Some questions about the Million Dollar Challenge

[Bjarke Roune]

I'm writing an article about the Million Dollar Challenge for my homepage, and I have some questions about it. Before I get into that, I just want to congratulate especially Kramer for the challenge. Especially the recent applicants in the "Challenge Applicants" forum have all been handled very well and professionally. It must be very tough to remain so reasonable and civil considering the huge amount of b*llshit he must deal with.

If you know the answer to any of the following questions, I would be grateful if you would tell me on this forum or via mail.

As far as I can see, the "Challenge Applications" forum only contains information about four (4) actual Million Dollar Challenge tests, and these are

James Blunt at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=46041

Jim Dunn at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=50254

Cameron Johnson at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=56495

Angela Patel at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=52345

Have i got every test on the forum on that list? Are there full details of any other Million Dollar Challenge tests somewhere else?

Also, I would like some more information on some of the above 4 applicants, so if anyone knows, that would be helpful. I think most of this information ought to be displayed in the forum, so that the Million Dollar Challenge can be as credible an argument against the supernatural as is possible.

* James Blunt
Did he think the test was conducted fairly? (it doesn't seem to say)
What reason did he provide for the failure, if any?

* Jim Dunn
Obviously some correspondence is missing from this file, especially at the end. As far as I can see, nowhere does it say exactly how many days the test ended up spanning (2,3 or 4?), and it does not say what dates the test spanned.

Also, there was a dispute about some obituaries, but no details are given. Where did these obituaries come from, who died and how many people died? What did Jim say was wrong with the obituaries and what were his arguments?

Also, all the links in the file are broken.

* Cameron Johnson
What reason did she provide for the failure?

I also have some general questions:

Most tests are recorded on video. Is it possible to download or otherwise obtain these videos?

In the past, claims have been rejected due to absurdity (http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm). Does this still happen? If so, are all such immediate rejections posted on the forum?

At this time, is all new official correspondence with applicants posted on the forum? If not, what is not posted?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
* James Blunt
Did he think the test was conducted fairly? (it doesn't seem to say) The agreed protocol was for Bertha and I to randomly place a penny, a nickel, a five-dollar gold piece, a silver dollar and a hunk of aluminum, one each, in five bags. Then Mr. Blunt used a home made sensing device to determine which was which. He had three tries to conduct this experiment. (My emphasis)

He would have a hard time contending that the test wasn't fair, as he will have agreed to the protocol in advance. That's one of the rules for the challenge. From here (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)
1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. (my emphasis)

[Bjarke Roune]

True, but he might still have objected to the way the test was carried out, while having no problem with the protocol. He also might have changed his mind after the test.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

Have i got every test on the forum on that list? Are there full details of any other Million Dollar Challenge tests somewhere else?

Achau Nguyen (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46657) was tested, too.

ETA: Welcome aboard :)

[Bjarke Roune]

Thanks SwissSkeptic, I'll add him to my list.

I feel pretty stupid, because Achau was the case that really got me interested in the Million Dollar Challenge, and I've been following the case closely. I've even got a post in the thread about him too. Guess i skipped him in my search of the forum due to thinking "oh yeah, I know about that one".

[Bjarke Roune]

Perhaps I should add that the article I'm writing will try to present the argument "no one has taken the million dollars, so it seems that paranormal powers are atleast extremely rare, and they probably do not exist". In order to do this fairly, I will have to present the strongest argument I can that The Million Dollar Challenge is actually just a fraud or atleast completely unfair - hopefully that argument will be pretty unconvincing.

It seems there was another test

"Yellow Bamboo" at
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=52068

Af first, I understod the file to say that Australian Skeptics had completely taken over, and that the Yellow Bamboo people were no longer going for the Million Dollar Challenge, but some other prize in Australia. Reading it again, it does seem to say that the test was actually for the million dollars. Unfortunately, the file says very little about the actual test. The link to "added footage" is broken (added to what, btw?). It would be nice to see some of the correspondence with the australian skeptics.

I came to revisit this file due to the following article. It seems the Yellow Bamboo people claim they passed the test and Randi backed out. I don't believe that, but especially in light of this, it would be nice with some more details.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb106721.htm

[SwissSkeptic]

Did you check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52018&highlight=Yellow+Bamboo) about the YB fiasco?
Since the link doesn't work anymore you should ask Australian Skeptics for the video, it's a must see :D

[Jon.]

It's important to note, also, that all of these applicants failed on their preliminary tests. None ever made it to the million-dollar test itself.

[Bjarke Roune]

I should have read the FAQ more closely/recently, since one of my questions is answered there. Specifically, the question

"In the past, claims have been rejected due to absurdity (]http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm). Does this still happen? "

is answered in the FAQ by

"There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions."

I have no idea how JREF evalutes the plausibility of these things, though. Most paranormal claims seem equally and totally implausible to me.

[Bjarke Roune]

Thanks to SwissSkeptic, who made me see the wisdom of searching the regular forum for information, not just the official challenge log. I've dug up the information I asked for about Jimm Dunn this way:

"Obviously some correspondence is missing from this file, especially at the end."

Much of this correspondence and further information is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=50265

"As far as I can see, nowhere does it say exactly how many days the test ended up spanning (2,3 or 4?), and it does not say what dates the test spanned."

From the 23rd to the 26th of december 2004.

"Also, there was a dispute about some obituaries, but no details are given. Where did these obituaries come from, who died and how many people died?"

The links are still broken, but a post in the thread linked to above gives the following link, which is not broken.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13655288

"What did Jim say was wrong with the obituaries and what were his arguments?"

I'd still like to know this.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
I should have read the FAQ more closely/recently, since one of my questions is answered there. Specifically, the question

"In the past, claims have been rejected due to absurdity (]http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm). Does this still happen? "

is answered in the FAQ by

"There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions."

I have no idea how JREF evalutes the plausibility of these things, though. Most paranormal claims seem equally and totally implausible to me.

This raises a very interesting question: How implausible does a claim have to be in order to be "too implausible"?

I've always been under the impression that Randi usually doesn't want to test Breatharians because of safety issues, not because of the inherent absurdity. After all, the purpose of the JREF prize is to go after absurd claims.

Then, I remembered Tyrone Shoelace (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49985) and suddenly understood that there has to be some kind of "absurdity" caveat to rule out claims that obviously don't seem to have any other purpose but to waste KRAMERs and Randis time.

[Bjarke Roune]

Yes, I think that question is interesting too.

The claim of Tyrone Shoelace was that if you put his dog into a bathroom with turds in the toilet, the turds would disappear. I find that quite believable. I think Tyrone Shoelae should be rejected because his claim is not paranormal, not because it is absurd. I actually think Tyrone might even have been sincere, though I agree that it does smell like a prank claim.

[SwissSkeptic]

Yes you're right. Bad example on my behalf since there's obviously nothing paranormal in this claim. (Although I still think "Tyrone" was just trying to annoy KRAMER - the name kinda gives it away.)

So is there an example of a claim that has been rejected due to its absurdity?
I remember Randi saying "We will also not test for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny" in response to a breatharian. This sounds like the test has been rejected due to its absurdity. On the other hand, just a couple of weeks ago he challenged "Jasmuheen" in his commentary, another breatharian.

The challenge application even explicitly states that breatharians claims won't be tested due to their likeliness to cause physical harm.

JREF will also 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.

So I guess it all comes down to who Randi wants to see tested (mostly people with lots of followers), which is only sensible since the JREF has very limited resources.

ETA: As KRAMER just kindly pointed out, people with followers never get tested by the JREF. My last paragraph is wrong and should read:
Randi seems to challenge mostly people who have followers, but since they don't apply (too much to lose?), the tests that are actually conducted by the JREF don't feature high-profile woos.

Edited again cos I kan't spell

[Ducky]

Honorable mention to the upcoming test of the GSIC chip by forum member LostAngeles who took up the testing when the original applicant stopped negotiating protocol and because insulting.

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56117) is a good read.


Welcome.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
Perhaps I should add that the article I'm writing will try to present the argument "no one has taken the million dollars, so it seems that paranormal powers are atleast extremely rare, and they probably do not exist". In order to do this fairly, I will have to present the strongest argument I can that The Million Dollar Challenge is actually just a fraud or atleast completely unfair - hopefully that argument will be pretty unconvincing.
In order to do that it might be interesting for you to read a list of excuses for not taking the challenge (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm) and the reasons why those excuses are not valid.

[Bjarke Roune]

posted by Jon.
It's important to note, also, that all of these applicants failed on their preliminary tests. None ever made it to the million-dollar test itself.


Yes, that is important.

Posted by SwissSkeptic
So I guess it all comes down to who Randi wants to see tested (mostly people with lots of followers), which is only sensible since the JREF has very limited resources.


