Julli Henning

[Lisa Simpson]

Unfortunately, I cannot "make" anyone admit they have heard me telepathically.

Seems to me she is giving herself an automatic out. "They refused to acknowledge that they heard me."

[Bronze Dog]

Yup, sounds like it to me. Imagine one way to try and get honest receivers is to get them to write a statement of belief in the paranormal or something, but then this Julli character will probably dispute their honesty... after the test, if not before.

[jmercer]

Yeah, non-starter here for sure.

[Brown]

Maybe I read the application wrong, but did she say that SHE would be the judge of her own success?

If so, that is a fatal defect in her application.

[roger]

Originally posted by Brown
Maybe I read the application wrong, but did she say that SHE would be the judge of her own success?

If so, that is a fatal defect in her application. Are you reacting to this phrase: If any one of those people "heard" me, then, by my standards, it (I) would be a success.

I would say that 'by her standards' means that she is normally successful with only 1 in 4-5 people (a handful), not that she gets to judge if the person heard or not.

[Beleth]

Sounds like a claim that the protocol originally designed for Paul Carey would be perfect for.

Have Julli bring a receiver friend, separate Julli from the friend, have a list of 20 or so phrases that Julli transmits to the friend. (In a nutshell.)

[Winny]

Originally posted by Beleth
Sounds like a claim that the protocol originally designed for Paul Carey would be perfect for. That was the first thing I thought.

She needs to supply the receiver(s). That eliminates the "they refused to admit the truth" escape portal (tm). In fact she should be encouraged to bring people that she has already transmitted to... sounds like there's a lot of them.

cheers

Winny

[Brown]

Originally posted by roger
I would say that 'by her standards' means that she is normally successful with only 1 in 4-5 people (a handful), not that she gets to judge if the person heard or not. Actually, my concern is with the entire paragraph.For the demonstration purposes, I would need a handful of people in a quiet room. I would need to speak to them each for about a half an hour. If any one of those people "heard" me, then, by my standards, it (I) would be a success.There are several ambiguities here. First, when she says "I would need to speak to them," it must be clarified that she means she would speak telepathically, not verbally.

Second, it is unclear whether she would be in the same room as these people, since some people can communicate rather well with expressions, posture, and the like. This works both ways. Each of the people could pick up cues from her as to what she might be thinking about, and she might pick up cues from them as to what they might be thinking about.

Third, it is unclear whether the same subject will be telepathically "spoken" to the group as a whole, or to each member individually, or whether she would try to project different subjects to each of the individual people. Depending upon how the group will be "spoken" to, the chances of some sort of a "hit" can be increased substantially. (Uri Geller was known to control the manner in which he supposedly projected his thoughts to an audience in order to apparently increase his hit rate.)

Fourth, there is no definition as to what it means for one of the people to have "heard" her. As she purports to project her "thoughts," rather than her words, she would likely assert that the process is inexact. Accordingly, she would like to be in a position to argue that certain reactions are "close enough" to constitute success.

Fifth, it is unclear where the phrase "by my standards" fits in. It is certainly possible that she was referring to a claim that one in a "handful of people" (another undefined term) will "hear" her. But it is also possible that she will assert that "by my standards" means that she expects to have some say in determining whether she has had success.

[IXP]

This is a pretty weak claim. She does not say that she can transmit any verifiable information through telepathy, only that she can "project her thoughts" and that one out of a handful of people will claim to have "heard" her. I predict she will back out once she learns what she must actually do to demonstrate her ability to JREF's standards, as opposed to her own.

IXP

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm insulted, Kramer--

Dear Ms. Henning,
Thank you for your reply. With claims such as these (which have consistently failed each and every test) we ask the applicant to submit 3 notarized affadavits from 3 professionals (doctors, lawyers, professors, etc - no housewives, barbers, or dishwashers, please) who have experienced this phenomenon and can provide no reasonable explanation for it.

What's wrong with housewives, barbers and dishwashers? Doctors, lawyers and professors can be just as gullible as those with no formal education. And BTW, plenty of housewives have formal education, but choose to stay home with the kids.

[KRAMER]

Funny thing, I realized this stupid mistake and knew that many people would be very insulted by it a few minutes after I posted it, so I changed that line in the FAQ addition I've composed. It's too late to change the email I sent, obviously.

"Housewives" has now been replaced by "busboys".

