Practice run for the $1 Million Dollar Challenge

[ferj]

Split from the Welcome Thread, where new Member ferj introduced him/herself with:

Hello, I am a genuine psychic. I hope to use this forum as a practice run before entering the $1m challenge. I intend to post predictions of future events.



As a further introduction. I am quite sure that my abilities are a product of my mind/brain and therefore I don,t dabble in spiritualism,clairvoyance,religion,spirits,ghosts, ufo,s or other woo woo. I do not do tarot readings and have never been paid to do anything of the sort. The Sylvia Browne,s of this world are not what I,m about. I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.

[Paulhoff]

As a further introduction. I am quite sure that my abilities are a product of my mind/brain and therefore I don,t dabble in spiritualism,clairvoyance,religion,spirits,ghosts, ufo,s or other woo woo. I do not do tarot readings and have never been paid to do anything of the sort. The Sylvia Browne,s of this world are not what I,m about. I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.
So, you are like everone else.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Darat]

ferj - Welcome to the Forum - if you would like to discuss your claims I suggest you start a thread in "General Skepticism & Paranormal" section.

[ferj]

Also, this is not a joke or student project. I am very serious about this,but also possess a sense of humour I hope. I welcome any comments or banter from anyone interested.

[ferj]

Pualhoff
What do you mean "So you,re like everyone else"

[Paulhoff]

I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.
Well, like I said, like everyone else.

Paul

:) :) :)

[CLD]

Hello, I am a genuine psychic. I hope to use this forum as a practice run before entering the $1m challenge. I intend to post predictions of future events.

How far in the future are your predicted events?

[jsfisher]

As a further introduction. I am quite sure that my abilities are a product of my mind/brain and therefore I don,t dabble in spiritualism,clairvoyance,religion,spirits,ghosts, ufo,s or other woo woo. I do not do tarot readings and have never been paid to do anything of the sort. The Sylvia Browne,s of this world are not what I,m about. I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.


I don't understand your exact claim, ferj. You begin by claiming to be a genuine psychic, but then you qualify it with an indefinite delay between predictions. So, will you be providing a sequence of predictions, all wrong, until one rings true? Or, will you remain mute for an extended period of time then spring "Buy Cisco Systems" on us? Are your predictions likely to be unambiguously specific or deliberately vague?

Also, how are you expecting us and this forum to assist you in your quest for the $1,000,000 Challenge prize?

[grayman]

I hope the prediction is something more specific than "Something is going to happen to someone somewhere sometime".

[Miss Whiplash]

Welcome Ferj!

I need tonight's winning Powerball numbers. $300 million is nothing to sneeze at. Of course, if I win I will throw a party for everyone here. :D

[Locknar]

As a further introduction. I am quite sure that my abilities are a product of my mind/brain and therefore I don,t dabble in spiritualism,clairvoyance,religion,spirits,ghosts, ufo,s or other woo woo. I do not do tarot readings and have never been paid to do anything of the sort. The Sylvia Browne,s of this world are not what I,m about. I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.

Greetings.

Like others have asked....what is it you specifically claim to be able to do? How far into the future, how often can you do this, how specific are your predictions, what are your predictions of, what is your accuracy rate (ie. how often are you right/wrong)?

Can you provide examples of past predictions?

[fls]

As a further introduction. I am quite sure that my abilities are a product of my mind/brain and therefore I don,t dabble in spiritualism,clairvoyance,religion,spirits,ghosts, ufo,s or other woo woo. I do not do tarot readings and have never been paid to do anything of the sort. The Sylvia Browne,s of this world are not what I,m about. I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.

The Million Dollar Challenge is for the demonstration of paranormal abilities. You do not seem to be making any paranormal claims.

Linda

[magi]

As a further introduction. I am quite sure that my abilities are a product of my mind/brain and therefore I don,t dabble in spiritualism,clairvoyance,religion,spirits,ghosts, ufo,s or other woo woo. I do not do tarot readings and have never been paid to do anything of the sort. The Sylvia Browne,s of this world are not what I,m about. I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.

Cool powers. Hey, the US Elections are in 2008. That's a year or so, should be enough time. Who's going to be President, who will be Vice-Prez, which party will control the House/Senate? Who'll win the World Series 2008? Superbowl? Cotton bowl? Sugar bowl? Tidy bowl? Smoke-aBowl?

If you post your answers here now, you should have plenty of time to make sure it's right....

[Complexity]

Ferj - Let's just say I'm skeptical.

I don't think you're psychic - I don't think that such an ability exists.

Do you care to share with us any predictions that you've made? They won't mean anything, of course, but doing so would give us an idea of what you think predictions are.

Do you have any explanation for how your claimed psychic powers actually function within reality? What is the mechanism that you think is at work?

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, you are like everone else.

Paul

:) :) :)

Au contraire! Most everyone else uses apostrophes rather than commas to make contractions!

I have to agree, though ferj, that I'm not sure you're even making a paranormal claim. Do you think you have abilities that most people don't have?

If you think you receive predictions that are true, have you ever kept record of them? For many people, premonitions, intuitions or dreams sometimes seem to predict the future accurately, but it's really easy to fall prey to the confirmation bias (you remember the hits and forget the misses).

Also, our memory of these things can be faulty--like in the exact sequence of events. It's essential that you prove to yourself that they're true by keeping track of them--writing down every prediction that comes to you as soon as you get them, and then seeing how accurate your hit rate is. It's really easy to forget the misses (or even redefine them as not being a prediction or premonition or whatever) when they fail to come true.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Wait... let me make some predictions:

I see people dying in the land of olives

I see smoke in the land of the stars

An earthquake will rock an island

The son will usurp the father

And finally,

Mars will not appear as a second moon in the skies tomorrow.

[this charming man]

Ferj,

I don't think you are psychic. I don't think you will ever win the MDC.
I think your predictions are lucky guesses, probable guesses, or educated forecasts. These are not psychic ability.

"It will rain in Florida this year."
"There will be more than one earth quake in California this year."
"More than one Hurricane will develop this year."
"There will be another extremist attack in the Middle East soon."

These are predictions; they will come true. They are not; however, psychic predictions.

[magi]

Welcome Ferj!

I need tonight's winning Powerball numbers. $300 million is nothing to sneeze at. Of course, if I win I will throw a party for everyone here. :D

Did you get your $300 mil? Yeah, me neither.

Ferj cannot give you the numbers, as it's one of the first rules of true psychics. In order to remain pure to the spirits (or something), they don't use their powers for personal gain.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1817346d1966381fd3.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7929)

Yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face there either.

[ferj]

Hello again skeptics. My claim is premonition. Premonition is on jref,s list of para-normal abilities that they will accept for the challenge. You will have to ask jref what they will accept as an accurate para-normal prediction. I will find out if I start talking protocols with them.
I will not swamp the thread with dozens of vague predictions in the hope that a few of them will appear to be accurate.

[Paulhoff]

We all had a hunch that you would be back, does that count.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Normal Dude]

What sort of premonitions do you have? Are there any impressive ones you can tell us about?

[TheRedWorm]

Hello again skeptics.
Hello, and welcome to the forum!

My claim is premonition. Premonition is on jref,s list of para-normal abilities that they will accept for the challenge. You will have to ask jref what they will accept as an accurate para-normal prediction.

Now, I do not speak for the JREF, but I would say that an acceptable prediction varies depending on what you claim to be able to predict. Obviously, if you say that you cannot give specific dates in your predictions, then it is unlikely that you will be asked to say exactly when your prediction will come to pass.

The one thing that I am almost sure of, however, is that the prediction will have to be specific enough that the chance of you getting the details of your prediction right by guesswork or chance are very low.

For example, if you predict a hurricane in Florida, that is much too vague to count. If you predict a hurricane in California, and specify the counties hit, and tell us that it will be preceded by a magnitude 5.7 earthquake with an epicenter at [location], I would think that the claim is specific enough to be tested. Whatever the case may be, please keep us informed!

[CLD]

Hello again skeptics. My claim is premonition. Premonition is on jref,s list of para-normal abilities that they will accept for the challenge. You will have to ask jref what they will accept as an accurate para-normal prediction. I will find out if I start talking protocols with them.
I will not swamp the thread with dozens of vague predictions in the hope that a few of them will appear to be accurate.

How could your premonitions be differentiated from informed guesses? For example I could offer a premonition that there will be a storm in some part of the Indian Ocean between May and June 2008. I would simply omit to disclose that I'd studied meteorological data, tides, currents, etc. for the area.