Thanks for digging up information for me - I appreciate it.

If indeed it comes down to who Randi happens to want to see tested, then the Million Dollar Challenge cannot be used as an argument against the paranormal. The believers will say: "Well, Randi only wants to test the frauds and only those he wants to test are actually tested, so it's hardly a surprise no one has won the million yet." However, looking at the challenge forum, it doesn't seem that applicants are rejected simply because Randi doesn't want to test them.

This leads to the question of whether or not all correspondence is actually posted to the challenges forum, especially when it comes to claims that are quickly rejected. If not, the challenge is not really half as open as it appears at first sight. Actually, I think the credibility of the challenge hinges critically on this very question. The posts in the challenge forum makes the challenge appear to be run in a fair manner. If that impression is genuine, it becomes very hard to find serious flaws in the way the challenge is run.

When I say credibility, I mean credibility in the eyers of someone very skeptical who is doing his best to find fault with the challenge. I do not myself have many doubts that the challenge is genuine, but then I don't believe in the paranormal.

My tentative impression is that all halfway reasonable correspondence, or perhaps even really all correspondence, is posted to the challenge forum at this time. Clearly this has not been the case in the past, though. One example is the Yellow Bamboo case, which is written as though there has not been any controversy about the matter. The Jimm Dunn topic is also clearly lacking much of the correspondence.

Before the challenge forum, it seems the challenge has been completely closed. I've not looked into that yet, though.

Posted by fowlsound
Honorable mention to the upcoming test of the GSIC chip by forum member LostAngeles who took up the testing when the original applicant stopped negotiating protocol and because insulting.

This thread is a good read.

Welcome.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

Posted by Ashles
In order to do that it might be interesting for you to read a list of excuses for not taking the challenge and the reasons why those excuses are not valid.


Thanks. That is certainly interesting, and I'll have to look at these excuses and the reasons for them being not so good in the article.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
My tentative impression is that all halfway reasonable correspondence, or perhaps even really all correspondence, is posted to the challenge forum at this time. Clearly this has not been the case in the past, though. One example is the Yellow Bamboo case, which is written as though there has not been any controversy about the matter.


The Yellow Bamboo organization approached JREF about the challenge, but stopped corresponding. (As stated in the challenge thread.) They were apparently then challenged by a local skeptical organization and the results (video, etc.) were posted and made available to us here.

Access to that "test" by the third party was simply reported on (with some commentary). Since - according to the Challenge thread - YB stopped sending emails, what would you have liked Kramer to post?

[jmercer]

Regarding Jim Dunn - after the initial set of emails and his subsequent failure to demonstrate his "powers", he started faxing stuff to JREF.

To show that stuff would have required scanning in the fax images and posting them in the thread... for no apparent reason. According to Kramer's last post in that Challenge thread, it was simply more protests and arguing about his failure.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here... those last two examples may indeed be incomplete - but that seems to be due to the actions (or inactions) of the participants and not JREF.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
If indeed it comes down to who Randi happens to want to see tested, then the Million Dollar Challenge cannot be used as an argument against the paranormal. The believers will say: "Well, Randi only wants to test the frauds and only those he wants to test are actually tested, so it's hardly a surprise no one has won the million yet." However, looking at the challenge forum, it doesn't seem that applicants are rejected simply because Randi doesn't want to test them.
I think it is important not to take SwissSkeptic's comment out of context, (or to think that any of us actually speak for the JREF here).

SwissSkeptic was only talking about the testing of a type of challenge that is not normally tested by the JREF. The JREF can make exceptions to the prohibited challenges.
The general rule on those ones seems to be initially to prevent disturbed or deluded or fraudulent people injuring themselves.

Maybe you might think you could win the challenge by just not eating for 50 days. You might honestly believe you could do it by sheer willpower, but not think about potential consequences. That's why the JREF, as a rule, does not generally entertain these types of challenges in the first instance.
But certain types of challengers with followers might be merely charlatans enjoying the media attention and their followers adulation. Randi may sometimes think that they can be tested without no real risk of danger. That's his call to make.

But for all the more regularly testable claims (no danger involved) Randi does not pick and choose which to test. If they say they can do it they will (barring any real risk of mental issues) get tested.

I'd hate to think that anyone got the impression that Randi only picks people to test who he knows will fail because, as you say, that observably isn't the case.

For example can anyone find any example anywhere of Randi refusing to test a paranormal claim (where there is no health risk involved)?

This leads to the question of whether or not all correspondence is actually posted to the challenges forum, especially when it comes to claims that are quickly rejected. If not, the challenge is not really half as open as it appears at first sight. Actually, I think the credibility of the challenge hinges critically on this very question. The posts in the challenge forum makes the challenge appear to be run in a fair manner. If that impression is genuine, it becomes very hard to find serious flaws in the way the challenge is run.
This forum is obviously not the only information outlet in the world.
If anyone applied to the JREF challenge and was turned down for no good reason they could (and would) shout it to the rooftops.

They could announce it wherever they liked and as a result Randi would be forced to explain his rejection, or offer a test, or seriously damage the credibility of the test.

Apart from anything else, if they actually had the claimed ability they could get into the media in about 4 seconds flat. And get all the publicity they could require.

But that hasn't hapened, and I am not sure why anyone would think it would. Once someone starts going down the secret conspiracy and information being withheld route then they end up believing whatever they want.

I agree with jmercer, I am increasingly perplexed as to what you are looking for. It is hard to see how the Challenge could be much more transparent or fairly run, and you say you personally think it is genuine. So what are you looking for? An example where the JREF didn't publicise all correspondence or reasoning as well as it could have? Well such examples probably exist. But what would that demonstrate?

I'm getting a bit confused here.

[Bjarke Roune]

I can certainly understand that my inquiry seems fishy. I'm trying to think of every way that there could possibly be something crooked about the challenge. This means I'll be looking at many accusations that are completely off the mark. Please, just because I'm trying to make the best case for some (possibly ridicoulous) argument in this thread, that doesn't mean I think it is a good argument, and if I include it in the article, it certainly will not be presented unanswered. I'm not writing this article for the skeptics, though I hope it will hold some interest for them. I hope to avoid preaching to the choir, and this means taking peoples' concerns seriously. You are free to think I'm wasting my time :)

Posted by jmercer
The Yellow Bamboo organization approached JREF about the challenge, but stopped corresponding. (As stated in the challenge thread.) They were apparently then challenged by a local skeptical organization and the results (video, etc.) were posted and made available to us here.

Access to that "test" by the third party was simply reported on (with some commentary). Since - according to the Challenge thread - YB stopped sending emails, what would you have liked Kramer to post?

Doing a search for "yellow bamboo" on the JREF forums results in 105 threads. Many of those are very lengthy. Searching for "Achau Nguyen" results in only 9 threads. Yellow Bamboo has been all over the internet claiming to have passed the preliminary test and Randi have engaged that in his commentaries several times. The Yellow Bamboo controversy is perhaps the most talked-about applicant of all. Yet, the controversy is not mentioned at all on the challenge log. They must have sent email to JREF about them claiming to have passed the test.

Obviously, that is not an attempt to put a lid on it, as Randi repeatedly and at length engaged the issue in his commentaries. The point is just that the challenge log did not tell the whole story.

Posted by jmercer
Regarding Jim Dunn - after the initial set of emails and his subsequent failure to demonstrate his "powers", he started faxing stuff to JREF.

To show that stuff would have required scanning in the fax images and posting them in the thread... for no apparent reason. According to Kramer's last post in that Challenge thread, it was simply more protests and arguing about his failure.

The missing correspondence is not only the faxes. A thread about Jim Dinn in this forum has several posts by Kramer posting new information about the case. This information is not in the challenge forum. Also...

Posted by Kramer
Well, I asked Jim for the phone number of the reporter he refers to in his claim letter. Jim responded by giving me a phone number, but hardly the one I requested.

... we don't get to see the email exchange where Kramer got the phone number (this might have been a telephone conversation, in which case the point is moot).

Posted by jmercer
I'm not sure what you're driving at here... those last two examples may indeed be incomplete - but that seems to be due to the actions (or inactions) of the participants and not JREF.

I think Kramer chose to leave parts out because he did not think they were relevant or important, and for all I know, he was completely correct.

Perhaps I should give a bit more context of why I think these things are relevant. My first reaction to looking at some of the criticisms of the challenge on the internet was: "Look at the damn log on the damn JREF page! How can anyone possibly construe this as anything but sincere, patient and serious conduct?" Unfortunately, if only some data is posted, this argument is less strong, since then the log is not an impartial and complete source of data on the case. Leaving out the part about Yellow Bamboo claiming to have passed the preliminary is an example of this.