My apologies. It was very sloppy thinking on my part. Please feel free to insult me in return, to which I would have to reply by saying, "Well, I certainly deserved that."

If it's any help, I agree wholly with your assessment. Doctors, lawyers and professors are just as easily fooled as anyone, but let's face it, this requirement for 3 notarized affadavits will mean nothing at all if they're submitted by the applicants 3 best friends from their yoga class or crystal club.

We don't want affadavits from their friends, who are quite naturally wanting to be supportive (as most friends might). We want affadavits from independent 3rd parties. We want applicants to ask their doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.

Randi was quite specific about this part of the requirement, and I think it's a reasonable thing to ask for.

Again, I apologize for offending you.

That said, if you knew me, you'd know that the word in question ("housewives") was not in my nature. Proof of this may be found in the fact that I am screaming bloody murder here about the paucity of women participating at TAM3. In my opinion, any panel discussion or debate should strive to be equally comprised of both men and women. Otherwise, it can easily be half a discussion. I felt the lack of women at TAM3 was conspicuous.

I have a list of personal goals for TAM4. The #1 goal, at the very top of that list, is to get more women there.

I've asked DAVA SOBEL but she has 3 books coming out late this year and has committed to a book tour in January 2006. I'm waiting for a response from NADINE STROSSEN, head of the ACLU.
Others have also been asked and we are awaiting a response.

What I'd love the most os to find a woman to come and speak about WHY there aren't enough women speaking, or for that matter, why there are so few women attendees. Or black attendees, as well. Such a debate could be inspiring.

So don't assume that this one word illustrates my feelings about women, or housewives. Anyone who knows me knows such an assumption is wholly unfounded.

OK?

OK.

Again, sorry about that. I'm an idiot sometimes...especially really early on a Saturday morning when I should still be in bed, before I've had my morning tea.

[Beady]

Actually, I see nothing wrong in principle with the protocal she suggests (Kramer's posting of 04-02-2005 10:52 AM).

Since she is apparently claiming to mentally project distinct and specific words to people who believe she can do it, let's make it easy on her. She supplies four or five friends to whom she has successfuly transmitted on previous occasions. All of them, including the projector (I'm blanking on her name), sit in a circle, facing outward so there's no visual contact. The projector is given either a list of random words or a written paragraph to mentally broadcast to her friends. The object will be for the friends to accurately recieve a certain percentage of the words or the gist of the paragraph. There will, of course, be absolute silence in the room while the projector has the broadcast material in her hands.

Environmental things such as blindfolds and such can be determined by prior negotiation, but I believe they could be a matter of preference for the projector.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Funny thing, I knew you'd be insulted by this, so I changed that line in the FAQ addition I've composed.

"Housewives" has now been replaced by "busboys".

My apologies. It was very sloppy thinking on my part. Please feel free to insult me in return, to which I would have to reply by saying, "Well, I certainly deserved that."

If it's any help, I agree wholly with your assessment. Doctors, lawyers and professors are just as easily fooled as anyone, but let's face it, this requirement for 3 notarized affadavits will mean nothing at all if they're submitted by the applicants 3 best friends from their yoga class.

We don't want affadavits from their friends, who are quite naturally wanting to be supportive (as most friends might). We want affadavits from independent 3rd parties. We want aqpplicants to ask their doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.

Randi was quite specific about this part of the requirement, and I think it's reasonable thing to ask for.

I'm not going to insult you. I try really hard not to be rude to people.

I get that you want confirmation from people other than friends. However, perhaps it might be better to merely state--"three independant parties" and not mention occupations. Certainly people can be friends with doctors. lawyers and professors and in that case, they wouldn't be any more independent than friends from yoga class.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Beady
She supplies four or five friends to whom she has successfuly transmitted on previous occasions.

We have no problem with her using her friends as receivers. We often encourage it.

We want all applicants to be as comfortable as possible.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
...perhaps it might be better to merely state--"three independant parties" and not mention occupations.

No, we want applicants to make an effort to seek out professionals. Although it's been proven over and over again that a doctor is as easily fooled as a bricklayer, let's at least admit to ourselves that a doctor will most likely have a somewhat higher IQ than a bricklayer.

We have a man with a doctorate degree, and a man who lays bricks.

Again, unless we make such a requirement standard, ANYONE at all can sign the affadavits, and our efforts in this area would be rendered utterly worthless.

