrected for in subsequent posts. ...
Notice the typeface and font style used in everyone else's postings? That is the default -- what you get when you do not manually select a font and/or size. Writings of any kind are easier to read if everything flows in a uniform style.

Well... I'm afraid, your example here is lacking in terms of communicating the applicable detail intended with the original message to this regard. ...
I respectfully suggest you take the time to read and understand the recommendations made in the following article:
http://www.writingproblems.net/writing-style/eliminate-verbosity-from-your-writing-problems

[Rasmus]

Translation: I disagree, and I probably won't post any more on this site.

ETA - I'm pretty sure somebody is taking the mickey with these posts, as they appear to value word count over the value of communicating and nobody could be *that* oblivious to the error, could they????

Never attribute to malice what can be adequatelky explained by stupidity.

[rjh01]

<snip> Waiting in the woods certainly wouldn't produce one "on demand", as it were.

An expert in the field can normally produce an animal within a few days. All sorts of rare creatures have been either filmed, captured or killed.

[bobhope2112]

Well... I'm afraid, your example here is lacking in terms of communicating the applicable detail intended with the original message to this regard. A simple, poorly conceived presumption of this sort, of thirty-six necessarily being equal to four I am afraid, may constitute an unnecessarily shallow analysis. I do not however, consider this to be a point worthy of much further debate and may prefer quite simply, to conclude here as I may have indicated just prior. Meaningless, useless debate of such observations was not my purpose in joining the site, and likely will not constitute any reason for staying.

Oh come now, you're just trolling. Am I the first to call Loki? This undoubtedly could have been said with more words. I hope none of you will dock me IQ points for not meandering more.

[bobhope2112]

And the Word of the Day is "Prolix (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prolix)".
Thank you for that. It looks like a product name, but is in fact as old as the reformation *and*, it could punch a hole a scrabble opponent.

[bluesjnr]

Non default fonts, strange sentence structure, verbosity, inability or unwillingness to clarify or understand the aims of the JREF and the MDC in particular by way of 20 minutes of personal research on this very site. Requests that you visit their "site" or facebook page not to mention, "you guys just don't understand me so I'm going". All well known traits displayed by woo proponents as they set up their challenge.

Why is that?

[Neutiquam Erro]

Why does the OP remind me of this guy?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8489/ignatiusjreillyx13j2xe.jpg

[Reviresco]

Andy, here's the deal. I don't even know if I agree with you or disagree with you. Your posts are so tedious, so overwrought, and so verbose, that I can't even make my way through one of them. It has nothing to do with the strength of your argument.

I must quote Will S. from Hamlet, that brevity is the soul of wit. You'd do well to study The Bard to learn how to turn a phrase.

Until then, your posts are so much hot air breezing over our heads.

[SezMe]

andyloggren, I have a few personal questions that arise just out of curiosity; feel free to ignore them.

Since you say you have a background in tech support, I presume you are finished with your formal schooling. Where did you go to high school (or the equivalent if not in the USA)? Did you go to college or university? If so, where? What was your major?

[SezMe]

With a background in technical support....
I know I've been on the phone with this guy. :) :)

[Pantaz]

The protocol governing the "Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge," consisting of the "Rules and Guidelines" as established at http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html is not the same as, and therefore must be differentiated from, the mutually agreed upon protocol that is to govern the test afforded the applicant, on behalf of the organization.
That's quite obvious. You might also notice the "Rules and Guidelines" are never referred to as a "protocol", as that would be redundant and confusing.

Do you believe the "Rules and Guidelines" to not dictate the allowable terms of any potential, mutually agreed upon test protocol?
Poorly phrased question. The only restrictions in the rules (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html) placed upon the potential test protocol are stated as:
The goal of this Challenge is a successful demonstration according to the agreed protocol. Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions are acceptable. The JREF will not test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food, or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices.


Unless I am somehow mistaken ...
Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking.

In case your misunderstanding here...
You seem to be the only one in this thread with any misunderstanding of the MDC.

... we must conclude that the misunderstanding here is entirely yours and not at all mine.
Once again, any misunderstanding of your intentions is entirely due to your failure to communicate clearly.

I would hope my style is not distracting...
How many times must you be told that your choice of formatting is distracting? It's a very simple fix -- don't change the font!

<repetitive babbling snipped>

I’m afraid we may need to coach you here as to the relationship between the governing “Rules and Guidelines” and the fact that they do in fact govern, the allowable terms of any possible mutually agreed upon test protocol.
False.