Unfortunately for my devil's advocate alter ego, JREF has never claimed that the log is a complete source of information, and leaving some things out certainly is not evidence of anything bad. One example is that Kramer said that he did not want to further engage Jim Dunn in his delusions, as that might be detrimental to his mental health. That is clearly a legitimate reason.

[Bjarke Roune]

posted by AshlesI think it is important not to take SwissSkeptic's comment out of context, (or to think that any of us actually speak for the JREF here).

...

I'd hate to think that anyone got the impression that Randi only picks people to test who he knows will fail because, as you say, that observably isn't the case.

I agree that that is not the case, and it is good that you make this clear, so that no one reads this thread and gets a wrong impression.

This is still an issue that I need to look at, though, because it is often falsely claimed that Randi only takes the easy cases.

This forum is obviously not the only information outlet in the world. If anyone applied to the JREF challenge and was turned down for no good reason they could (and would) shout it to the rooftops.

I agree.

However, in the believer's perspective, this is exactly what is happening, and no one cares. Applicants will not agree to a reasonable protocol and then go on to claim that Randi would not test them. Believers see this and think the challenge is fake.

Also, people have been rejected because they became unreasonable or abusive. This can easily be construed as dismissal for no good reason. In this case, it really helps that much of the correspondence is available on the challenge forum, so that it can be seen that they indeed were unreasonable or abusive.

A good argument would be that someone unfairly dismissed could simply post in the regular forum, and other skeptics would say "hey, that is not right!". I think I will put something like that in the article.

It is also worthy of note that there is not a multitude of people claiming that they applied without the JREF putting up information about this on the challenge forum. Even dog-turd-guy is mentioned.

As to what I am looking for, see my response to jmercer.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
I can certainly understand that my inquiry seems fishy. I'm trying to think of every way that there could possibly be something crooked about the challenge. This means I'll be looking at many accusations that are completely off the mark. Please, just because I'm trying to make the best case for some (possibly ridicoulous) argument in this thread, that doesn't mean I think it is a good argument, and if I include it in the article, it certainly will not be presented unanswered. I'm not writing this article for the skeptics, though I hope it will hold some interest for them. I hope to avoid preaching to the choir, and this means taking peoples' concerns seriously. You are free to think I'm wasting my time :)


It's not that so much, as that JREF is continually accused of all sorts of nefarious manipulations... ranging from suppressing emails to having Randi's Amazing Psychic Powers interfere with an applicant so that they fail the test. (A' la Angela. :))

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

Doing a search for "yellow bamboo" on the JREF forums results in 105 threads. Many of those are very lengthy. Searching for "Achau Nguyen" results in only 9 threads. Yellow Bamboo has been all over the internet claiming to have passed the preliminary test and Randi have engaged that in his commentaries several times. The Yellow Bamboo controversy is perhaps the most talked-about applicant of all. Yet, the controversy is not mentioned at all on the challenge log. They must have sent email to JREF about them claiming to have passed the test.


People have confused the forums with the official Foundation before - JREF is not responsible for the content or postings in these forums other than what is presented in the Challenges subforum. The controversy over YB in the forums has no place in the official challenges thread; only official correspondence between JREF and the applicant (and/or comments by Randi or Kramer regarding the application status and process) should be in those posts. If an applicant chooses to reference dialogue from these forums - such as Wellfed did - it certainly has a place in there as well because it falls under the heading of official correspondence from the applicant to JREF about the forum posts.

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

Obviously, that is not an attempt to put a lid on it, as Randi repeatedly and at length engaged the issue in his commentaries. The point is just that the challenge log did not tell the whole story.


Randi certainly has a right to express his views on ANY applicant (or subject, for that matter!) in his commentaries. They are his commentaries, and he uses them to provide his opinion on entire ranges of subjects. Since YB did indeed begin the dialogue for application - then (as far as official JREF correspondence goes) simply dropped the dialogue - they were certainly fair game for Randi for that alone. (Although their claims would have made them fair game regardless.)

So regarding your assertion about the log - the challenge log absolutely told the whole story - as far as YB's interactions with JREF went, and JREF's view on the process. (Or defunct process, in this case.)

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

The missing correspondence is not only the faxes. A thread about Jim Dinn in this forum has several posts by Kramer posting new information about the case. This information is not in the challenge forum. Also...


Please provide links to those specific posts of Kramers you are referencing - I can't respond fairly without reading them. (Use the "link this post" option recently added by Darat to make it easy. :))

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

... we don't get to see the email exchange where Kramer got the phone number (this might have been a telephone conversation, in which case the point is moot).

...

I think Kramer chose to leave parts out because he did not think they were relevant or important, and for all I know, he was completely correct.


Or he may not be - Kramer, like all of us, is subject to errors. :)

Kramer was fairly new to the job for some of these applicants; he's done a lot to change the way he handles both the applicants and the Challenge threads since.

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

Perhaps I should give a bit more context of why I think these things are relevant. My first reaction to looking at some of the criticisms of the challenge on the internet was: "Look at the damn log on the damn JREF page! How can anyone possibly construe this as anything but sincere, patient and serious conduct?" Unfortunately, if only some data is posted, this argument is less strong, since then the log is not an impartial and complete source of data on the case. Leaving out the part about Yellow Bamboo claiming to have passed the preliminary is an example of this.

Unfortunately for my devil's advocate alter ego, JREF has never claimed that the log is a complete source of information, and leaving some things out certainly is not evidence of anything bad. One example is that Kramer said that he did not want to further engage Jim Dunn in his delusions, as that might be detrimental to his mental health. That is clearly a legitimate reason.

I don't disagree with your concerns, now that you've clarified them here. However - the Challenges subforum started out almost as an FYI kind of thing, but seems to have started evolving into a sort of case-files documentation for applicants and testers. (Which I think is great!)

:)

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by jmercer
People have confused the forums with the official Foundation before - JREF is not responsible for the content or postings in these forums other than what is presented in the Challenges subforum. The controversy over YB in the forums has no place in the official challenges thread; only official correspondence between JREF and the applicant (and/or comments by Randi or Kramer regarding the application status and process) should be in those posts. If an applicant chooses to reference dialogue from these forums - such as Wellfed did - it certainly has a place in there as well because it falls under the heading of official correspondence from the applicant to JREF about the forum posts.

I agree. I mentioned the forums to make it clear that Yellow Bamboo is a case alot of people have been very interested in and that it has been discussed at nauseating length.

Randi certainly has a right to express his views on ANY applicant (or subject, for that matter!) in his commentaries. They are his commentaries, and he uses them to provide his opinion on entire ranges of subjects. Since YB did indeed begin the dialogue for application - then (as far as official JREF correspondence goes) simply dropped the dialogue - they were certainly fair game for Randi for that alone. (Although their claims would have made them fair game regardless.)

I agree. I think you have misunderstood me. I wrote that it was clearly not an attempt to a put a lid on it, not that it was an attempt to put a lid on it.

So regarding your assertion about the log - the challenge log absolutely told the whole story - as far as YB's interactions with JREF went, and JREF's view on the process. (Or defunct process, in this case.)

I disagree. YB must have sent emails to the JREF about their claim of having passed the preliminary test. These claims are a part of YB's interactions with the JREF, and it is relevant to the YB case.

This does not mean that Kramer or anyone else ought to have posted the correspondence in the challenge log, since I have found no claims anywhere that the challenge log is a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence. What it does mean is that the challenge log isn't a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence.

Please provide links to those specific posts of Kramers you are referencing - I can't respond fairly without reading them. (Use the "link this post" option recently added by Darat to make it easy. :))

These are all of his posts in the thread. Not all of them have information that would be relevant in the challenge log but some do.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725309#post1870725309
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725324#post1870725324
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725348#post1870725348
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725374#post1870725374
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870726219#post1870726219
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870726403#post1870726403
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870727348#post1870727348
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870729814#post1870729814
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870733261#post1870733261
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870737597#post1870737597
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870740047#post1870740047
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870740108#post1870740108
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870741170#post1870741170
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870744328#post1870744328

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
I agree. I mentioned the forums to make it clear that Yellow Bamboo is a case alot of people have been very interested in and that it has been discussed at nauseating length.

I agree. I think you have misunderstood me. I wrote that it was clearly not an attempt to a put a lid on it, not that it was an attempt to put a lid on it.


Hey, thanks for clarifying. My bad. :)

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

I disagree. YB must have sent emails to the JREF about their claim of having passed the preliminary test. These claims are a part of YB's interactions with the JREF, and it is relevant to the YB case.

This does not mean that Kramer or anyone else ought to have posted the correspondence in the challenge log, since I have found no claims anywhere that the challenge log is a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence. What it does mean is that the challenge log isn't a complete source of information - even when it comes to relevant and important correspondence.