[Lisa Simpson]

I could go and get an affidavit from my brother, the software engineer. I'm married, so we have different last names and you would never know that he is not "independent". I have a friend that is a lawyer. He's not "independent" either. You are taking on faith that the affidavits are from truly independent sources.

And please don't assume that Ph.Ds have higher IQs than bricklayers. Maybe the bricklayer enjoys the craftsmanship of his work.

[KRAMER]

It'd be GREAT if you asked a family member. By "independent" I meant "someone who does not already subscribe to your belief".

You must forgive me, Lisa, but I AM going to continue to assume that a person holding a doctorate has a substantially higher IQ than a man holding a brick. I've thought about everything you said, but I think I'm right about this.

A doctor is more likely to have greater discerning capabilities than someone whose greatest efforts have landed them in the back end of a Walmart mensroom with a scrub brush and bleach bucket. We can place little value on the opinions of the intellectually challenged. And PLEASE don't suggest that I am "stereotyping". There's big difference, I think, between stereotyping and comparison shopping.

When I lived in NYC's Harlem district and came home at 3am (during the summer months) to see two young black men in big parkas standing in my doorway, hands in their pockets, looking at me and then glancing up and down the street to see if anyone was around, was the fact that I briskly walked past them the result of stereotyping, or good sense? I was watching my ass.

I'm also watching JREF's ass.

Again - We have a man with a doctorate degree, and a man who lays bricks. You chose.

And also, we're not talking about ALL claims. This will only be asked of the utterly ridiculous ones, such as those I've referenced.

In fact, if the applicant is forced to do this because of the Challenge requirements, and encounters a professional who, instead of supporting their claim, tells them that what they are experiencing is NOT paranormal phenomenon at all, but rather much more likely to be the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, I ask you, then, what harm is there in that?

What if no one in this person's family knows that they have such delusions (which is very often the case), and the applicant choses to ask a family member who is a "professional"? Then it is quite possible that the entire family would be notified of something going on that they had no idea even existed prior. Obviously, they may be likely to give the matter some immediate attention.

And what's wrong with THAT?

In such instances, the JREF Challenge could be responsible for having brought about some substantial good for the applicant,
and I for one would love to see such possibilities realized, because the way I see it, although the Challenge is certainly a visible promotional tool for the JREF, it really doesn't change anyone's lives for the better. Sure, we're proving our point, AGAIN and AGAIN, but who's really being helped in any real and tangible manner? I'm not really sure if anyone is, frankly.

It'd be really nice, I think, if we can be a part of helping people.
Of course applicants rarely listen to us, but they might listen to someone else, just maybe, and then, just maybe, they might listen.

No matter what happens here day in and day out, regardless of the utter inanity of the great majority of what passes my desk,
I'm proud to state here for the record that I, for one, still have HOPE.

[Lisa Simpson]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, Kramer. You just aren't going to be able to convince me that someone's intellectual ability can be determined solely by their job title.

[Beady]

Originally posted by KRAMER
...et's at least admit to ourselves that a doctor will most likely have a somewhat higher IQ than a bricklayer.

Careful, Kramer. You're sterotyping.

Ever serve on a jury? I have, twice, and I was very impressed with every fellow juror. Put someone, anyone, in a setting where they know they have to keep an eye out for trickery, and they'll be pretty hard to fool.

Look at it this way: If there's one thing a crotchety old farmer knows, it's the smell of bullsh*t.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
We'll just have to agree to disagree, Kramer. You just aren't going to be able to convince me that someone's intellectual ability can be determined solely by their job title.

The best thing I ever heard someone say on this was in Studs Terkel's book, "Working":

"People who work for a living aren't stupid, they're tired. There's a difference."

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
We'll just have to agree to disagree, Kramer. You just aren't going to be able to convince me that someone's intellectual ability can be determined solely by their job title.

I agree. Not SOLELY, but certainly PARTLY, and that part should by no means be automatically rejected because of what some people might see as a form of cultural inequity, or "stereotyping".

There's good stereotyping, and there's bad stereotyping. I used to feel otherwise, but 30 minutes on this issue with Penn Jillette at your throat just might change your mind as it did mine. And just for the record, Penn used to feel otherwise, but people smarter than him convinced him he was wrong, and he cared enough to do the same for me. Good friend.

Everyone stereotypes. Don't kid yourself.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Everyone stereotypes. Don't kid yourself.