[ferj]

To get to the interesting bit. One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding. I made the prediction about a week before the 13th. 1 to 3 days seems to be the time delay between prediction and "event". It could be up to a week or maybe a month or two. Sorry joking ha ha -up to a week max.

[Paulhoff]

Geeeee, trillions of things and more happen every day, and got a few right, sorry, this happens to us all, it is nothing new.

Paul

:) :) :)

[this charming man]

To get to the interesting bit. One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding. I made the prediction about a week before the 13th. 1 to 3 days seems to be the time delay between prediction and "event". It could be up to a week or maybe a month or two. Sorry joking ha ha -up to a week max.

I wouldn't call that a "hit". It appears to be an educated guess based on existing information. "Base 2" does not sound like a specific location.

[Michael C]

To get to the interesting bit. One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding. I made the prediction about a week before the 13th. 1 to 3 days seems to be the time delay between prediction and "event". It could be up to a week or maybe a month or two. Sorry joking ha ha -up to a week max.

ferj,

that was one of yout predictions. Could you give us an idea of:

1. How many predictions have you made?

and

2. How many of them did you get right?

[ferj]

The best advice that I have ever ignored was to keep a diary of my predictions. The woman was a bit woo so I took no notice. I regret that now . It has cost me money. Maybe I,m lazy or feel too relaxed when the premonition comes to me. Probably a good idea to start a diary NOW!!!!!

[TheRedWorm]

Also, keep us informed about your premonitions. If nothing else, it will be a way to verify your predictions before the event happens (or doesn't).

[ferj]

Charming
"base 2" was a code used by US forces and that term was only revealed to the public after the capture.

[Aristocrates]

So, was he found at "base 2"?

[DangerousBeliefs]

To get to the interesting bit. One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding. I made the prediction about a week before the 13th. 1 to 3 days seems to be the time delay between prediction and "event". It could be up to a week or maybe a month or two. Sorry joking ha ha -up to a week max.

Pardon, but I thought you were going to use this thread as a trial run for the challenge.

So, how about a prediction?

[ferj]

Michaelc
I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

[Paulhoff]

The best advice that I have ever ignored was to keep a diary of my predictions. The woman was a bit woo so I took no notice. I regret that now . It has cost me money. Maybe I,m lazy or feel too relaxed when the premonition comes to me. Probably a good idea to start a diary NOW!!!!!
Unless you are writing all day long, on everything you think will happen, that diary means nothing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ferj]

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"

[Paulhoff]

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"
Out of how many bases.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ferj]

Paulhoff
Thanks for the advice. Being a lazy bum, I,ll bin the diary and carry on as usual. I,m beginning to suspect you,re a bit of a skeptic.

[this charming man]

Charming
"base 2" was a code used by US forces and that term was only revealed to the public after the capture.

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"

Okay, do you have proof of this; are there official reports that indicate the military called the location base 2?

Tikrit, if i recall, was Saddam's home town. It seems this would be a logical place for him to hide. It is hardly a psychic prediction he would be found there.

Again, I am not trying to antagonize you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
People here are going to challenge you; most, including me, will not accept anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

[Spektator]

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"

Are you positive? My recollection is that US forces raided two sites on a farm near ad-Dawr, codenamed "Wolverine 1" and "Wolverine 2" and failed to find Saddam Hussein in either site, but then located him in a "spider hole" inside a mud-walled compound not far away from the two target sites, but not actually within the perimeters of either.

Edited to add: the account at http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,GH_Saddam,00.html confirms what I thought--the spider hole was to the northwest of Wolverine 2, not within it, and was not called "base 2".

[tube]

You will note that on November 14, 2006 I predicted that Mythbusters would test whether a person could walk on a mixture of cornstarch and water with the following pithy and precognitive remark:

"I predict Mythbusters will do this."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2097540&postcount=5

You will see that this came to fruition on April 25 2007:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007472/

Sometimes I just want to jump back and kiss myself.

[CLD]

Base 2...Wolverine 2...the number 2's still in there...and it was vaguely nearby...aw come on, give him the hit. :D

[this charming man]

Are you positive? My recollection is that US forces raided two sites on a farm near ad-Dawr, codenamed "Wolverine 1" and "Wolverine 2" and failed to find Saddam Hussein in either site, but then located him in a "spider hole" inside a mud-walled compound not far away from the two target sites, but not actually within the perimeters of either.

Edited to add: the account at http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,GH_Saddam,00.html confirms what I thought--the spider hole was to the northwest of Wolverine 2, not within it, and was not called "base 2".

thank you

[TheRedWorm]

Are there any future predictions you would like to share?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Michaelc
I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

Cool. Now there is a statement which can be tested.

So, how about a prediction?

[Normal Dude]

Michaelc
I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

Have you considered that this may be confirmation bias and/or selective memory? It would not be embarrassing to admit to this; we all suffer from it to one degree or another.

[ferj]

You will have to be patient- as I will. Goodnight

[this charming man]

You will have to be patient- as I will. Goodnight

We can wait. All we ask is to stop talking about past predications. We only care about what you predict from this point forward.

[often mrunderstood]

To get to the interesting bit. One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding. I made the prediction about a week before the 13th. 1 to 3 days seems to be the time delay between prediction and "event". It could be up to a week or maybe a month or two. Sorry joking ha ha -up to a week max.

Tell us more about how a prediction like this one comes to you and maybe we can help to structure a testable one.

Were you actively trying to think about the capture when it came to you or it was out of the blue?

In what form do they come? Dreams? Pictures in your mind? Feels like a memory, although actually happens later?

In this prediction did you just "see" these things together (Saddam, 13, base 2) and nothing else? Or do you see a headline, or the actual event?

If you would have seen a 12 instead of 13, would that have meant December the month? ;)

Predictions have a lot of problems from my viewpoint:

If the person(s) knows about your prediction ahead of time, they could actively make it not happen in many cases. Then it is just another miss that gets forgotten. Example - "you will get in an auto accident today". Then the person just waits it out in a cave and your'e wrong again.

The specifics required to make them useful are never attainable by the predictor. This includes lottery numbers and other games of chance. Even if you could determine the winner and not the numbers, it could be useful. Never that specific though.

Being able to predict when people pass would be a curse, would it not?

You can't even predict when your next prediction will be, or what it might relate to. Correct?

Guessing correcty is not a prediction. Even when the odds are against you. Correctly guessing the 300 mil winning number on the forum would be amazing. Even doing that once in one try wouldn't be paranormal would it? It would still have to be repeatable, right?

[Biscuit]

"I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent."

To what do you attribute your 5 - 10% failure rate? Do you conisder a small deviation to be a failure or do you have to be 100% wrong to be wrong?

Here is an example - you claim you predicted the date and location of saddam's capture. It has now been shown that you got the location wrong. Do you call this a win or a loss now?

Adios

[JoeTheJuggler]

So this post-diction (since you're telling it long after the fact) was wrong--and you misspelled Hussein's name. Prediction means you have to say it beforehand.

Not tremendously impressive.

So, tell us as soon as you get another premonition. Don't wait until after the thing you are supposedly predicting has happened. Those don't count. To be a prediction, you must say it before.

Apparently you haven't kept track of how many of these you've had in the past, or how many were accurate. The number 150 and the 90-95% hit rate are just numbers you're pulling out of the air, aren't they? If not, how did you calculate them? How can you possibly come up with your accuracy rating if the number of attempts is "about 150" and not a specific number?

Shoehorning is another concept I'd like to introduce. As Spektator points out, finding him near Wolverine Two is not the same as finding him at Base Two. Since you didn't predict that Saddam Hussein would be pulled out of a spider hole, even your post-diction was wrong. Again, this is why it's important to write down your prediction and communicate it ahead of time. If you got something close or nearly right, you may later misremember and make the prediction seem more accurate than it was. (Frankly, I doubt very much that you even predicted the date Saddam Hussein would be caught, unless you predicted "tomorrow" every day--similar to Sylvia Browne's predictions about the death of John Paul II and the year that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq.) I'm not calling you a liar either. You may really think you predicted it on that date, but you could simply be misremembering it.