Well... I was here when this all happened, and I was active in the thread about it. I can't say if there was any correspondence between JREF and YB concerning any claims of having passed the preliminary test - I suggest you PM Kramer and ask him about it. He's a good guy, and he'll tell you if there were any or not. (In fact, if there were, he may post them remedially once you guys discuss it.)

As I recall, here's what happened -

A local skeptics organization challenged YB to prove their claims. A test was arranged, and filmed, and the results were posted by that organization on their website. Another organization unrelated to JREF (Bullshido, maybe? I'm not sure, other than it wasn't JREF) posted the link to the video along with commentary in this forum because of the original (abandoned) YB challenge. The thread took on a life of it's own (as they often do!), and someone emailed or PM'ed Kramer (or Randi) about the link.

Randi subsequently posted about YB's failure in his commentary.

But - as far as I know - there was never any mention made of an email to JREF from YB about passing the preliminary. (Although I do recall reading that YB's founder had been claiming that elsewhere in other forums, etc. My memory on that point may be faulty, however.)

If there was an email, the only possible response would have been "What you did wasn't our preliminary challenge - we weren't involved at all. And besides - we've seen the film, and you utterly failed!" If there was correspondence like that, then yes, it probably should have been put in the Challenge thread.

I'll check the links on the Dunn stuff - thanks, btw - and let you know what I think shortly!

[IXP]

Jmercer,

The test that YB claimed to have passed is not the one you are referring to. There was an earlier test where someone was actually knocked down, however it was not an official test and did not follow the protocol that Randi suggested.

Randi's commentary concerning the test YB "passed" (http://www.randi.org/jr/100303.html)

[jmercer]

Thanks - I think I've seen that mentioned before, now that you mention it. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune


These are all of his posts in the thread. Not all of them have information that would be relevant in the challenge log but some do.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725309#post1870725309
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725324#post1870725324
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725348#post1870725348
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870725374#post1870725374
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870726219#post1870726219
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870726403#post1870726403
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870727348#post1870727348
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870729814#post1870729814
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870733261#post1870733261
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870737597#post1870737597
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870740047#post1870740047
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870740108#post1870740108
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870741170#post1870741170
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870744328#post1870744328

I've gone through the references (thanks again, it made this easy!) and I agree with you - it appears that there may have been correspondence that pertains to the challenge that was left out. (Such as the Valentine email posted by Kramer here in this forum, and some - probably repetitive - emails from Dunn about his status, etc.)

Some of it - as you said - may be phone conversations, so that's understandable... but some of it is clearly email correspondence. I guess that the question is...

Should the Challenge threads in the Challenges subforum be "informational" in nature as they are now, or should they be fully detailed "case files"? And while some stuff is cut & paste, some of it (such as snailmail and faxes) aren't... so is there sufficient labor capacity to create really accurate "case files"?

(Oh - btw - I was re-reading your OP - did you get A. Nguyan's very recent test?)

[Bjarke Roune]

(jmercer)
(Oh - btw - I was re-reading your OP - did you get A. Nguyan's very recent test?)

Yeah, got it, but thanks anyway :-)

In case you want to know more about the Yellow Bamboo case, I guess my preliminary list of links about it is a nice place to start. Please notice that all the text is quotes from the links.

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yellowbamboo.html

If anyone cares, I've also written a brief note on each applicant whose test is mentioned in the challenge log.

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/applicants.html

If anyone could tell me where Randi initially asked for volunteers to test Yellow Bamboo, that would be nice. I know he has, but I can't find a commentary about it. Maybe it is too old for the commentary archive.

[Bjarke Roune]

The below link is one instance of Yellow Bamboo correspondence not on the challenge log.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=27804

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
The below link is one instance of Yellow Bamboo correspondence not on the challenge log.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=27804

That is not official correspondence. There is no way to actually verify that the posting is from a YB official type, anyway.
So it is in the user forums, not the official one. It was posted that way, not as official correspondence.

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by rwguinn
That is not official correspondence. There is no way to actually verify that the posting is from a YB official type, anyway.
So it is in the user forums, not the official one. It was posted that way, not as official correspondence.

I see your point. I am assuming that they also sent this to the JREF. The yellowbamboo user has also given scanned copies of documents with Randi's signature, so I think it is safe to assume that it is the real deal.

Yellow Bamboo also made a press release about what they claim was the preliminary.

The open letter has also been posted to rec.martial-arts, and as far as I remember, that was the same user that had a real-life visit in Bali by a respected martial artist.

[Bjarke Roune]

I just wanted to share this little gem - it certainly brightened my day :)

http://psymag.tripod.com/issue_2/2_loopholes.htm

and there is must just like it

http://psymag.tripod.com/index.html

this has got to be a hoax, but funny none the less.

[jmercer]

OMG, that's priceless! If it's not a spoof, then somebody's one sick puppy. :D

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
If anyone could tell me where Randi initially asked for volunteers to test Yellow Bamboo, that would be nice. I know he has, but I can't find a commentary about it. Maybe it is too old for the commentary archive.

I found it. I don't know how I missed this.

http://www.randi.org/jr/070403.html

[jmercer]

Hey, Bjarke - you should read the "Yellow Bamboo Reprise" thread just recently posted here, if you haven't already. Straight from the participants POV. :)

[Bjarke Roune]

I sent the following message to Kramer using the forum mail system yesterday. Anyone should feel free to comment on or discuss the questions here. I will not be posting Kramers reply, at least not verbatim, as that defeats the purpose of him not posting here.

Subject: Questions about the Yellow Bamboo controversy

Hi Kramer

I have some questions about the Yellow Bamboo controversy that I would be grateful if you would take a look at. These questions might seem like I do not think you are doing a good job or that there is something objectionable about the Challenge. I certainly do not mean to imply that. I think you are doing a great job and I think the Million Dollar Challenge is an important and worthwhile project that furthers the cause of clear thinking.

Now on to the questions.

Was Joko Tri authorized to perform a JREF preliminary test on Yellow Bamboo?

If not, what is your opinion on the following quote.

"I also asked about Joko Tri. He showed me a letter signed by James Randi and Joko, nominating Joko as his designated rep to do the test in Bali. There was a rep from the media also there who apparently was some Radio guy from Bali. I saw video of him doing the test."
http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.m...961a95810bcebc1

I believe Fraser Johnston was involved with the test in Perth, so I assume he would not say such a thing if he did not believe it. I have not yet verified with him whether it was an imposter who posted that, but I doubt it. Maybe he was shown a forgery?

I have read the official challenge log on Yellow Bamboo, and I am somewhat puzzled. Since Yellow Bamboo does not mention the Joko Tri test, and you write nothing about any previous encounter with Yellow Bamboo, I would think their email that is displayed in the challenge log is the first communication between Yellow Bamboo and the JREF. However this cannot be true, as you write that you never heard any more from them, but Randi makes it clear in his commentaries that there were more communication, and things even went so far that he called for volunteers to perform the test. How do these pieces fit together? Is there a reason that the controversy about the test conducted by Joko Tri is not mentioned in the challenge log?
(I suggest adding some links to the relevant Randi commentaries)

In his commentary at http://www.randi.org/jr/101703.html, Randi writes:

"In any case, we're now discussing the performance of a proper preliminary test of the Yellow Bamboo claim. I'm contacting the Australian volunteers who formerly offered to take part in a test, and we'll keep you informed via this web page. This is getting to be very interesting indeed!"

My understanding is that the test in Perth was not associated with the JREF and that it specifically was not a JREF preliminary test. So what happened to this effort to conduct a JREF preliminary test on Yellow Bamboo? Did they back out? (this might also be worthwile to mention in the challenge log)

If a person conducting a test on behalf of the JREF does not follow the protocol, is the test valid? (notice that I am asking "what if" the JREF representative does not follow protocol - I am not talking about the applicant) What if he allows something that is not mentioned in the protocol, but that he should clearly not have allowed? (like "sure you can bring a walkie talkie to this telepathy test")

Best regards
Bjarke Roune

[Bjarke Roune]

I got an answer from Kramer some days ago. You can read the correspondence at

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb_email.html

The noteworthy result is the information that Joko Tri was in fact authorized to perform an official JREF preliminary, but that the JREF does not recognize the actual test that took place since the protocol was not followed - and only for this reason.

Right now I'm in the process of obtaining a scan of the contract between Yellow Bamboo and the JREF so I can verify what the protocol actually was.

[Bjarke Roune]

I got the images from CFLarsen, who got them from Yellow Bamboo, and you can download them all from here:

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb.zip

I've unpacked what I feel to be the 3 most interesting pages, which are here:

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb002.jpg
http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb003.jpg
http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb008.jpg

Interestingly, I do not at this time see how the protocol as outlined on those pages have not been followed by Joko Tri. It does say that Joko should "gently tap", and it has been argued that he could not possibly have done so from the way he was charging in the video.