Of course they do. But the JREF should try really, really, really hard not to. Because it's hardly the epitome of skepticism if you are taking on faith that doctors, lawyers and professors are automatically the intellectual superiors to busboys, bricklayers and barbers.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Beady
The best thing I ever heard someone say on this was in Studs Terkel's book, "Working":

"People who work for a living aren't stupid, they're tired. There's a difference."

Leave it to good ol' Studs to lay reality bare and strip you of your elitism, at least monetarily. It always seems to come back, sadly.

These debates can easily be misunderstood, as can people's real thoughts and feelings. I'm hoping that no one here has mistaken anything I've said as an expression of bigotry, cultural or otherwise. In principle I agree with you all on this matter, and wouldn't argue your points, but the Challenge requires something more when dealing with potentially mentally ill applicants.

And again, our motive in adding this requirement is not singular.
There are many good things that can happen if the applicant is actually suffering from a mental illness and happens upon someone who'll take notice and try to help. Obviously, the JREF, seen by most applicants as enemies as opposed to adversaries, will not be in a position to offer such help advice, as it would be summarily rejected. It has to come from somewhere else.

Sure, some applicants who fail to demonstrate their claim have said, "Gee. I was wrong"...but most of them will resurface in good time with a revised claim and an new protocol that they think will help them to win the $$$. Such delusions die hard, if ever.

[Beady]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I used to feel otherwise, but 30 minutes on this issue with Penn Jillette at your throat just might change your mind as it did mine.

Some people win arguments by their decible level, others by logic. I've seen Penn use both tactics.

[KRAMER]

...does it matter so much how you win if you're right?

Uh-oh. Another debate is brewing. I can just feel it.

Penn and I have been pals for 20 years. He has NEVER "won" any debate with me because of aggressive tactics. Give me a little bit of credit here, please.

And give Penn some credit, too. I've seen him scare people, but I've never once in our entire friendship seen him jettison logic.

[Gr8wight]

I think the choice of bricklayer was a poor analogy. Bricklayers are skilled tradesmen. However, the analogy of the guy cleaning the Walmart toilets is better. Kramer's, and originally Randi's, reasoning in asking for professional references is valid. Just because you know a software engineer and a lawyer doesn't mean that every American does. Remember, we here are the minority among North American culture. The huge majority of people in our world are less educated than us, and probably do not just happen to know three professional people that would lie for them. The intent is to make these claimants do a little bit of work to justify their claims. What's wrong with that?

[KRAMER]

Bricklayer, BAD analogy.

WalMart janitor, acceptable analogy.

Definitely.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I think the choice of bricklayer was a poor analogy. Bricklayers are skilled tradesmen. However, the analogy of the guy cleaning the Walmart toilets is better. Kramer's, and originally Randi's, reasoning in asking for professional references is valid. Just because you know a software engineer and a lawyer doesn't mean that every American does. Remember, we here are the minority among North American culture. The huge majority of people in our world are less educated than us, and probably do not just happen to know three professional people that would lie for them. The intent is to make these claimants do a little bit of work to justify their claims. What's wrong with that?

The way it is worded. It's elitist. I understand that they don't want an affidavit from Joe Schmoe. But the wording "doctors, lawyers, professors, but not barbers, bricklayers or dishwashers" assumes that the former are more intelligent and less gullible than the latter. Does Mr. Randi have a college education? Gary Schwartz sure does.

[webfusion]

For a Cosmetologist / Barber license in many states, there is a requirement to pass a stringent written as well as practical examination which includes questions requiring a high degree of technical knowledge. I venture to say that if anyone were to choose 5 random questions (of 100), you would have no idea how to answer correctly.

The tests are administered by EXPERIOR
http://www.experioronline.com/mdcosmo.asp
and require proficiency that the average person doesn't have "automatically" (a lengthy period of schooling and training is a necessary part of becoming a hairdresser/barber)

So, "barber" should be rejected as well, since it is not anywhere near the level of unskilled and unlicensed work as "busboy" or "dishwasher" ----

[Beady]

Originally posted by KRAMER
...does it matter so much how you win if you're right?

I guess it depends on whether you consider yourself one of the good guys, and whether you are trying to gain compliance or agreement.