[Kimpatsu]

If something moves on it's own a distance of over 30 cm, test passed.
Sometimes I think my ability to use the apostrophe correctly is paranormal, given how so few people seem able to...

[Agatha]

TNR is not the best font to use on an internet forum; sans-serif fonts are found by users to be more readable.

Just use the default font, you'll notice that most people do. It's polite and it aids clear communication.

If there is a claim to a paranormal ability in your posts, I am unable to find it. That this is due to your apparent inability to communicate clearly and concisely is unfortunate. It is the duty of the writer to express themselves in a way in which they can be clearly understood, not the duty of the reader to disentangle meaning from repetition, redundancy, run-on sentences and thinly disguised slurs.

Could you try to explain what, if anything, is the paranormal ability you claim?

[AvalonXQ]

Considering that others are apparently quite able to recognize this, I'm not so sure as to the source of this continued delusion. I would have to conclude simply, that some here may struggle with their comprehension ability.

Considering your complete inability, or at least unwllingness, to take any effort to make your points clearly or concisely, I don't think anyone can be blamed for not comprehending them.

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm quite sure the excessive verbosity, cramming in ever more words to the point where the logic of the sentence is destroyed, is merely trolling for amusement and to provoke a reaction.

Cutting through all that, the basic misunderstanding involved is his belief that the MDC is intended to attempt such things as to prove the existence of ghosts. That's simply wrong. The MDC only exists to allow people who claim to be able to demonstrate something paranormal an opportunity to put that claim to a fair test. Andylofgren still feigns an inability to grasp that.

[Pantaz]

... Could you try to explain what, if anything, is the paranormal ability you claim?

I think he's trying to say that the MDC rules interfere with the development of an objective test protocol. Near as I can decipher, he doesn't claim to have any paranormal ability, he just wants to "clarify" :rolleyes: the rules.

[jsfisher]

I think he's trying to say that the MDC rules interfere with the development of an objective test protocol. Near as I can decipher, he doesn't claim to have any paranormal ability, he just wants to "clarify" :rolleyes: the rules.


No, he wants to reverse the rules. He claims paranormal abilities/activities exist, and he wants Randi to disprove the claim.

[bluesjnr]

No, he wants to reverse the rules. He claims paranormal abilities/activities exist, and he wants Randi to disprove the claim.

In Gettysburg.

[Ocelot]

Sometimes I think my ability to use the apostrophe correctly is paranormal, given how so few people seem able to...
I'm able to, I just forget often.

[Garrette]

I'm able to, I just forget often.Commas, on the other hand....

[carlitos]

That Michael Medved story about hearing ghosts in Gettysburg is interesting. I used to listen to his show. He had a regular feature where he debunks conspiracies. Separately, he's quite religious and he would every so often have a show on how bigfoot was real. An excellent example of how we all have our blind spots.

[SezMe]

You're mixing two things, andylofgren. The JREF, as a whole, is indeed interested in the paranormal. Within that broad interest, there is one element that is specifically and solely interested in testing individuals who make paranormal claims. That element is the Million Dollar Challenge. Since you opened this thread in the MDC subforum, that is the only topic that is relevant. If you would like to talk about the broader JREF mission, that would be fine as long as it is another subforum.

[Mojo]

I think he's trying to say that the MDC rules interfere with the development of an objective test protocol. Near as I can decipher, he doesn't claim to have any paranormal ability, he just wants to "clarify" :rolleyes: the rules.


I think he's trying to say that he's concerned about something.

[Jack by the hedge]

Perhaps it would move this thread along if andylofgren were to suggest a test protocol which would reveal the type of phenomenon he claims exists.

[bluesjnr]

Perhaps it would move this thread along if andylofgren were to suggest a test protocol which would reveal the type of phenomenon he claims exists.

Perhaps it would end this thread if everybody realised that andylofgren has completed stage 5 of the woo proponent handbook.

Stage 5 - The "flounce". Leave a post stating that you are sorry you ever came across this site and can only put the fact that nobody seems to be agreeing with you down to the inability of the existing members to engage in meaningful* debate.


The flounce occurred right here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7765771&postcount=48).

*Meaningful, in woo terms this actually means - agree with me and tell me how clever I am into the bargain.

[zooterkin]

Perhaps it would end this thread if everybody realised that andylofgren has completed stage 5 of the woo proponent handbook.