I've done some Iaido, and I feel confident that I would have been able to do so without any problems by stopping right in front of Mr. Serengen and bringing the bamboo down in arc to the side, hitting the ribs sideways. It is an easy adaptation of a standard movement in Iaido, and I do not believe that Joko Tri would have needed any weapons training to perform it. Try it yourself :-)

I will ask Kramer whether these documents are genuine, whether something important has been left out and in exactly which ways the JREF does not believe the protocol was followed.

Do notice that the images have all originally been provided by Yellow Bamboo, who are hardly neutral in this matter.

[Zep]

I think, having read those pages, that there was NO agreement in place at all. It all hinged on the protocol being acceptable to both parties (see the second sentence of the letter), and it was never finally agreed as far as I am aware. These pages show simply a stage of the ngotiating process, not any final position and sign-off.

Also, if this were a final protocol, it does not prevent Joko Tri from striking the YB guru at all. All that is requierd to register as a YB failure is for at least a light tap with the bamboo weapon. To my way of thinking, however, a solid whacking about the head and body, along the same lines as happened in Perth, would have been well worth the video effort! :D

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Zep
I think, having read those pages, that there was NO agreement in place at all. It all hinged on the protocol being acceptable to both parties (see the second sentence of the letter), and it was never finally agreed as far as I am aware. These pages show simply a stage of the ngotiating process, not any final position and sign-off.

It seems many people think that there was no agreement and Joko was acting independently, and I suspected so too some time ago, but read the letter Kramer sent me a bit further up in this thread. He makes it abundantly clear that Joko Tri was authorized to perform the test, and that the problem was solely that Joko did not follow the protocol. This implies that there was a protocol.

I agree that there could have been further correspondence. However, even if we assume that Randi got his way in all his demands in that letter, Joko Tri actually would have followed the protocol as far as I can tell. Of course, it is possible that Randi made more demands later. I am quite looking forward to hearing what Kramer has to say on the matter!

Also, if this were a final protocol, it does not prevent Joko Tri from striking the YB guru at all. All that is requierd to register as a YB failure is for at least a light tap with the bamboo weapon. To my way of thinking, however, a solid whacking about the head and body, along the same lines as happened in Perth, would have been well worth the video effort! :D

Yes, I think your interpretation is the most faithful reading of the words too. However, there has been made an issue of the "light tap" versus "hitting" in some threads and in Randi's commentaries, so I have to look at the matter.

[Bjarke Roune]

I sent the following E-mail to Kramer on 08-21-2005.



Re: Questions about the Yellow Bamboo controversy

Hi Kramer

Randi DID authorize Joko Tri to act as the JREF associate in this test, but Joko Tri did NOT follow Randi's protocol instructions.

Thank you.

Do the words "protocol instructions" refer to and only to the protocol agreed on by Randi and Yellow Bamboo in writing?

I've gotten scans of some documents sent to Yellow Bamboo by the JREF (who sent them to CFLarsen who sent them to me), which you can find here

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb.zip

For your convinience, I've unpacked what I feel to be the 3 interesting pages, which are here:

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb002.jpg
http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb003.jpg
http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb008.jpg

I do not at this time see anything in these documents that Joko Tri did not follow, but perhaps I am not reading them correctly. Do the above documents give an accurate account of the protocol? In which exact ways did Joko Tri fail to follow the protocol?

If would love to hear any other thoughts you have on the matter.

/Bjarke Roune

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
I have no idea how JREF evalutes the plausibility of these things, though. Most paranormal claims seem equally and totally implausible to me.

The JREF challenge seems mainly to center on such things as "I can locate <whatever> with a dowsing rod", I can fly, or walk though walls. People claiming to have super-powers.

Some claims are too vague to be testable, eg: that such-and-such "promotes wellness".

Some claims are impractical to test, eg: many medical claims which would require a full scale clinical trial, breatharianism which would require 24-hour surveilance over several days.

Some claims are potentailly injurous to the claimant, eg: I can stop a locomotive with thought power alone, but my life needs to actually be in danger.

[Bjarke Roune]

Those reasons make a lot of sense to me pmurray. What puzzles me is that those are not the reasons offered for not testing - the reason that is used is that the claim is absurd (in the case I was commenting).

[Katachresis]

Hello Bjarke Roune

You wrote:

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
I'm writing an article about the Million Dollar Challenge for my homepage, and I have some questions about it.

I was wondering how far along you are in the article. Have a draft yet? Any idea on when you might finish? I am looking forward to it, and was hoping when you are finished you will give us a link, so that we might see what your conclusions are.

Good luck,

Ketyk

[Bjarke Roune]

Hi Ketyk. Thanks for the interest, and yes, I will definately be posting a link to the article here in the forum when it is done.

At this point I'm mostly looking at the Yellow Bamboo case, and I've written most of that. I'm waiting for the JREF response to my email I posted above to finish it, but it might be that I will not be getting one. I think that is unfortunate, as it makes the situation look much worse than I suspect is actually the case.

The Yellow Bamboo part has gotten quite long, so I will probably release it by itself before the rest of the article.

I am thinking the rest of the article will write itself in short order after that. The reason it has taken so long with Yellow Bamboo is due to me having to read a lot of material and waiting for information from the JREF. The rest seems pretty straightforward in comparison, as most other criticisms of the Challenge seem to be pretty vacuous.

[Katachresis]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
Hi Ketyk. Thanks for the interest, and yes, I will definately be posting a link to the article here in the forum when it is done...
...The Yellow Bamboo part has gotten quite long, so I will probably release it by itself before the rest of the article...
...The rest seems pretty straightforward in comparison, as most other criticisms of the Challenge seem to be pretty vacuous.

I apologize for the heavy editing of your comments above, but I do so for a reason. I think many people that read this thread look forward to your comments. I have read much of the Yellow Bamboo case but not everything. I'm not sure anyone has read everything related to that case. If you feel that you need to delve deeper into that issue, then by all means do so. Is this the only thing thing that you are still researching? Are you still looking at the fine line of what is acceptable as a challenge application?
I was hoping you might give us a timeline, however. A few days, a week, month? Do you have any questions for us readers that you still feel are unanswered? If you do please let us know.
This thread has been, while informative, rather repetitive and quite franky, a bit lengthy for my taste. Is there and end in sight? Can you give us a clue as to wether or not you have a timeframe?

Again, best of luck,

Ketyk

[Darat]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
Hi Ketyk. Thanks for the interest, and yes, I will definately be posting a link to the article here in the forum when it is done.

At this point I'm mostly looking at the Yellow Bamboo case, and I've written most of that. I'm waiting for the JREF response to my email I posted above to finish it, but it might be that I will not be getting one. I think that is unfortunate, as it makes the situation look much worse than I suspect is actually the case.

...snip...

I've been corresponding with Kramer regarding this matter and he has given me permission to post the following email which shows that he has been more then helpful and as always willing to answer genuine questions.

From an email from Kramer:

For some time now, I have received numerous inquiries from several persons regarding the JOKO TRI/Yellow Bamboo debacle, to which I have responded in a timely fashion, and in a manner that I consider to be conclusive, yet I continued to receive inquiries that, in essence, simply repeat the same questions:

WAS THE YELLOW BAMBOO TEST CONDUCTED BY JOKO TRI AN OFFICIAL JREF TEST? DID JOKO TRI FOLLOW THE AGREED UPON TEST PROTOCOL?

I can only answer this question so many times, and I have done so consistently: NO, and NO.

I have also been asked about the grounds upon which Randi withdrew JREF's participation in the test, and I have answered those points, as well, according to Randi's explanation, verbatim.

I will now re-state the events once again, for final clarification.

The claim was that the Yellow Bamboo practitioner could not be touched by a person with a bamboo rod. Period. That's a very simple claim to test, and no debate was needed to devise a proper test.

Randi instructed JOKO TRI to carry out the test as follows:

In broad daylight, a test participant is to approach the Yellow Bamboo practitioner and lightly TAP him on the shoulder with a bamboo rod. No other participants were specified or allowed. Simple claim, simple test.

Upon Joko Tri's arrival at the test location, the Yellow Bamboo followers stalled the test with ceremonies and silliness, forcing him to drink tea, and insisting upon other silly stuff, until it was dark. Then, instead of simply approaching the applicant and tapping him as instructed, the participant charged toward the applicant while surrounded by numerous Yellow Bamboo followers dressed in black, all in motion, making even the proper observation of the "test" more than sketchy.

It is more than likely that someone in the Yellow Bamboo throng did something to cause the test participant to collapse, perhaps via taser gun, and we must keep in mind that the excuse used by some (that a taser leaves a "dart" in its victim) is not a viable one.