My favorite example of shoehorning is when Allison Dubois supposedly contacted a deceased friend of "parapsychologist" Gary Schwartz. Dubois said that the dead person said, "I don't walk alone." Schwartz confirmed this as an amazing hit because the friend was confined to a wheelchair at the time of her death. In fact, "I don't walk alone" is in no way the same thing as "I'm confined to a wheelchair." (And as a communication from beyond the grave it would be pointless if it had that meaning.)

[grayman]

Michaelc
I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

Wow! That's better than Sylvia's 85%.

ferj, you need to contact Montel. Now.

[SezMe]

The best advice that I have ever ignored was to keep a diary of my predictions. The woman was a bit woo so I took no notice. I regret that now .

I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.
These two statements are inconsistent. If you have not kept a diary, how do you know you've made 150 predictions and not 100? Or 200? And how do you know the success rate? As has been pointed out, these numbers are, at best, very rough estimates.

Taking your numbers at face value, you are making roughly one prediction per month. But you've only given us one which is a couple of years old. What were your last three predictions? You surely can remember them if you can remember that you've done 150 in the last 10 years.

[Spektator]

Base 2...Wolverine 2...the number 2's still in there...and it was vaguely nearby...aw come on, give him the hit. :D

Nah. Close may count in horseshoes, but not in precognition. Exactly right in every detail, or no cigar, says I.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ferj has made150 predictions in 10 years.. that equates to about 1 every month (24 days) so it looks like we might have a bit of a wait.

Ferj, I think you really SHOULD keep a diary.. it is one of the tools that allow most “honest” psychics to realise their supposed talent is really non existent. It takes out the selective memory and cherry picking.. please start it.. it will help you more than anyone else !

Plumjam/Interesting Ian.. don’t you find it the least ironic that you effectively do EXACTLY what you accuse the sceptics of doing.

[Skeptical Greg]

Michaelc
I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

Exactly how do your predictions help anyone ?

I take it you can't predict things like collapsing bridges and mine cave-ins ?

Have you helped people stock-up on toilet paper before timber futures skyrocketed ?

[jsfisher]

Michaelc
I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.


Excellent, ferj. So, may we us that as the basis of your claim?

In the course of one year, you will make 10 (down from 150/10 = 15) predictions. Those predictions each will be sufficiently specific that a casual observer would have no problem determining whether a given prediction had failed or succeeded. Predictions will be successful 90% of the time (lower bound of 90-95%).

In case a prediction has no specific time limit, I propose 90 days.

If that is agreeable, shall we start the clock running now? We await your first prediction.

[Czarcasm]

I predicted just last year the sinking of the Titanic and the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby!
In other words, we don't need to hear about supposed past predictions that you claim credit for after the fact-we need to hear specific predictions about our future that we can verify.
Got any?

[-Fran-]

To get to the interesting bit. One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding. I made the prediction about a week before the 13th. 1 to 3 days seems to be the time delay between prediction and "event". It could be up to a week or maybe a month or two. Sorry joking ha ha -up to a week max.


I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

This sounds quite impressive, ferj! But it's quite hard for us to believe in your psychic ability, and that because of, basically, two reasons.

Let's say that you would give us a rather detailed description of all of those 150 predictions that you say were hits. Then the reasons why we can't take it seriously would be:

1) You are deluding yourself about them, and there are, in fact, quite a few natural explanations to what you think is something paranormal, but which is really not at all.

2) You are trying to delude us, and simply make all these things up. Why should we believe it, really, just because you say so?

Unless you can get pass these two, there is no reason to why we should ever get to a possible third explanation, which would be:

3) You really can predict the future.

[Locknar]

<snip>
1) You are deluding yourself about them, and there are, in fact, quite a few natural explanations to what you think are something paranormal, but which is really not at all.

2) You are trying to delude us, and simply make all these things up. Why should we believe it, really, just because you say so?

<snip>

3) You really can predict the future.

All possible, though easy enough to figure out if he simply posts his predictions here as he said he would do.

[SezMe]

I predicted just last year the sinking of the Titanic and the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby!
In other words, we don't need to hear about supposed past predictions that you claim credit for after the fact-we need to hear specific predictions about our future that we can verify.
Got any?
Basically, I agree with you but knowing what his/her last few predictions were would give us some idea whether this Challenge is worth thinking about. For example, if the prediction was that the stock market would close July 31 at 13,304 then I would stay tuned. If the prediction was that a Republican presidential candidate would talk about tax cuts at one of their debates then we could all reach for the laughing dog.

[-Fran-]

All possible, though easy enough to figure out if he simply posts his predictions here as he said he would do.

Yep, and I am waiting with baited breath for them... but I won't hold it waiting for the third possibility :)

[jimtron]

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"

One of my predictions was the capture of saddam husain. I got the correct date 13th December and "base 2" which was one of two locations that U.S. forces suspected he was hiding.

So that was a 50/50 guess, no?

Ferj: would you care to make some specific predictions here on this thread? Not official ones for the challenge, but just for fun?

[Gr8wight]

I predict the demolition of ferj's one example of a 'prediction' to date means we have heard the last of him. He will never make a confirmable prediction on this forum. He may never post again.

[magi]

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"

Well, let's not quibble about the past... how about a prediction about the future? Please?

[SezMe]

I predict the demolition of ferj's one example of a 'prediction' to date means we have heard the last of him. He will never make a confirmable prediction on this forum. He may never post again.
I suspect Gr8wight has a better shot at the mil than ferj.

[strathmeyer]

I suspect Gr8wight has a better shot at the mil than ferj.

Indeed, especially since everyone else posting in this thread would probably be able to properly fill out an application.

[chillzero]

Can we please keep this thread on topic, and not degenerate into a load of personal attacks? Please discuss the issue at hand, and debate the argument not the arguer.

[Locknar]

Yep, and I am waiting with baited breath for them... but I won't hold it waiting for the third possibility :)

Same here...I am eager to see what he comes back with as "predictions"; how detailed, how frequent, what of, etc.

[Garrette]

Aristocrates
Yes saddam was found at "base 2"No, he was not.

He was located in a hole in the yard of a private residence on the outskirts of the village of Ad Dawr.

Soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division (and TF 121) made the sweep and capture.

And they did not name the base(s) from which they operated "Base 2."

ETA: Apologies for addressing this late. I hadn't realized the thread went to two pages, and the post I'm responding to is the last on the first page. Spektator and others addressed this already.

[alfaniner]

Maybe it had something to do with binary???

[ChristineR]

I did a Google search for variations of Saddam, Saddam Hussein, "base two" and "base 2" and nothing relevant came up. Basically I got coincidental juxtapositions of "base" and "2" (e.g., ...at the base two years ago...) and references to base 2 math that happened to be on the same page as some discussion about Hussein. I also looked at several articles on the capture itself and none made any mention of a base.

At the time many people predicted Hussein's imminent capture, so while getting the right date is nifty, it's not paranormal. After all, if the date (an unlucky thirteen) came and went, you could always predict another; in an extreme example you could predict the 14th, then the 15th, and guarantee yourself a hit. If you gave yourself a more generous one week period for guessing your chances would still be one in seven.

In any case I urge you to show everyone here up by making a prediction right here and now. I don't know how your predictions come to you, but let's say the next violent, unpredicted death of a celebrity prominent enough to be reported on the front page of one or more major newspapers. Such tragedies happen fairly often, so if you can predict them, you'll have turned us into believers in short order.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Excellent, ferj. So, may we us that as the basis of your claim?

In the course of one year, you will make 10 (down from 150/10 = 15) predictions. Those predictions each will be sufficiently specific that a casual observer would have no problem determining whether a given prediction had failed or succeeded. Predictions will be successful 90% of the time (lower bound of 90-95%).

In case a prediction has no specific time limit, I propose 90 days.

If that is agreeable, shall we start the clock running now? We await your first prediction.

This sounds like it should basically work.

We need to tighten up the definition of a prediction to rule out things that any reasonable person would already predict (hurricanes in hurricane season affecting areas where hurricanes hit every year; earthquakes in areas prone to earthquakes; elderly and feeble celebrities may die; rocky celebrity marriages will end in divorce).

Also, if this weren't a practice run, I'd want to tighten up the way to determine hits ("casual observer"). In law they use a "reasonable person" measure--I'd rather that. There are plenty of casual observers who can make Nostradamus' verse seem, in retrospect, to predict virtually any event.

One other point, in this practice run, if ferj posts a prediction here, can we rely on the time stamp to verify whether or not it was before the announcement of the event it is predicting? (I'm not so savvy on how this works--basically, is it difficult enough for someone to hack the date to rule out easy computer cheating? Again, ferj, I'm not accusing you of cheating. I just want to rule it out ahead of time.)