[SezMe]

KRAMER, I have a different quibble with what you wrote:

Dear Ms. Henning,
Thank you for your reply. With claims such as these (which have consistently failed each and every test) we ask the applicant to submit 3 notarized affadavits from 3 professionals (doctors, lawyers, professors, etc - no housewives, barbers, or dishwashers, please) who have experienced this phenomenon and can provide no reasonable explanation for it.
My emphasis

After your really bad last experience, you swore you were only going to play the role of gatekeeper. So lay off the edtorializing (bolded portion) and just "stick to the facts, ma'am"

[Francois Tremblay]

How is the constant failure of some claims not factual ? As the expression goes, "I don't think it means what you think it means".

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
How is the constant failure of some claims not factual ? As the expression goes, "I don't think it means what you think it means".
Because past failures are irrelevant to this claim. If JREF really adopted the notion that past failures are pertinent to present claims, we could simply shut down the challenge. After all, nobody has passed so far, so why bother.

[Francois Tremblay]

You are spectacularly missing the point. The Million Dollar Challenge is not about determining whether people can really communicate "telepathically". Scientific facts and the failure of past claims are more than sufficient to establish that this is a fantasy. The Challenge is here to show people that no one has "para-normal" powers.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

I get that you want confirmation from people other than friends. However, perhaps it might be better to merely state--"three independant parties" and not mention occupations. Certainly people can be friends with doctors. lawyers and professors and in that case, they wouldn't be any more independent than friends from yoga class.

I would be willing to bet that Beth Clarkson (the "flame-throwing" challenge applicant) has at least three friends who are professors (given that she works as a university instructor, I believe in Kansas).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
How is the constant failure of some claims not factual ? As the expression goes, "I don't think it means what you think it means".

It's factual, but not relevant. By JREF policy, each claim is evaluated on its individual merits (which is why challenge procedures are negotiated anew with each applicant).

[jmercer]

Dr k, et. al., It may have a relevance depending on how you choose to view it.

Citing the previous failure of all claims is - from the way I read it - an attempt at explaining the requirement for an affadavit from a specific type of witness. (Professionals being presumably at least familiar with logic and perhaps even critical thinking.)

As I interpret it, it's an attempt on the part of JREF to not appear to be placing obstacles in the path of applications arbitrarily. Without some justification, an applicant could simply state that JREF throws in all sorts of random requirements just so people are discouraged from applying. This would provide ammunition for those who attempt to attack JREF's credibility at every opportunity.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
Dr k, et. al., It may have a relevance depending on how you choose to view it.

Citing the previous failure of all claims is - from the way I read it - an attempt at explaining the requirement for an affadavit from a specific type of witness.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it's a rather spurious explanation. The real reason for the requirement is that KRAMER, in his role as gatekeeper, judged the proposed ability as simply off the wall barmy, ludicrous beyond belief, and utterly preposterous.

He's probably justified in this, too. But the reason that he's making this judgement is almost certainly not because he's seen this claim tested before and it failed. I hate to match my creativity against the collected lunacy of the universe --- but suppose I could come up with an entirely new, but still off-the-wall, claim. ("I can telepathically emplant in people the feeling that their entire body is shrinking"?) Would KRAMER be obliged to forego requesting affidavits jsut because I've proven myself more schizophrenic than anyone else in challenge history?

The real reason for KRAMER's request is to separate the genuine clinical lunatic from the common or garden delusional nutcase. Asking for references from people who don't share the same ward with me is a good way to do it.

[jmercer]

Well put - although I think that some kind of justification is still needed as a bulwark against people who would claim that JREF is putting unreasonable demands on those who apply, etc. :D

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well put - although I think that some kind of justification is still needed as a bulwark against people who would claim that JREF is putting unreasonable demands on those who apply, etc. :D

I'm not sure I agree.

As far as I can tell, there are four possible avenues to take.

1) Offer the correct explanation ("we want to make sure you aren't the sort of person who keeps broccoli in their socks to keep tigers away").

2) Offer no explanation whatsoever, simply present the demand.

3) Drop the bulwark requirement altogether and let every nut-case who can get to a notary on supervised-release apply.

4) Offer an incorrect but plausible-sounding explanation (i.e. lie to the applicants).

JREF, for obvious reasons, doesn't like #3. #2 is extremely unfriendly. I guess the choice is : do you want to be diplomatically untruthful (#4) or bluntly correct (#1)?