Do a google search for the word TASER and you will see that there are two types. One type does indeed project an object into the victim that is easily seen after the event, and the other is a hand-held device that has no projectile and leaves no visible sign of an attack.

The official JREF position, based upon the limited-visibility videotape we reviewed, is that the participant with the bamboo rod (who found himself lying on the ground and unable to recall what had landed him there) was attacked with a taser-type device, and that shall remain our position unless/until a properly controlled test is conducted. The test neither proved nor disproved anything, as it was not possible to properly observe the proceedings. This was not a test. It was a circus.

Randi admits that he did not tell Joko Tri to not allow such pre-test diversions as the ceremonies and tea party the Yellow Bamboo bozos insisted upon, and to cancel the test if such games began. Randi also freely admits his fault in this regard.

This was NOT a JREF test.

Was it intended to be a JREF test? YES.

Was JOKO TRI approved by Randi to act as the JREF associate in this test? YES.

Was the test carried out according to the agreed upon protocol? NO.

So then the test that was carried out was NOT an official JREF test because the protocol was not adhered to. Correct?

CORRECT!!!

I now consider this matter to be closed, and any suggestion that the JREF is not being cooperative in this matter is simply erroneous. No further explanation is necessary, or required.

I also consider all further inquiries about what is and what is not acceptable for the Challenge to be answered in depth in the Challenge FAQ on the JREF website. The purpose of the FAQ was to help the JREF staff to avoid engaging would-be applicants in lengthy emails on these issues, so, while I am happy to respond to initial inquiries of that nature, my hours have been significantly reduced recently, and I simply do not have the time to respond to questions that are easily answered in the FAQ.

I continue to encourage all inquiries regarding issues NOT addressed in the FAQ, but again, the JOKO TRI matter is closed, and continuing to debate its merits (or lack thereof) is not something I have the time for, as I have repeatedly stated the events and the official JREF position both privately and in the JREF forums.

There really is nothing more to be said.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept. (09-09-05)

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Darat
I've been corresponding with Kramer regarding this matter and he has given me permission to post the following email which shows that he has been more then helpful and as always willing to answer genuine questions.

I do not think that was your intention but this implies that my questions are not genuine, and I want to state that they certainly are. It may be true that Kramer thinks that they are not though, or he may simply believe that interacting with me is not a good way to spend JREF resources for whatever reason. I've tried to be as polite as I can possibly be, but the things I might be percieved to be implying by even asking those questions in the first place are rather hostile. I really am just trying to look at the Challenge in an impartial way, but I am the only one that can truly know that to be true.

Thanks for posting the E-mail! It is quite interesting to me. One thing that caught my eye is this.


Upon Joko Tri's arrival at the test location, the Yellow Bamboo followers stalled the test with ceremonies and silliness, forcing him to drink tea, and insisting upon other silly stuff, until it was dark.


Joko Tri has posted his account of the event (assuming that it was not posted by an imposter). It can be seen here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/browse_frm/thread/77184a2e905cd526/710f1695609ebc9e

The way I read it, the ceremonies and so on were on a separate day and planned beforehand, and the reason the test was held at such a late hour was that Joko Tri himself was late, and the independent journalist who was there to observe the test was even later. Yellow Bamboo claim that it was Joko Tri who had contacted and made arrangements with the journalist. If this is all true then Yellow Bamboo cannot be demonstrated to have any part of the blame for the late hour. Joko writes:

It happened on Sunday 14 September. We
(my friend Ekko and I)
were a litle late to get to the meeting point
(which was a 2 hour drive from
where I was staying) but not intentionally.

Once I got to he meeting point we had to drive
about 30 minute to the beach for the demonstration.
Once we got to the beach we still had to wait for
the journalist.

As I understand it (!), it seems that the JREF position is that if the person doing the testing on behalf of the JREF screws up, then the test is invalid. In other words it is ultimately only the applicant who has the responsibility for the protocol being followed. In that case it really does not matter if it was Yellow Bamboo or Joko Tri who were responsible for the delay.

(Before using this to argue against the Challenge by saying that the JREF can just ask the person responsible for the test to sabotage it, keep in mind that the applicant and the JREF have to agree on the person responsible for the test. This means the applicant can reject people he does not find trustworthy. An important additional point is that the Challenge has no history of such sabotage.)


Randi instructed JOKO TRI to carry out the test as follows:

In broad daylight, a test participant is to approach the Yellow Bamboo practitioner and lightly TAP him on the shoulder with a bamboo rod. No other participants were specified or allowed. Simple claim, simple test.


I think this is irrelevant if those instructions were not part of the protocol that the JREF and Yellow Bamboo agreed on. If it was part of the protocol, then I think it would be a good move for the JREF to scan the protocol and put it up in the challenge log along with a brief explanation of the situation. This would work especially well if the protocol is signed and notarized like the other documents in this case. That would dispel most of the criticisms on this matter that at this time seem valid to me. I would love to see that happen. It makes my job much easier when the answers are obvious :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
I do not think that was your intention but this implies that my questions are not genuine, and I want to state that they certainly are.


...snip...

(I am not a representative of the JREF and my opinions have nothing to do with the JREF.)

My comment was about Kramer, whom I have had the pleasure of corresponding with for quite a time now. From his responses to other people and his responses to me in that time I am confident that my opinion is an accurate reflection of Kramer's attitude to his role i.e. he is always willing to try and answer genuine question.

I think Kramer has made it very clear he’s provided all the information he can, and provided what he believes to be accurate information. Personally I find it hard to see what more detail he could supply given he wasn’t actually present at the testing. It would also seem to me that there would no point in Kramer continuing to answer the same questions or even very similar ones.

The simple fact is that there were mistakes made by both sides that were significant enough that any reasonable person reading the accounts would reach the conclusion that it wasn’t a valid test of anything. To go beyond that and attribute mistakes to anything other then the well known mundane phenomenon of "human error", or to find slight discrepancies in wording and attribute them to a conspiracy is to enter the realm of pure speculation. Often when you let the evidence lead you find yourself in a very dull place, that life.

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Ketyk
I apologize for the heavy editing of your comments above, but I do so for a reason. I think many people that read this thread look forward to your comments. I have read much of the Yellow Bamboo case but not everything. I'm not sure anyone has read everything related to that case. If you feel that you need to delve deeper into that issue, then by all means do so. Is this the only thing thing that you are still researching?

At this time yes. The Yellow Bamboo case requires research because the answers can only be inferred from ambigous and disputed evidence. Most of the other stuff is less controversial and mostly just require that I think carefully about the issue.

Are you still looking at the fine line of what is acceptable as a challenge application?

What that line is supposed to be is more a question for the JREF than for me. I really cannot know. Based on my limited knowledge of what kinds of claims are actually rejected it seems that even though the JREF has set themselves up with at least one catch-all reason for rejection (absurdity), they do not actually employ this reason with any frequency. I only know of the one case with the breatharian and the remark about it in the Challenge FAQ. In other words the JREF does not have a history of rejecting apparently sincere claims out of hand, and that is the bottom line to me.

I guess the short answer is "no" :) Though I guess I will be looking into compiling a short list of actual rejections.

I was hoping you might give us a timeline, however. A few days, a week, month?

I'm planning on releasing something sooner than a week. Probably I will not finish everything in less than a month.

What frustrates me somewhat is the slow trickle of information invalidating things I've already written. One example is that I have to update the Yellow Bamboo section to incorporate Kramer's email now.

Do you have any questions for us readers that you still feel are unanswered? If you do please let us know.

Not at this time. Once I release something, I would love to discuss it in a reasoned manner though.

Can you give us a clue as to wether or not you have a timeframe?

My time frame is: "when it is done", but I hope that will be sooner rather than later. If it takes too long, I will be releasing it in parts.

I appreciate the interest!

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Darat
My comment was about Kramer, whom I have had the pleasure of corresponding with for quite a time now. From his responses to other people and his responses to me in that time I am confident that my opinion is an accurate reflection of Kramer's attitude to his role i.e. he is always willing to try and answer genuine question.

That is my impression too.

The simple fact is that there were mistakes made by both sides that were significant enough that any reasonable person reading the accounts would reach the conclusion that it wasn’t a valid test of anything.

I agree.

To go beyond that and attribute mistakes to anything other then the well known mundane phenomenon of "human error", or to find slight discrepancies in wording and attribute them to a conspiracy is to enter the realm of pure speculation. Often when you let the evidence lead you find yourself in a very dull place, that life.

I do not think this is a fair comment to me and that you are jumping to conclusions about me, but perhaps you have a point that I do not see. If you want me to come around to your way of thinking about this, you will have to explain it to me so that I can understand it.

Specifically I do not think I have made any definite statements as regards (bad) intent in this thread at all. I could definately be wrong about that though! :)

I realize that it is possible to discuss intent by implication without talking about it on a purely literal basis. That has not been my intent.