So what say you, ferj? Do you agree to the basics of jsfisher's protocol? If so, let's start the clock on your year.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh yeah, the events predicted must have a way we can all verify them.

In other words, predictions such as "Something bad will happen to my friend Mary" just can't be acceptable. For one thing, it's not specific (something bad happens to everyone at one time or another).

Even if it were, as in, "My friend Mary will get that job she interviewed for last week", I would reject this is a prediction. We have no idea how much information you had ahead of time about Mary and her chances of getting a job. It could be that the interview was a formality, and the job was a lock. Also, how could we even verify that Mary got the job?

[Locknar]

<snip>
We need to tighten up the definition of a prediction to rule out things that any reasonable person would already predict (hurricanes in hurricane season affecting areas where hurricanes hit every year; earthquakes in areas prone to earthquakes; elderly and feeble celebrities may die; rocky celebrity marriages will end in divorce).
<snip>


I think that is a bit to exclusive, depending on the level of detail he provides.

If he predicted that Nags Head NC would be hit by a hurricane 7 SEP I'd be willing to accept that, say +/- 1 day. By the same token, claiming Nags Head would be hit by a hurrican the MONTH of SEP...awfully vague.

The same standard could applied to any such event, be it earthquakes, notable deaths, etc.

Sure, allowing say a +/- 1 day could introduce some false hits...but so could just flat random chance. Any such hits would be averaged out in the end I'd think.

Anyway, just a thought.

Oh yeah, the events predicted must have a way we can all verify them.

In other words, predictions such as "Something bad will happen to my friend Mary" just can't be acceptable. For one thing, it's not specific (something bad happens to everyone at one time or another).

Even if it were, as in, "My friend Mary will get that job she interviewed for last week", I would reject this is a prediction. We have no idea how much information you had ahead of time about Mary and her chances of getting a job. It could be that the interview was a formality, and the job was a lock. Also, how could we even verify that Mary got the job?

Agreed; the predictions would have to be specific...and verifiable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, no fair claiming an apparently literal statement was actual a metaphor. For instance, "A great storm will hit Los Angeles in February", cannot be reinterpreted to mean that a movie will sweep many categories at the Oscars.

Yeah, it seems obvious now, but look at the history of people who claim to be able to predict the future.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If he predicted that Nags Head NC would be hit by a hurricane 7 SEP I'd be willing to accept that, say +/- 1 day. By the same token, claiming Nags Head would be hit by a hurrican the MONTH of SEP...awfully vague.


I agree, but then we absolutely must hold to the hurricane hitting that town. I'm not sure how that's defined, but if the center of destruction is somewhere else, you can't call it a hit.

If, for instance, someone had predicted a big hurricane like Katrina causing massive devastation in Biloxi (but failing to mention that business with New Orleans), I'd call that a miss.

Also, in predicting hurricanes, it MUST be far enough in advance that the predicted hurricane doesn't already exist. (Otherwise, you're just making a guess at its path.)

What about "a major earthquake in the San Francisco area" in a given month? I'd say no way. Now if it's "a 5.5 earthquake whose epicenter is below the town of such-and-such during the 3rd week of September", I'd allow it. (But a 5.0 or 6.0 earthquake would be a miss--the Richter scale is logarithmic--each increase in 1 value is sixty times the energy. So 5.5 and 6.0 are not really very similar.)

It sounds strict, but here's the claim:

I have made about 150 predictions over about 10 years. The detail in the predictions is high The strike rate 90-95 per cent.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, I know this sounds obvious, but any prediction that is hedged must count as a miss. In other words, if there's no way it can be wrong, just by making it, you're punished by counting it as a miss.

Think no one does this? On a Sylvia Browne thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89549), there's discussion where she's asked if the death of a child was the result of foul play. SB says, yes it was foul play, but in the same breath says it was the result of kids playing some stupid game (in other words, it was an accident--and not foul play). Turns out the child was murdered by a grownup, but supporters will claim that her saying it was foul play is a hit. If that's a hit, then she couldn't possibly have a miss in either of two mutually exclusive circumstances (it was an accident or it was foul play).

[Locknar]

I agree, but then we absolutely must hold to the hurricane hitting that town. I'm not sure how that's defined, but if the center of destruction is somewhere else, you can't call it a hit.


Agreed; with him setting the bar so high at 90-95% that really leaves little room for variance.

If, for instance, someone had predicted a big hurricane like Katrina causing massive devastation in Biloxi (but failing to mention that business with New Orleans), I'd call that a miss.


I dunno…if the claim was “a hurricane will cause massive destruction to Biloxi on 29 AUG” and that actually occurred, I’d argue the fact he didn’t mention New Orleans is really not relevant.

By the same token, he predicts that [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE CELEBRETY HERE] will die 23 DEC….and sure enough on 23 DEC he/she and 150 others die in a plane crash, I’d argue his prediction was still valid even though he made no mention of the plane crash.

Also, in predicting hurricanes, it MUST be far enough in advance that the predicted hurricane doesn't already exist. (Otherwise, you're just making a guess at its path.)

What about "a major earthquake in the San Francisco area" in a given month? I'd say no way. Now if it's "a 5.5 earthquake whose epicenter is below the town of such-and-such during the 3rd week of September", I'd allow it. (But a 5.0 or 6.0 earthquake would be a miss--the Richter scale is logarithmic--each increase in 1 value is sixty times the energy. So 5.5 and 6.0 are not really very similar.)


Agreed.

Also...it should be agreed upon up front, what counts as a “hit”; that is to say what 3rd party source would be used to validate/verify the claim? In the US, NOAA provides tracks for weather events such as hurricanes for example… This could be stipulated within the claim/prediction, so it would be on a "case by case" basis.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I dunno…if the claim was “a hurricane will cause massive destruction to Biloxi on 29 AUG” and that actually occurred, I’d argue the fact he didn’t mention New Orleans is really not relevant.
What if someone had predicted (before 9/11) something like "ABC company [located in the WTC] will not be open for business in November"? Even if it's true, it sure seems like a miss, given that the real story is that terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the WTC in a history-making event.

[Locknar]

What if someone had predicted (before 9/11) something like "ABC company [located in the WTC] will not be open for business in November"? Even if it's true, it sure seems like a miss, given that the real story is that terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the WTC in a history-making event.

Well...it all comes down to how specific a prediction he makes.

If that were the prediction, and I was providing oversight, I'd have to ask that evil "why" question before I'd accept it as a valid prediction.

Why? To eliminate any prior knowledge (or at least reduce the chance of it) influencing the prediction. Maybe the CEO of "ABC Company" is near death...maybe the building willl be closed that day for maintenance, etc.

In the celebraty example...I'd ask "how will he die"; ie. murder, accidential death, natural causes, etc.

That said, I would not totally discount a "hit" if he predicted "natural causes" vs plane crash.

While not a 100% hit...if through the course of a year he made 12 such predictions and got them right person and date wise, but wrong on method of death; 12 for 12 would carry some weight even if the method of death was wrong.

[Spektator]

I would place a high value on specificity. If someone "predicted"

I see trouble ahead in a U.S. city for September or maybe October. There will be chaos and screaming. A major news story. This may be some form of manmade disaster, or maybe something natural. It will cause injury and death, and there will be some sort of government follow-up or investigation, though not immediately. It will cause controversy, particularly on the Internet.
Well, I wouldn't give that house room. Far too vague, and far too many things could be shoehorned in: "The hurricane fits exactly." "The mine disaster fits exactly." "The flood fits exactly." "The plane crash...." etc.

[Locknar]

I would place a high value on specificity. If someone "predicted"

Well, I wouldn't give that house room. Far too vague, and far too many things could be shoehorned in: "The hurricane fits exactly." "The mine disaster fits exactly." "The flood fits exactly." "The plane crash...." etc.


I agree; that would be fine as a "first take" but would require a lot more fleshing out of details before it could be accepted it as a valid prediction.

[strathmeyer]

I predict Fidel Castro will die in the very near future. I'd say one week, but the more accurate I get the more inappropriately morbid it seems.