I, personally, would pick #1. But then, I'm notorious for being unable even to spell diplomicy... dipplomacee... diplommasy... that thing that the Foreign Office does.

[jmercer]

Well, we have the Bush administration running things right now, so diplomacy here is basically slamming someone in the head repeatedly with a hammer, and asking them how they feel when they fall down. :D

#1 is fine by me. The serious one's won't be put off by it, and the silly ones will squawk quite entertainingly. ;)

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I would be willing to bet that Beth Clarkson (the "flame-throwing" challenge applicant) has at least three friends who are professors (given that she works as a university instructor, I believe in Kansas).

Yes, but Ms. Clarkson has zero interest in having anyone at her university know about any of this, which in my mind is quite telling.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Yes, but Ms. Clarkson has zero interest in having anyone at her university know about any of this, which in my mind is quite telling.

The odds against Ms. Clarkson only knowing people at that one university are quite small.

[KRAMER]

Quite so, but we can certainly surmise that they are the most easily accessible "experts" with whom she might consult on her alleged "ability", if she was really confident of her claim.

[jmercer]

My impression is that she's become more tentative about whether or not she can actually demonstrate the claim - that certain experiences led her to believe she could, but she now has doubts after considering the matter more closely. (In fact, I believe she expressed those doubts at the very beginning here in the forums after starting her application.)

If I'm correct, then I would expect her reluctance for involving her peers and professional acquaintances to be perfectly understandable. No one wants to take a chance on exposing themselves to redicule or compromising their credibility.

Beth strikes me as sincere... all of her dialogues in the forums have been rational and logical. Some I agree with, and some I don't - but I don't get the sense that she's playing a game. I think she's genuinely trying to determine if she can demonstrate something paranormal, or if she's simply perceiving something that's not truly happening.

Unlike Mr. Anda, I do not get the sense that she's being evasive at all.

[Beady]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Yes, but Ms. Clarkson has zero interest in having anyone at her university know about any of this, which in my mind is quite telling.

Not really. University politics are goddamned bloody, nasty and petty. There are plenty of literature professors who write rather serious (and not-so-serious) novels under pen names because they literally fear for their jobs if their academic "collegues"(sp?) find out.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by jmercer
Beth strikes me as sincere... all of her dialogues in the forums have been rational and logical. Some I agree with, and some I don't - but I don't get the sense that she's playing a game. I think she's genuinely trying to determine if she can demonstrate something paranormal, or if she's simply perceiving something that's not truly happening.

Agreed. Beth is 100% sincere. There is absolutely no disingenuousness in her claim. She is seeking the truth just as we are. It is rare that the JREF and a Challenge applicant truly share such goals in common. In fact, this could quite possibly be the only such collaboration of this kind during my tenure here.

BUT... the Challenge is not intended as an avenue for people to decipher whether or not they possess paranormal ability.
The JREF is NOT offering itself as an open door for people who need help in deciphering such matters, gratis. We're not a clearinghouse for such matters.

The Challenge is just that; A CHALLENGE. It is expressly designed and intended for those who are certain of their abilities, and feel confident that they can offer a demonstration thereof that would conclusively verify it.

Let's be clear about that. Ms. Clarkson wants the JREF to assist her in deciphering whether or not something paranormal is evidenced here. That's simply NOT what we do.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Agreed. Beth is 100% sincere. There is absolutely no disingenuousness in her claim. She is seeking the truth just as we are. It is rare that the JREF and a Challenge applicant truly share such goals in common. In fact, this could quite possibly be the only such collaboration of this kind during my tenure here.

BUT... the Challenge is not intended as an avenue for people to decipher whether or not they possess paranormal ability.
The JREF is NOT offering itself as an open door for people who need help in deciphering such matters, gratis. We're not a clearinghouse for such matters.

The Challenge is just that; A CHALLENGE. It is expressly designed and intended for those who are certain of their abilities, and feel confident that they can offer a demonstration thereof that would conclusively verify it.

Let's be clear about that. Ms. Clarkson wants the JREF to assist her in deciphering whether or not something paranormal is evidenced here. That's simply NOT what we do.
Very good points, Kramer. Though Ms. Clarkson is one of the few to pursue it at length, I have seen others "test the waters" here at JREF, only to drop out when they see that they can't go "trial and error". JREFis not a research facility. That is why there is the "one year rule" for repeat applicants.

Test yourself (as Beth is doing) then apply.