Edit: btw, here are two quotes from my several days old Yellow Bamboo draft.

The test was
absurdly bad and simply is not proof of anything at all even if it was possibly
conducted according to the letter of the protocol.


One way to find out if Yellow Bamboo'ers really can repel someone not from Yellow Bamboo who does not want to
be knocked down is to try it out. I know of three instances where such a test has been carried out, recorded on
video and put on the internet. The first of
these is the test by Joko Tri discussed above. As detailed above, that test was conducted extremely badly, the
video is of very low quality and the video even indicates that maybe Joko was knocked down in some way unrelated
to the repelling. This means that nothing can be inferred from that incident one way or the other.

[Bjarke Roune]

Oh yeah, I just realized that it is unfair to Kramer to respond to his email in this place where he cannot respond. I think it is OK for me to do so, but I should have mentioned it in my post.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

...snip...

Specifically I do not think I have made any definite statements as regards (bad) intent in this thread at all. I could definately be wrong about that though! :)

I realize that it is possible to discuss intent by implication without talking about it on a purely literal basis. That has not been my intent.

Edit: btw, here are two quotes from my several days old Yellow Bamboo draft.


My comments were more of a generic nature, I have no idea of what your intent is however I do read sentences like "At this time yes. The Yellow Bamboo case requires research because the answers can only be inferred from ambigous and disputed evidence." and "What frustrates me somewhat is the slow trickle of information invalidating things I've already written." and " I think that is unfortunate, as it makes the situation look much worse than I suspect is actually the case." as being less then "neutral".

I look forward to your article. I think it will make interesting reading.

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Darat
[B]My comments were more of a generic nature, I have no idea of what your intent is however I do read sentences like "At this time yes. The Yellow Bamboo case requires research because the answers can only be inferred from ambigous and disputed evidence." and "What frustrates me somewhat is the slow trickle of information invalidating things I've already written." and " I think that is unfortunate, as it makes the situation look much worse than I suspect is actually the case." as being less then "neutral".


Fair enough. The quotes reveal that I do not find it to be clear what really happened in the Yellow Bamboo case, that I do sometimes get frustrated and that I have formed some opinions having to do with the Yellow Bamboo case, not all of them flattering to the JREF. I agree that that makes me less than neutral. In light of that, it is a good thing that I am aiming for fairness rather than neutrality.

I look forward to your article. I think it will make interesting reading.

Thank you :)


Edited to add:

I have used the word "impartial" above which may be what lead to talking about the word "neutral". Here is what Merriam-Webster Online has to say about impartiality.

Main Entry: im·par·tial
Pronunciation: (")im-'pär-sh&l
Function: adjective
: not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally
synonym see FAIR

To be a nit-picker, I should probably say that I am trying to be fair rather than impartial or neutral.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune
The quotes reveal that I do not find it to be clear what really happened in the Yellow Bamboo case

I think it is important to understand the the lack of clarity is fostered by those on the 'woo' side of the equation. As long as it is not clear, they can say their "powers" still work. It is this very lack of clarity that invalidates the Joko Tri test. The JREF requires that the test results be self evident, and not open to interpretation. In this way, that test failed miserably to fulfil the requirements.

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I think it is important to understand the the lack of clarity is fostered by those on the 'woo' side of the equation. As long as it is not clear, they can say their "powers" still work. It is this very lack of clarity that invalidates the Joko Tri test. The JREF requires that the test results be self evident, and not open to interpretation. In this way, that test failed miserably to fulfil the requirements.

I agree that it can often be very hard to get believers in the paranormal to state explicitly what it is they believe they can do and how that ability can be tested in an unambigious manner.

One example of this is a test of Yellow Bamboo from Sweden that has been discussed on this forum. In this test the attacker does not fall down. Instead he forcefully smacks the Yellow Bamboo female on the side of her neck/head causing her to fall to the ground. That is a pretty obvious failure for Yellow Bamboo.

Amazingly, the Yellow Bamboo person in the "discussing protocol" clip from the test of Yellow Bamboo in Perth states that he thinks that test was a WIN for Yellow Bamboo because the female was not seriously injured! Obviously she had protected herself from injury using the powers of Yellow Bamboo. As one who does martial arts on a weekly basis, I can confidently say that no magic was necessary to withstand that attack without injury.

I think it is stuff like that you are talking about, and I do not have much patience for it either.

However, when it comes specifically to the Joko Tri case, I cannot agree that Yellow Bamboo have been less informative or clear than the JREF. Yellow Bamboo have engaged people in numerous and lengthy discussions on the net about it. They persisted in this despite being ridiculed and openly accused of fraud. They claim that the protocol is what is described in the documents I posted earlier in this thread, which is a pretty clear statement. The JREF have never released the document they claim to be the protocol - rather they have relied on retelling selected parts of it (parts which Yellow Bamboo has subsequently disputed). The protocol is the single most important piece of information in this case.

It is just not fair to say that Yellow Bamboo is the party most responsible for the lack of clarity, at least not until they are shown to be lying.

On another note, I do not think the JREF would describe their position by saying that they require the test results to be unambigious after the fact. Rather I think they would say that they require the protocol to such that the test results cannot help but be unambigious if the protocol is followed to the letter in a competent manner. "It will be obvious".

If the test *results* themselves are required to pass a criterium of being "unambigious" after the fact, then the JREF has violated their own fundamental requirement that the protocol must call for no judgement. Evaluating something for "unambigiousness" is a judgement.

It is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism often levelled at the JREF that Randi can always just declare any results he does not like to be invalid. The JREF would be shooting themselves in the foot in the most painful manner possible by adding such a requirement. The JREF must rely on their ability to craft good protocols and choose reliable people to carry them out. That is a dangerous game for them, but it is the only good move they have in my opinion. The two-stage nature of the Challenge goes a long way to mitigate the risk posed by unreliable people, but it does nothing to ensure against bad protocols since they cannot be changed after the preliminary test. So it really is a dangerous game, but it is the only game they can play.

I think they realize this, because they have not to my knowledge stated that the reason Yellow Bamboo failed the Joko Tri test was that the test results were ambigious. Rather they state that the test was not conducted according to the protocol in a number of specific ways such as the video and viewing conditions being poor.

Thanks for your post by the way, responding to it really cleared up some things in my head. :)

[Katachresis]

Originally posted by Bjarke Roune

On another note, I do not think the JREF would describe their position by saying that they require the test results to be unambigious after the fact. Rather I think they would say that they require the protocol to such that the test results cannot help but be unambigious if the protocol is followed to the letter in a competent manner. "It will be obvious".

If the test *results* themselves are required to pass a criterium of being "unambigious" after the fact, then the JREF has violated their own fundamental requirement that the protocol must call for no judgement. Evaluating something for "unambigiousness" is a judgement.

It is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism often levelled at the JREF that Randi can always just declare any results he does not like to be invalid. The JREF would be shooting themselves in the foot in the most painful manner possible by adding such a requirement. The JREF must rely on their ability to craft good protocols and choose reliable people to carry them out. That is a dangerous game for them, but it is the only good move they have in my opinion. The two-stage nature of the Challenge goes a long way to mitigate the risk posed by unreliable people, but it does nothing to ensure against bad protocols since they cannot be changed after the preliminary test. So it really is a dangerous game, but it is the only game they can play.



Hello Bjarke Roune,

Thanks for continuing to post.

I have read the Challenge Application many times, and there seemes to be 12 Official Rules.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
Would you change, or even reword any of them?

And if not, do you feel that this Bamboo case violated any of those rules, and if so, which one(s).

I look forward to your future article,

Ketyk

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Ketyk
I have read the Challenge Application many times, and there seemes to be 12 Official Rules.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
Would you change, or even reword any of them?

It seems reasonable. I would perhaps change the sentence " Be advised that you should conduct proper and secure tests of your own to determine whether your abilities or claims are actually valid" as it could be interpreted to mean that this was a requirement rather than just good advice. I.e. that the JREF could say "well, yeah, you won the challenge, but can you prove that you did prior tests? Too bad!". Of course, it does not actually say this, I just think it could be made more clear.

And if not, do you feel that this Bamboo case violated any of those rules, and if so, which one(s).

I do not know, as I do not know what the protocol was. It all comes down to whether or not the protocol was followed.

[Bjarke Roune]

I've got a draft of the document on Yellow Bamboo, and you can find it at

http://home.imf.au.dk/bjarke/yb.html

The main reason that I call it a draft is that I have not shown it to anyone yet (and the PC that I am working on does not have spellcheck, it should be OK though). I tend to find that any text of mine becomes much better after having received criticism. I would be very happy to receive rational and civil comment on it either here or at the email address specified in the article.