[ferj]

Hello again septics. Some of your views and suggestions have been interesting and sensible.
Some of you want to know what my previous predictions were. Firstly, I should tell you that I live in merry old England. I might as well tell you about my best and most detailed pr so far. This is from memory so give us a chance. This happened about 13 years ago.
On British Channel 4 breakfast TV there was a lottery like live draw of numbers and letters. I predicted the letters and numbers correctly 3 days before the LIVE draw. There were 2 letters and 4 numbers. I also wrote down the numbers and letters in the order that they were drawn. That is, the first letter I wrote down was drawn first. The second drawn second etc. I have fogotten whether the numbers were single or double digit. Chris Evans was the presenter at that time. Quite famous in Britain. Is that prediction detailed enough for you?

[Spektator]

..... On British Channel 4 breakfast TV there was a lottery like live draw of numbers and letters. I predicted the letters and numbers correctly 3 days before the LIVE draw. There were 2 letters and 4 numbers. I also wrote down the numbers and letters in the order that they were drawn. That is, the first letter I wrote down was drawn first. The second drawn second etc. I have fogotten whether the numbers were single or double digit. Chris Evans was the presenter at that time. Quite famous in Britain. Is that prediction detailed enough for you?

Did you know ahead of time that there was going to be a drawing?
Did you know ahead of time that two letters and four numbers would be drawn?

True story:
Not long ago I won some money in a lottery. I correctly chose five out of six numbers. Was that a prediction? Or was it just luck?

[this charming man]

Hello again septics. Some of your views and suggestions have been interesting and sensible.
Some of you want to know what my previous predictions were. Firstly, I should tell you that I live in merry old England. I might as well tell you about my best and most detailed pr so far. This is from memory so give us a chance. This happened about 13 years ago.
On British Channel 4 breakfast TV there was a lottery like live draw of numbers and letters. I predicted the letters and numbers correctly 3 days before the LIVE draw. There were 2 letters and 4 numbers. I also wrote down the numbers and letters in the order that they were drawn. That is, the first letter I wrote down was drawn first. The second drawn second etc. I have fogotten whether the numbers were single or double digit. Chris Evans was the presenter at that time. Quite famous in Britain. Is that prediction detailed enough for you?


Anecdotal stories do not equal evidence.

Do you have proof of this?
How do we know you are not making this up?
Did you play and win this lotto drawing?
If so, proof please. It sounds like you just beat the odds like any lotoo winner does.

[Biscuit]

Well no it's not. Its a nice story but we have no way of knowing if the story is true. You have no documentation of this event and when claiming paranormal abilities we can't just take your word for it. It would be much better if you were to, as others have asked, provide us with current predictions that have yet to come true.

Further more I am very curious as to what you attribute your 5 - 10% failure rate?

Adios

[TheRedWorm]

Hey, don't even worry about the past predictions, as nifty as they may be, you said yourself that you didn't write them down. Without this written verification, it is impossible to tell what the prediction really was, or if it came true. What I would suggest, is to tell us next time you have a prediction. After you posted the prediction, we will just wait an see what happens.

[Spektator]

I assume that ferj must have videotape of Chris Evans awarding ferj the prize for correctly predicting two letters and three digits. That should be acceptable proof that it happened as ferj recalls.

[ChristineR]

If you can do lottos, or even mock lottos, you will be a shoe-in for the million. We could test that this afternoon (although it must be late evening where you are).

I predict at least one person who posts here has access to a set of numbered ping-pong balls like they use for commercial bingo games and party lotteries.

[Michael C]

Hello again septics. Some of your views and suggestions have been interesting and sensible.
Some of you want to know what my previous predictions were. Firstly, I should tell you that I live in merry old England. I might as well tell you about my best and most detailed pr so far. This is from memory so give us a chance. This happened about 13 years ago.
On British Channel 4 breakfast TV there was a lottery like live draw of numbers and letters. I predicted the letters and numbers correctly 3 days before the LIVE draw. There were 2 letters and 4 numbers. I also wrote down the numbers and letters in the order that they were drawn. That is, the first letter I wrote down was drawn first. The second drawn second etc. I have fogotten whether the numbers were single or double digit. Chris Evans was the presenter at that time. Quite famous in Britain. Is that prediction detailed enough for you?

That would be detailed enough, if you did it now. As others have pointed out, we can't verify your past predictions. If you think you have the numbers for a specific lottery tomorrow, or the day after, or next week, just tell us. Then we can wait and see if you're right.

[JPK]

Good afternoon ferj and welcome.
Hello again septics. Some of your views and suggestions have been interesting and sensible.
Some of you want to know what my previous predictions were. Firstly, I should tell you that I live in merry old England. I might as well tell you about my best and most detailed pr so far. This is from memory so give us a chance. This happened about 13 years ago.
On British Channel 4 breakfast TV there was a lottery like live draw of numbers and letters. I predicted the letters and numbers correctly 3 days before the LIVE draw. There were 2 letters and 4 numbers. I also wrote down the numbers and letters in the order that they were drawn. That is, the first letter I wrote down was drawn first. The second drawn second etc. I have fogotten whether the numbers were single or double digit. Chris Evans was the presenter at that time. Quite famous in Britain. Is that prediction detailed enough for you?
While that was a nice story that may or may not have happened the way you describe, I would be interested to hear what you have to say about what Spektator wrote:

Are you positive? My recollection is that US forces raided two sites on a farm near ad-Dawr, codenamed "Wolverine 1" and "Wolverine 2" and failed to find Saddam Hussein in either site, but then located him in a "spider hole" inside a mud-walled compound not far away from the two target sites, but not actually within the perimeters of either.

Edited to add: the account at http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...Saddam,00.html (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,GH_Saddam,00.html) confirms what I thought--the spider hole was to the northwest of Wolverine 2, not within it, and was not called "base 2". Are you still confident in your recollection of this event? Are you saying Spekator is incorrect?
JPK

[ferj]

I knew there was going to be a draw ahead of time. I knew there were going to be 2 letters and 4 numbers to be drawn. Well done with the lottery. If you just marked down any numbers without thinking about it or consciously tried to get the numbers right I would say it was luck. But if the numbers seemed to come to quite quickly in a string so to speak ,and you had a relaxed and confident feeling at the same time I would say it was likely that you had a premonition.

[Paulhoff]

I knew there was going to be a draw ahead of time. I knew there were going to be 2 letters and 4 numbers to be drawn. Well done with the lottery. If you just marked down any numbers without thinking about it or consciously tried to get the numbers right I would say it was luck. But if the numbers seemed to come to quite quickly in a string so to speak ,and you had a relaxed and confident feeling at the same time I would say it was likely that you had a premonition.
And you think that no one here has never had some kind of so-called premonition about something in the trillions of things that happen to us thru our lives. Just thru chance is will happen again and again, the brain is always looking for connection, but the trick is to see it for what it really is, just chance.

Paul

:) :) :)

[magi]

But if the numbers seemed to come to quite quickly in a string so to speak ,and you had a relaxed and confident feeling at the same time I would say it was likely that you had a premonition.

Well, actually, it's *your* premonitions, or predictions, which are on-topic here. Specifically, predictions about some future event. Do you have any? Not an example or anecdote from a decade or more back, but a prediction made today about what will happen tomorrow/next week/month/year.

I'm very interested in hearing that. Everybody is.

[ferj]

I said the draw was lottery like. It was in fact similar to a Premium Bond draw. A number of viewers were allocated 10 or so chances to win so that it was guarenteed that there would be one winner. Sorry I put you wrong saying it was lottery like.
I obviously don,t expect you to believe me. As you say ,I have no proof but, I was asked for some predictions that I had made in the past.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ferj,

I said the draw was lottery like. It was in fact similar to a Premium Bond draw. A number of viewers were allocated 10 or so chances to win so that it was guarenteed that there would be one winner. Sorry I put you wrong saying it was lottery like.
I obviously don,t expect you to believe me. As you say ,I have no proof but, I was asked for some predictions that I had made in the past.

You know what.. I DO believe you.

That doesn’t mean your recollection is true, it just means you honestly think it is true.

You even said .. “bear with me, this is from memory”.

Your memories are not what happened .. they are what you THINK happened.. there is a subtle but important difference.

It is why a diary is important if you think you have some predictive talent.

So many things could be wrong with your story.