Stage 5 - The "flounce". Leave a post stating that you are sorry you ever came across this site and can only put the fact that nobody seems to be agreeing with you down to the inability of the existing members to engage in meaningful* debate.


The flounce occurred right here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7765771&postcount=48).

*Meaningful, in woo terms this actually means - agree with me and tell me how clever I am into the bargain.

And then he slammed the door on his way out. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7779000#post7779000) :dqueen

[carlitos]

I appreciate the advice expressed, and believe that I may primarily have concluded my commentary here, at least for the time being. As for the "Times New Roman" font, I'm not so sure what objection to this may remain, beyond the initial complaint of the small default font size which I have since corrected for in subsequent posts. I apologize if any portions of my commentary were difficult to understand, as it certainly was not my intention to cause any confusion here. I think I have probably, in the course of answering the questions received more than sufficiently elaborated on the subject matter I intended to address with this site, and may thereby conclude here on this note.

By complete coincidence, a kid in my househoud messed with my browser settings. The default text on this entire forum was in Times New Roman on Safari. It was driving me nuts today, until I figured out what it was. TNR is no good for web reading.

[AvalonXQ]

By complete coincidence, a kid in my househoud messed with my browser settings.

Andylofgren shouldn't be breaking into other peoples' houses.

[davefoc]

Do I understand this correctly?
andylofgren thinks that the current approach to the way the million dollar chance works doesn't allow for the confirmation of real paranormal activity?

Does anybody know if he has an idea about how it should be changed or if he personally believes that he has experienced paranormal activity that he would like to use as the basis for a million dollar challenge claim?

[bluesjnr]

Do I understand this correctly?
andylofgren thinks that the current approach to the way the million dollar chance works doesn't allow for the confirmation of real paranormal activity?

Does anybody know if he has an idea about how it should be changed or if he personally believes that he has experienced paranormal activity that he would like to use as the basis for a million dollar challenge claim?

Please see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7779358&postcount=77) to find out why you are not going to get your first question answered.

To answer your second and third question, well it's all in the thread really if you could be bothered. But I'll indulge you.

He wants field research conducted by the JREF, at their expense at Gettysburg whereby the JREF seek to prove the existence of paranormal activity by way of observing the many thousands of ghosts that frequent the battlefield.

He has not personally observed any activity but that is OK because he has read and heard many tales from "credible" individuals. He makes no claim on the MDC as he is stunned that the foundation haven't pitched up at Gettysburg and slam dunked any doubt.

Next time you can have a go at deciphering his mind boggling text and sentence structure.

[Jack by the hedge]

Please see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7779358&postcount=77) to find out why you are not going to get your first question answered.
Andylofgren has not departed. I got a PM from him this very morning. All it contained was a link to his retort to my previous post in <edit> this closed, split thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=224123 . I infer he is dissatisfied that I had not responded to it.

[Brattus]

Please see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7779358&postcount=77) to find out why you are not going to get your first question answered.

To answer your second and third question, well it's all in the thread really if you could be bothered. But I'll indulge you.

He wants field research conducted by the JREF, at their expense at Gettysburg whereby the JREF seek to prove the existence of paranormal activity by way of observing the many thousands of ghosts that frequent the battlefield.

He has not personally observed any activity but that is OK because he has read and heard many tales from "credible" individuals. He makes no claim on the MDC as he is stunned that the foundation haven't pitched up at Gettysburg and slam dunked any doubt.

Next time you can have a go at deciphering his mind boggling text and sentence structure.

I'll break it down even further. The OP feels that the MDC is a statement by James Randi and the JREF as a whole that the paranormal does not exist.

The OP also believes that if James Randi and the JREF as a whole wanted to put their money where their mouth is they would fully fund his ghost hunting in Gettysburg, PA.

Too funny! I also got a terrible headache reading the OPs post. That is not funny at all.

[bluesjnr]

Andylofgren has not departed. I got a PM from him this very morning. All it contained was a link to his retort to my previous post in <edit> this closed, split thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=224123 . I infer he is dissatisfied that I had not responded to it.

Why am I not surprised that he is miffed that you haven't responded in a locked thread?

[davefoc]

...

Next time you can have a go at deciphering his mind boggling text and sentence structure.

I did have a go, but it seems I was not all that successful. I think I will need to leave that to people more gifted than myself in this area. Assuming thatandylofgren posts again I think I'll just wait for the official translation.