Specifically, I want to make the article fair, so it would be good to get second opinions. If you think that I am being unreasonable then feel free to tell me about it. I would love to hear about factual errors too, of course.

Please notice that this is a part of a larger whole, and that the whole will be more positive towards the JREF than this piece of it.

[Katachresis]

Originally posted by Ketyk
Hello Bjarke Roune,

I have read the Challenge Application many times, and there seemes to be 12 Official Rules.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
Would you change, or even reword any of them?


Bjarke Roune's answer:
It seems reasonable. I would perhaps change the sentence " Be advised that you should conduct proper and secure tests of your own to determine whether your abilities or claims are actually valid" as it could be interpreted to mean that this was a requirement rather than just good advice. I.e. that the JREF could say "well, yeah, you won the challenge, but can you prove that you did prior tests? Too bad!". Of course, it does not actually say this, I just think it could be made more clear.

I was referring only to the 12 rules, not the comments after that, so please only refer to those 12 rules.

Originally posted by Ketyk
And if not, do you feel that this Bamboo case violated any of those rules, and if so, which one(s).



I still do no not see what you are after. Do you think there are hidden emails, hidden video, someone not telling the truth? Who, What, When, Where, Why, How?

I am just about off this thread, because you seem to be asking questions that either have been answered, or are unanswerable.
I was not there, Kramer wasn't, Randi wasn't, and you weren't. You have the testimony of the people that were there, yet you persist in trying to find more details, when no other case has been so painstakingly investigated.

My father used to say "S~~t, of get off the pot". I have no idea what you could possibly be looking for that hasn't already been flushed out, no pun intended.

Get on with it, man! Write the article. I ask again, and although this might have been a long post, please answer sysinctly(sp), what is stopping you?

Ketyk

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Ketyk
I still do no not see what you are after. Do you think there are hidden emails, hidden video, someone not telling the truth? Who, What, When, Where, Why, How?

I am after finding absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. That would be a success to me. It would, however, be a very unsatisfying victory to me if it was simply due to me not looking very hard. I think perhaps you react this way because people usually do not go to any great lengths looking for something they would prefer not to find. I guess I am just weird that way. :)

Get on with it, man! Write the article. I ask again, and although this might have been a long post, please answer sysinctly(sp), what is stopping you?

If you are talking about the Yellow Bamboo part: Absolutely nothing! :) You will find a link in the post just above yours. It contains everything interesting about the Yellow Bamboo case I have found. I only need to be told the places where I have written something stupid to call it done.

So if any of the people here feel any sort of agression towards me, now is your chance to show the world that I am a fool! Please? :)

If you are talking about all of it: Lack of time. I have many things I want to do with my time, and writing this article is one thing among many. It may please you to hear that I expect that the rest of the article will not cause me to ask as many annoying questions. That certainly pleases me, because it takes a long time to piece conflicting accounts together into a coherent whole.

[Katachresis]

Bjarke Roune,

I apologize, but I used my direct questioning for a reason. Too many times I have read similar posts, claiming to be trying find the truth. In the end, what happens is that question after question is asked. Even after an answer is given, another question follows with slightlty differerent wording. Can you tell me, us, Kramer, or anyone else what you are looking for? Can you put it into one sentence?

This is my last chance for you ask what you need. Failing that, I am afraid I will have to drop this thread. If you wish to make a point, then make it. If you wish to prattle on about obscure details, then fine, be my guest.

Do your best to keep your audience. How you do that is up to you.

Ketyk

[Bjarke Roune]

Originally posted by Ketyk
Bjarke Roune,

I apologize, but I used my direct questioning for a reason. Too many times I have read similar posts, claiming to be trying find the truth. In the end, what happens is that question after question is asked. Even after an answer is given, another question follows with slightlty differerent wording. Can you tell me, us, Kramer, or anyone else what you are looking for? Can you put it into one sentence?

You imply that I keep asking questions that I have already been given an answer to. Could you give some examples of this? (the only thing I can think of is my asking Kramer in the email above how the JREF thinks the protocol was not followed. That was very poor wording. What I meant to ask was that if indeed the linked-to protocol was the final protocol, then how could the JREF possibly read that document to require the things Randi states in his commentaries)

I decided to write an article some time ago about the strength of the Challenge as an argument against the paranormal. That is my purpose. To do that it happens to be necessary to look at how the Challenge is handled. I am looking for things in the way the Challenge is handled that is relevant to the strength of the Challenge as an argument against the paranormal. There it is in one sentence.

This is my last chance for you ask what you need. Failing that, I am afraid I will have to drop this thread. If you wish to make a point, then make it. If you wish to prattle on about obscure details, then fine, be my guest.

Do your best to keep your audience. How you do that is up to you.

I only intend this thread as a place I can ask some questions and have a bit of meaningful discussion. It is not about getting an audience. What I would like right now is some thoughtful critique of the Yellow Bamboo document linked to above.

[Katachresis]

Alright, Bjarke Roune. Maybe I am wrong. You may have a valid point. I will re-read your bamboo link. If you did not know, Kramer will no longer be posting here, some kind of conflict of interest thing, so any attemp to ellicit a response from him/her is pointless. I suggest you go back and read the posts from Darat. They in my opinion answer quite well what the role of JREF was from beginning to end.

You do that, and I will read your bamboo link, and then perhaps you can find what you are looking for.

Ketyk

[steenkh]

Bjarke,

I have looked at your article and I find it very well written. It sums up my own view of the situation: The correspondance with Joko Tri was simply too sloppy, and probably no firm test protocol was ever signed by both parties. Randi conducted the correspondance himself and was so sure that Joko Tri would not be knocked down that he did not think of making cast-iron requirements for the test. It probably never occurred to him that Joko Tri would allow the test to run under such miserable conditions and with no safeguards against fraud.

I think that the JREF is right that the test did not qualify for a preliminary test because of the extraordinary breach of simple protocols, but the matter is open to interpretation. However, I believe that if it came to court, the JREF would win.

Of course, I also agree with your evaluation of the claims of Yellow Bamboo, but I also use another reason that you have not mentioned: that is the claims of Yellow Bamboo were correct, a major rewriting of the laws of nature would be necessary, and I do not think that a rewriting on this scale would be very likely.

BTW, the link to the Swedish test does not work.

[Bjarke Roune]

(deleted accidental duplicate post)

[Bjarke Roune]

Thanks for the constructive feedback!

Bjarke,

I have looked at your article and I find it very well written. It sums up my own view of the situation: The correspondance with Joko Tri was simply too sloppy, and probably no firm test protocol was ever signed by both parties. Randi conducted the correspondance himself and was so sure that Joko Tri would not be knocked down that he did not think of making cast-iron requirements for the test. It probably never occurred to him that Joko Tri would allow the test to run under such miserable conditions and with no safeguards against fraud.

I think that the JREF is right that the test did not qualify for a preliminary test because of the extraordinary breach of simple protocols, but the matter is open to interpretation. However, I believe that if it came to court, the JREF would win.

You may be correct, but imagine what the response on this board would be should an applicant use an argument about some unfulfilled requirement that was not mentioned in the protocol to explain away their failure. My point is that while this may well seem reasonable to skeptics like you and me, we cannot expect others to be so generous.

It is not too hard to construe this as a breach of the "it will be obvious" protocol requirement. Clearly, the obvious result was that Yellow Bamboo passed. Then it turned out that even if the obvious result is a pass, it is permissible to apply further reasoning to explain away the pass and thereby make it invalid. It even turned out to be permissible to apply further reasoning that is unrelated to the written protocol.

It may be that a judge would declare the JREF to have been acting within the US law on this matter by virtue of the test not passing some implied common sense requirements.

Still, I think the JREF should have counted this as a pass, even if it were not, as the situation just appears way too fishy as it stands. I find it completely fantastical that no believers have given this proper spin and exposure. Apparently the people who are out to discredit the challenge are not being very clever about it. I hope my writing on the subject will somewhat defuse the effectiveness of such an attempt.

Of course, I also agree with your evaluation of the claims of Yellow Bamboo, but I also use another reason that you have not mentioned: that is the claims of Yellow Bamboo were correct, a major rewriting of the laws of nature would be necessary, and I do not think that a rewriting on this scale would be very likely.

I actually do not agree with this. Suppose you were to be convinced that the Yellow Bamboo claim is legit. Would you immediately think that we need to rewrite the laws of nature? Personally, I would simply consider our knowledge of the way the human body works to have been expanded in a surprising way. That Yellow Bamboo'ers can do something surprising is quite a different thing from their (fantastical) explanation for it working being true. Eg. it could simply be that certain sounds make people pass out and Yellow Bamboo have discovered how to produce such a sound.

Again, thanks for the constructive feedback! I appreciate it.