1. It could be mis-remembered
2. It could be embellished in your memory
3. It may be selective memory (you forget the 20 time you got the numbers wrong)
4. You could even have a mental problem and it never happened at all
5. you may have dreamed it and think it really happened
6. you may be lying

All of the above happen in reality.. predictive powers don’t.. why do you think it is predictive powers ?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I knew there was going to be a draw ahead of time. I knew there were going to be 2 letters and 4 numbers to be drawn. Well done with the lottery. If you just marked down any numbers without thinking about it or consciously tried to get the numbers right I would say it was luck. But if the numbers seemed to come to quite quickly in a string so to speak ,and you had a relaxed and confident feeling at the same time I would say it was likely that you had a premonition.

There are winners in lotteries all over the world darn near every day. Do you think every winner is an example of someone predicting the future?

I for one have no interest in your recollected anecdotes of successes, and I have to say the two examples you've given are exceptionally unimpressive.

We offered you a rough idea for a practice protocol. What do you say?

[DangerousBeliefs]

I said the draw was lottery like. It was in fact similar to a Premium Bond draw. A number of viewers were allocated 10 or so chances to win so that it was guarenteed that there would be one winner. Sorry I put you wrong saying it was lottery like.
I obviously don,t expect you to believe me. As you say ,I have no proof but, I was asked for some predictions that I had made in the past.

ferj, I wouldn't focus on past predictions, if I were you. That won't win you a million dollars (and no one will believe you). I also would ignore all the side comments.

Focus on your stated goal - a practice run for a million dollars.

It would also be nice if you would post your protocol and what you consider a "hit" versus a "miss" but really, having some kind of prediction or whatever you want tested should probably be your very next post.

Otherwise, this thread degrades like so many other threads... you post and post and others reply and post and post and post... and no actual practice run actually gets done.

[ferj]

Paulhoff
You seem to be saying that you have had a "premonition" but you don,t want to call it that.

[Paulhoff]

Paulhoff
You seem to be saying that you have had a "premonition" but you don,t want to call it that.
Who hasn't, it means nothing, unless you have little knowledge of a thing called chance.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ferj]

aussie
Only no.6 is a possiblity. I did not write "bear with me" where did you get that from?

[Macoy]

Anyway, why $1m? If you can predict lottery numbers, $1m is peanuts. Are you after kudos, or what?

[JoeTheJuggler]

aussie
Only no.6 is a possiblity. I did not write "bear with me" where did you get that from?

Sorry to speak for aussie but "bear with me" is a reasonable paraphrase for "so give it a chance" in this context.

BTW, I thought aussie's comments on the problems with a remembered anecdote were very good.

Finally, so. . what about it, ferj--do you agree to the general protocol spelled out by jsfisher?

To recap: since you claim to have made 150 predictions over 10 years at 90-95% accuracy, the protocol is the following:

1. You will post to this forum at least 10 predictions in the next one year period.
2. The time/date stamp on the posts must reflect that the posting was before the event they're predicting has happened.
3. You must get at least 90% correct.

4. I am adding this: let's use an all-or-nothing manner of counting hits and misses. You don't get partial credit. Each prediction must be deemed either right or wrong.
5. Predictions must be specific and detailed such that they're not just educated guesses (earthquake in California sort of thing).
6. Results must be verifiable to us all and obvious to any reasonable person whether they have come true or not.
7. Open ended predictions have a time limit of 90 days.
8. You must get at least 90% right. So if you have an average year, it means you'll provide us with 10 predictions and 9 of them will be hits.
Edit: 9. [Forgot my latest pet peeve.] Any prediction that is hedged (so that it is impossible NOT to come true) will be counted as a miss.

Any problems with this? I have numbered the points for easy reference if you want to re-negotiate any of them.

[ferj]

Juggler
I would be disappointed if my second prediction did not at least pass the preliminary stage of the $1m challenge. I think you are wrong. goodnight

[JoeTheJuggler]

Juggler
I would be disappointed if my second prediction did not at least pass the preliminary stage of the $1m challenge. I think you are wrong. goodnight

What second prediction? We haven't seen a first prediction.

You do understand that stories of things you remembered in the past are most certainly NOT predictions.

Certainly you have to admit that anyone could come onto this forum and claim to have predicted last year's Superbowl winner, the winner to all of last week's horse races at a specific track, and last week's lottery winners. We have no record that any of these predictions were in fact made.

Do you agree to the practice protocol? Anything you want to change, or are you giving up already?

[Aussie Thinker]

Ferj,

aussie
Only no.6 is a possiblity. I did not write "bear with me" where did you get that from?

Whew talk about a nitpick.. I was paraphrasing…

You actually wrote

“This is from memory so give us a chance.”

If that is not exactly like “bear with me”.. I’ll go jump !

So the only possibility is … either you have predictive powers or you are lying… I would hate to have that as your only option.. it doesn’t leave you many “outs”.

As predictive powers are paradoxically impossible.. it means you MUST be lying !

Your big trouble is you discount the other options for NO good reason. Why ? It is quite clear they are ACTUAL phenomena and memory issues. I urge you (if you are not lying) to examine these options.. you will find your answer somewhere in them.

[Aussie Thinker]

Joe,

Sorry .. you covered my point exactly.. i should have read further.. woulda saved me some typing..

[Czarcasm]

Juggler
I would be disappointed if my second prediction did not at least pass the preliminary stage of the $1m challenge. I think you are wrong. goodnightPlease make a prediction. No more stories, no more claims, no more personal history and no more explanations. The only thing that needs to be done by you is to make a prediction.

Nothing.
Else.

[CLD]

So, how about a prediction?


Are there any future predictions you would like to share?


We await your first prediction.


we need to hear specific predictions about our future that we can verify. Got any?


easy enough to figure out if he simply posts his predictions here as he said he would do.


Yep, and I am waiting with baited breath for them.


ferj: would you care to make some specific predictions here on this thread?


how about a prediction about the future? Please?

Let's get on with it Ferj.

[HghrSymmetry]

Dang, I really wish you woulda told me those numbers Ferj!

Rats! I guess its wack to bork once again.


$314 million Powerball winner unknown
Submitted by WWAY on 27 August 2007 - 9:58pm.
READ MORE: News | lottery
Story body
RICHMOND, IN -- Someone is holding a ticket to "easy street" tonight. It's the sole winning ticket in Saturday's Powerball lottery drawing -- and it's good for a staggering $314 million.

A Richmond, IN gas station sold the ticket but who won it? That's still the big mystery.

The winner hasn't come forward yet to claim the gigantic jackpot. And people in the small town near the Indiana-Ohio state line are on pins and needles.
http://www.wwaytv3.com/314_million_powerball_winner_unknown/08/2007

[Hokulele]

ferj, if you are serious about doing some trial predictions on here, please go ahead a do so, and do not worry about what has happened in the past. The people on this forum may be skeptical, but are fair in general. To give you an idea of what a sample prediction may look like, and how it may all play out, I would recommend reading this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2375695#post2375695

Another poster claimed to be able to predict earthquakes, and this thread chronicles one of his attempts.

[Reno]

If you post a prediction here, I'll be happy to memorialise it and update it with any new information you add or subtract. Just as I did with Drew's ever-changing prediction that did not come to pass.

[magi]

I have a question, relevant to this thread, to the far-more-experienced posters:

Is it always like this? In the threads I've read, there seems to be a recurring theme:

Claimant: The $1M is as good as mine!
Skeptic: Great! Tell us about it!
C: It's awesome!
S: How does it work?
C: It's magnisuperflipulously wonderful! I know, because all my relatives tell me it is, and I saw the same word in a book somewhere once, and....
S: Just say what you can do with your... power. Please?
C: I already did.
S: No, you used a word you made up.
C: Aaaah! Stop persecuting me!

Or some such. Has there ever been a direct, straightforward claim?

It's a bit frustrating, like speaking two mutually incomprehensible languages.

[JPK]

Good morning ferj.
While you seem to keep going on about the lottery premonition, I notice that you have now decided to completly ignore the other so-called prediction once some facts came to light.
Spektator wrote:
Quote:
Are you positive? My recollection is that US forces raided two sites on a farm near ad-Dawr, codenamed "Wolverine 1" and "Wolverine 2" and failed to find Saddam Hussein in either site, but then located him in a "spider hole" inside a mud-walled compound not far away from the two target sites, but not actually within the perimeters of either.

Edited to add: the account at http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...Saddam,00.html (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,GH_Saddam,00.html) confirms what I thought--the spider hole was to the northwest of Wolverine 2, not within it, and was not called "base 2". Unquote.



