IAN D. LEAHY, Phone Home

[KRAMER]

The 6th claim of 2006...



Dear Kramer,

Below please find a proposal for testing. Per your request to submit an application before discussing my protocol, I have developed a first draft of a testing protocol based on my best assumptions.

TEST PROTOCOL:

I, Ian D. LEahy, propose to use my thoughts to summon an unidentified flying object for observation in the sky.

The test will take place on a relatively clear night with a view of Lake Superior's horizon from the Wetmore Landing beach, just north of Marquette, Michigan, off Big Bay Rd.

Three 90-minute testing periods will be distributed over the course of at least two days (specific dates to be determined). These multiple testing periods are to account for the possibility of overcast skies potentially prohibiting the observation. A positive sighting must occur for any duration of time within one of the specified 90-minute periods.

A positive test will include the sighting of either a specific object that resembles no known aircraft, or a tight cluster of multiple-colored lights anywhere in the sky visibile from the viewing location. The patterns of flashes will not mimic any known patterns of aircraft, satellite, frieghter, or any other identifiable object that would be on or over a body of water. The object and/or cluster of lights may dart rapidly or move closer, but positive results will only depend upon the appearance of said object and/or cluster of lights, not any movement thereafter.

A negative test will be determined if, after the three 90-minute testing periods, no unidentifiable object or flashing cluster of lights appears in the sky visible from the viewing area.

-Ian Leahy

================================================== =======

Dear Mr. Leahy,

Thank you for submitting a JREF Paranormal Challenge application.

Your claim is that you can summon a UFO by paranormal means. We would accept this claim even if you were able to summon a UFO by NON-paranormal means. So, in case you also possess the ability to manifest this phenomenon without depleting your psychic powers, please, feel free to do so.

Some questions arise upon careful review of your test protocol proposal.

How do you propose to establish that the pattern of flashes is not the result of any "known light pattern", etc...and who will be the person making this judgement?

Also, we would require that this test be limited to a single 90-minute period.
If the pre-determined evening turned out to be too foul-weathered to support a test, the following evening would then be automatically determined to be the next test date. We do not feel that you should require three sessions in which to demonstrate your claim, and your protocol, if taken by its word, would allow for you to do so.

Who, then, would be appointed to be in charge of determining whether or not the weather was clear enough for the test? Would you be willing to defer to the independent investigator in this regard, or do you propose that only you yourself should be able to proclaim that the test is a "GO"? Please advise.

The problem with your protocol is in determining what IS and what is NOT a UFO. This must be mutually agreed to in the most finite terms before we can agree to your protocol.

I look forward to your reply.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

[KRAMER]

Dear Kramer,

Thank you for your prompt response. These are important questions to answer. I will respond to each seperately.

How do you propose to establish that the pattern of flashes is not the result of any "known light pattern", etc...and who will be the person making this judgement?

My first inclination is to recruit a representative to accompany the independent investigator. Such a person might work for the U.S. Coast Guard station in Marquette, NOAA's Great Lakes CoastWatch Node, or some other official organization that has regular, professional involvement with the night sky over Lake Superior. My one hesitation, however, is that government representatives (or private sector representatives, for that matter) may have a professional self-interest in discrediting any sighting. I would suggest a representative from the Great Lakes Association of Astronomy Clubs might be more objective, though at this point I cannot speak to their credibility. I am, therefore, open to any suggestions of other organizations or individuals that would be both unbiased and credible in their judgments. If you see a way without involving another individual (such as relying on the independent investigator to make the judgment), then I am open to those suggestions as well, trusting that the person making the judgment is without his or her own bias.

Also, we would require that this test be limited to a single 90-minute period.

Your request is perfectly acceptable. The only reason for the multiple sessions was weather-related.

Who, then, would be appointed to be in charge of determining whether or not the weather was clear enough for the test? Would you be willing to defer to the independent investigator in this regard, or do you propose that only you yourself should be able to proclaim that the test is a "GO"?

I would be perfectly fine deferring to the independent investigator, so long as it was agreed ahead of time that a "clear enough sky" is one in which approximately 70% of the sky is free of cloud cover (including a clear view of at least 70% of the lake's horizon). If the independent investigator determines that the sky is NOT clear enough and I feel as though it is, I would like to reserve the right to proceed with the test.

The problem with your protocol is in determining what IS and what is NOT a UFO. This must be mutually agreed to in the most finite terms before we can agree to your protocol.

I will try to be as specific as I can based on my experiences to date, but please give me suggestions if this is not going to be enough. I will do my best to communicate with the crew of this particular ship and see if they are able to accomodate your requests. (There's really no way to say that and make it sound normal!):

A positive UFO identification will be determined by the appearance of one of the following:

1. A clearly visible flying object which resembles in shape no object or objects known by the general public to regularly occupy North American airspace.

2. An object or light(s) moving in a pattern or at a speed inconsistent with the movements and/or speeds of known aircraft, satellites, boats or other identifiable objects.

3. The appearance of a tight cluster (relative to its distance from the testing point) of multiple-colored, flashing lights visible anywhere in the sky. The lights will flash in no apparent pattern and with no uniformity of brightness.

Any other sightings will not qualify as a UFO for the purposes of this test. Such sightings might include an unidentifiable object moving in a predictable pattern within the relative speeds of known objects (listed in #2 above), a single flashing light of any color, or any combination of lights flashing in a clearly repetitive pattern. Such objects could potentially be satellites, aircraft, or boats (even if in actuality they are not).

As an aside, your application states that all correspondence requiring a response must be mailed with a SASE. However, in your forum you frequently refer to email communications with applicants. Could you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you for generous time.

Sincerely, Ian Leahy


================================================== ==

Hello Ian,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 1-13-06. Please feel free to email me at Kramer@randi.org at any time. There is no need to suffer this snail-mail thing anymore.

Your responses to my questions are more than reasonable. However, we are still concerned about what will constitute a successful demonstration. Seeing lights in the sky that no one present at the test site is able to conclusively explain is not adequate proof of anything.

Indeed, UFO’s are reported fairly often, but a sighting of unexplained lights in the sky does not constitute proof of paranormal phenomenon, nor does it constitute proof that the phenomenon is of extraterrestrial origin. These are questions that will take a bit more talking through before we can arrive at an agreement regarding what constitutes a successful demonstration.

The main question is this; based upon our assumption that you are claiming extraterrestrial origin for the phenomenon in question, what type of proof are you prepared to offer in that regard? A sighting alone is not proof. How will you prove that what you are seeing in unexplainable by rational means, even if no verifiable explanation is readily at hand?

You also use the term “….known to the general public” in Point #1 of your Positive UFO Identification list.

Obviously, the “general public” is insufficiently informed about the specifics of natural and man-made phenomenon of the night skies to serve as an acceptable arbiter of what is (or what is NOT) paranormal.

Also, are you absolutely certain that what you have witnessed is not the Northern Lights?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours,

Kramer
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.