Are you still confident in your recollection of this event? Do you still consider this a correct prediction? Are you saying Spekator and the source he linked to is incorrect?
JPK

[alfaniner]

I have a question, relevant to this thread, to the far-more-experienced posters:

Is it always like this? In the threads I've read, there seems to be a recurring theme:
...
Or some such. Has there ever been a direct, straightforward claim?

It's a bit frustrating, like speaking two mutually incomprehensible languages.

Yes, quite often. It is very rare that a "claimant" will have read and heeded the Challenge rules before trying to create a protocol in the threads.

[The_Animus]

I think many of you are being immensely rude and childish. I doubt ferj will win the million and I doubt he can actually do anything supernatural.

However he plainly stated...

I can,t just order up predictions, so it could be weeks or months before an accurate prediction.

Now read it again. He is telling you flat out that his powers of precognition are limited in that he does not control when it happens nor what it applies to. It is like receiving a random letter in the mail.

So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction. He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous. Why don't you learn some patience and manners.

[Paulhoff]

So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction. He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous. Why don't you learn some patience and manners.
Did you read the first post, this is about getting the million dollars, so tell us how is ferj going to get the million if there are no testable predictions.

Paul

:) :) :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now read it again. He is telling you flat out that his powers of precognition are limited in that he does not control when it happens nor what it applies to. It is like receiving a random letter in the mail.

So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction. He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous. Why don't you learn some patience and manners.

Edit: Just to clarify--what I (and several others) have been pressing for is his feedback or assent to a suggested protocol.

He plainly stated that he has gotten 150 premonitions over 10 year with 90-95% accuracy. This is an entirely testable claim under the protocol suggested by jsfisher and slightly refined by several of us.

As per his statement you quoted, the next premonition might not come for weeks or months. That's why jsfisher suggested a one year trial period. (If that's not long enough to come up with 10, let him say so. We could even have a no-time-limit trial that ends when he has come up with 10. I suspect we'll all lose interest if 6 or 8 months goes by and no prediction comes.)

It's up to ferj to put up or shut up. He's the claimant.

If he objects to something in the protocol, let him say so. So far his only response has been to talk about a couple of unverifiable predictions he claims to have made in the past. (One of which was wrong and the other less than impressive.) Given that he has not kept track of misses or documented ANY predictions, they are worthless even as a practice run for the MDC.

Who is being childish and where?

[JPK]

Good afternoon The_Animus
I think many of you are being immensely rude and childish. I doubt ferj will win the million and I doubt he can actually do anything supernatural.
Now read it again. He is telling you flat out that his powers of precognition are limited in that he does not control when it happens nor what it applies to. It is like receiving a random letter in the mail.
So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction. He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous. Why don't you learn some patience and manners.

I'm certainly not asking for any predictions. I'm just interested in why ferj beleives he has the ability to make predictions. ferj stated he predicted Saddams capture. ferj thought he got it right. It would appear not to be the case. Is this how all of his predictions are?
JPK

[CLD]

I think many of you are being immensely rude and childish. I doubt ferj will win the million and I doubt he can actually do anything supernatural.

...He is telling you flat out that his powers of precognition are limited in that he does not control when it happens nor what it applies to. It is like receiving a random letter in the mail.

So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction. He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous. Why don't you learn some patience and manners.

Maybe he can make a prediction of when he'll make a prediction?

[The_Animus]

Who is being childish and where?

I'm not saying everyone is, just some of the people. Everyone else is exempt from my statement.

It was more geared toward these people...

Originally Posted by DangrousBeliefs
So, how about a prediction?


Originally Posted by TheRedWorm
Are there any future predictions you would like to share?


Originally Posted by jsfisher
We await your first prediction.


Originally Posted by csarcasm
we need to hear specific predictions about our future that we can verify. Got any?


Originally Posted by Locknar
easy enough to figure out if he simply posts his predictions here as he said he would do.



Originally Posted by fran
Yep, and I am waiting with baited breath for them.


Originally Posted by jimtron
ferj: would you care to make some specific predictions here on this thread?


Originally Posted by magi
how about a prediction about the future? Please?



Originally posted by CLD
Let's get on with it Ferj.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Animus, I've asked him what he thinks about the proposed practice protocol several times. Here's the only reply:
Juggler
I would be disappointed if my second prediction did not at least pass the preliminary stage of the $1m challenge. I think you are wrong. goodnight
So, yeah, it's a bit frustrating to hear a guy claim to be talking about predictions when he has yet to make any.

Still, I'd be interested if there are any objections to the protocol we've suggested (credit primarily to jsfisher). If so, let's talk about them. (Like if 10 is too many to expect within a year, is he willing to retract his claim of 150 in 10 years?)

Frankly, I don't even WANT to start evaluating new predictions when he hasn't agreed to any criteria for what counts, how we determine hits and misses and so on. Otherwise, I expect we'll get more claims of success that none of us are willing to accept, and he can then go on saying we rejected the proof he provided.

If it's a practice for the MDC we should at least set it up that way.

[ferj]

juggler
Could you answer a couple of simple questions for me.
If a person could predict the result of a draw, lets say 2 letters and 4 numbers ,3 days before the draw. Would this be good enough in your opinion to pass the first stage of the $1m Challenge? What are the chances of this happening? I don,t know, but is it - 25-1 times 25-1 times 9-1 times 9-1 times 9-1 times 9-1? I,m sure you are clever enough not to missunderstand the questions and also work out the odds. Lets get it out of the way.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Juggler
I would be disappointed if my second prediction did not at least pass the preliminary stage of the $1m challenge. I think you are wrong. goodnight
I don't speak for the JREF, but I can guarantee that you are wrong here. Your past success in picking a lottery (or drawing) winner would not qualify you to skip the preliminary stage of the MDC. The rules state that very expressly:

2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered.
As I mentioned above, if this weren't the case, then every lottery winner (and there are many every week around the world) could claim to have already passed the preliminary test.

If you mean that a repeat demonstration of what you claim happened in the past would qualify as a preliminary test, I think the only problems with that would be logistical.

If you can't make that prediction far enough in advance to write it up as a protocol and get approval from JREF before the event happens, I don't see how it would work.

Otherwise, I dunno--you're trying for a one out of one test, but for most lotteries the odds are high enough that a hit would rise to the level called for to rule out chance as being a likely explanation. I suspect if JREF agreed to it, they'd require you to agree not to keep reapplying with the same protocol. (For instance, if you were allowed to reapply every week with the same preliminary test protocol, you'd no longer really be playing out of one attempt. If you got it right on say the 3,000th try, your odds of winning may very well have dropped to the point where we can't confidently rule out chance.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

juggler
Could you answer a couple of simple questions for me.
If a person could predict the result of a draw, lets say 2 letters and 4 numbers ,3 days before the draw. Would this be good enough in your opinion to pass the first stage of the $1m Challenge? What are the chances of this happening? I don,t know, but is it - 25-1 times 25-1 times 9-1 times 9-1 times 9-1 times 9-1? I,m sure you are clever enough not to missunderstand the questions and also work out the odds. Lets get it out of the way.

Looks like we crossed posts. I think I may have addressed this one.

I'm also not very good with the statistics, but I think the rule of thumb is that they want a P (confidence level) of .001. I honestly don't know how that translates in a one-attempt trial of a drawing.

Someone here who knows the appropriate statistics should chime in any minute now. . .

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, if you mean to propose this as a real preliminary test, you should definitely contact JREF.

Are you giving up on the practice test here in the forum? If not, what do you think about the suggested protocol? Any objections?

Back to your drawing idea (sorry to jump around): maybe you could get JREF to sort of pre-approve a protocol and be ready to accept your 3-days' notice drawing pick whenever the premonition strikes. (Again, assuming the statistics are such that we can confidently rule out chance.)

[magi]

I stand by my request for a sample of what ferj promised. He is the one who stated this thread was his practice run.

Please note that ferj did not state *when* a prediction would be forthcoming, nor has anyone here set a deadline. A year was suggested, but never demanded.

When someone says he can fly, or predict the future, or pull kumquats from his earlobes, it is natural to request a demonstration.

C: "I can see the future"
S: "Cool! Show me, please!"
C: "I did it once 10 years ago."
S: "Okay, cool! Show me one now, please."
C: "Oh, you want to know about the past ones? well, 8 years ago..."
S: "Excuse me, no. I'm asking for new predictions. Please."
C: "I'm hitting 95%, you know."
S: "Great! Can you make a prediction or not?"
C: "It don't work like that."

Demanding something not promised would be childish. Accepting at face value, without evidence, the same thing would be as well.

[Locknar]

I think many of you are being immensely rude and childish. I doubt ferj will win the million and I doubt he can actually do anything supernatural.

However he plainly stated...



Now read it again. He is telling you flat out that his powers of precognition are limited in that he does not control when it happens nor what it applies to. It is like receiving a random letter in the mail.

So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction. He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous. Why don't you learn some patience and manners.

Your point? Other then discussing protocol issues, I've made no such demands for predictions. I have indicated that I am eager for him to post a prediction, which is hardly a demand.

As to learning; I suggest you re-read the membership agreement - I'm sure it plainly states "attack the argument" vs the poster. Calling folks "childish", for example, would seem to be in violation of that rule...but then again, I'm not a moderator.

[ferj]

Yes, but can you answer the 2 simple questions very simply Yes or No?

[ChristineR]

The statistics of the drawing depend on (1) how many letter balls were used (2) how many number balls were used (3) whether the balls were put back after the first draw. For example, if A was the first letter, AA would be possible only if the A ball is put back, or if two sets of letter balls are used.

If it were 25 letter balls and nine number balls and the balls were returned to the pile after each draw you'd get the odds mentioned: 25 * 25 * 9 * 9 * 9 * 9 = 455625. The standard for the JREF test is 1 in 1000, repeated twice under controlled conditions. So while the incident meets the standard for the odds, it fails completely because it was not under controlled conditions.

However a standard set of bingo balls has seventy-five balls and these are readily available for $20 US. Predicting a mere two balls in a row would meet the standards.

I suggest you buy a set of bingo balls, predict your two ball draws, and draw. Repeat this twenty times or so. If you can get twenty of twenty you're set for the million dollar challenge and can work on a formal application. (You also need a media presence--we'll talk about that after you make sure you can get twenty of twenty.)

If you cannot get twenty of twenty (while doing two-ball draws) it's possible to relax the standard. For example, say you draw six balls and you test yourself twenty times and find that you get at four of six balls each (twenty) time. That would be ample.

Whatever you choose, I suggest you aim for 20 of 20 at least, as a lot of money is at stake.

[Locknar]

Yes, but can you answer the 2 simple questions very simply Yes or No?


Depending the drawing, I'd say YES to your first question. You'd have to tell us what kind of drawing it is and it would have to be verifiable, just to eliminate (as best you can on the Internet) the appearance of any prior knowledge; this is part of the protocol Joe outlined.

On the second...that is really a question for the JREF folks; only they can comment on JREF questions/issues.

Not speaking for them (since I can't)...I'd say you need to prove your claim; you claimed ~ 95% accuracy, so you'd need to demonstrate that ability (ie. say 3 predictions without a miss, 9 out of 10, etc.).

[ferj]

ChristineR
Very interesting. I don,t know if that leaves me with a chance of even getting accepted for the challenge but thanks. It,s my turn to be childish now.
juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.

[CLD]

ChristineR
Very interesting. I don,t know if that leaves me with a chance of even getting accepted for the challenge but thanks. It,s my turn to be childish now.
juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.

If you distrust JREF posters you should offer a protocol of your own.

[JoeTheJuggler]

ChristineR

juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.
Let's see, I've asked you at least half a dozen times what you think of the proposed protocol, and have been completely ignored.

Edit: And whose fault is it that you have not helped with the protocol? It is based on your stated claim. I've asked you for your input over and over.

Aside from that, I did answer your questions as best I could about whether your predicting a drawing 3 days in advance would qualify as a preliminary test for JREF's MDC. I admitted the statistics were beyond me, and I mentioned an issue with logistics (what I think Christine referred to as a problem with "controlled conditions").

Is the following maybe what you're looking for? I would be very impressed as a practice demonstration of your claim if you were to predict the winning numbers in the drawing (with the odds you mentioned) three days before the event takes place. I'm sure there are skeptics in the UK who could report to the forum to verify that the event takes place on the date specified (if there isn't an official website you could maybe point us to). As to whether JREF would accept that as a protocol, I have answered you and even come up with some pretty good ideas to suggest you try when you contact JREF.

And now you accuse me of being too biased to deal with? I have helped with jsfisher's fine idea for a protocol to test your claim in a practice run here in the forum. (Which, I would surmise, is the similar to the kind of protocol JREF would accept.) Please, upon what do you base this accusation of bias?

Can you show me where I have said something that you take as bias?

Yes, my patience is running out with you ferj, but I have been exceedingly careful in what I have said here.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. Do you know what "bias" means?

I will answer no more questions until you address this accusation of bias or wish to discuss the suggested protocol.

[magi]

ChristineR
Very interesting. I don,t know if that leaves me with a chance of even getting accepted for the challenge but thanks. It,s my turn to be childish now.
juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.

Dude, that's not fair to Juggler or ChristineR. They've been the very soul of courtesy and patience. Far more than I, I readily admit.

You don't like what anyone has to say, that's your perogative. Say something yourself, or nothing.

Just out of curiosity, Ferj, does this link (http://pirallah.blogspot.com/)ring any bells?

[petra10]

Ok I've read enough.Havn't we been here before guys.Someone comes here claiming all sorts of rubbish which they never follow through with.
I can actually remember the big breakfast show with Chris Evens and they did from time to time have people on who saw into the future and predicted stuff.I as recall it was all done very much in fun and I think a lot of it was staged.
So unless ferj does something soon and fast that amazes or impresses us, we shouldn't play their silly game.

[Locknar]

ChristineR
Very interesting. I don,t know if that leaves me with a chance of even getting accepted for the challenge but thanks. It,s my turn to be childish now.
juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.


Near as I can tell....virtually everyone has been polite and non-biased. That aside, the title of this thread is "Practice run for the $1 Million Dollar Challenge"; PRACTICE RUN are the key words there.

If you are interested in applying for the actual $1 Million Dollar Challenge (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html), then CLICK HERE (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html).

If you are unhappy with the suggested protocol - suggest your own, you'll have to do that as part of the Challenge.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you distrust JREF posters you should offer a protocol of your own.

I suppose he is offering one with this drawing thing. What's confusing is that he was asking about it as a preliminary test for the MDC and not as a practice test here in the forum. If it's the former, you have to get approval from JREF (though we've given you some feedback and opinions here).

If it's the latter, I'm game. I would be very impressed if you could predict correctly the drawing with the odds you stated 3 days before the drawing.

If you're offering this as a protocol for a practice run, let's clear up some minor issues:

Do you have a time frame in mind, since these premonitions come to you unbidden? Can we set a limit as to how long we'll wait for this prediction? (If not, I'd be more inclined to go with the other protocol, where we take whatever premonitions come to you as they come.)

Can the results be verified? Do we need to get someone in the UK to report to the forum, or can you point us to an official website for the drawing with details?

(Again, I stress, this is NOT meant to be a slur on your character or an accusation of cheating. It is for you benefit as well. If you predict the winner, you wouldn't want us to claim, after the fact, that there was a method you could have used to cheat. That's the point of setting up a protocol like this: when the results are in, the results are indisputable by either side. That makes it a completely unbiased test.)

This is a one-for-one, all-or-nothing test? So instead of hitting 90-95%, it's going to be 100% or 0%, right? In other words, getting 3 or 4 of the numbers or letters right is a miss--correct?

[DangerousBeliefs]

ChristineR
This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.

Hum.... ok, I think I can see where this bid for the $1 million is going...

[ferj]

Too late to be argueing the toss with you lot. Ta Ta

[Locknar]

Too late to be argueing the toss with you lot. Ta Ta

Guess Elvis has left the building....

[strathmeyer]

Paulhoff
You seem to be saying that you have had a "premonition" but you don,t want to call it that.

ferj, you seem to be saying that your premonitions aren't really premonitions.

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK--so he claims to predict the future and says he can prove it. We offer him ways to prove it, and he runs.

Yup, I'd call that a retraction of the claim.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Too late to be arguing the toss with you lot. Ta Ta

I am now over 95% in my predications. What kind of protocol can I setup for the $1 million?

[grayman]

Welcome to the forum.

You are not the first self-proclaimed "psychic" to visit here. Prepare to have your claims closely examined and discussed. Likely you will toss out vague generalizations and say in retrospect that you were right. Likely we will ask for rock-solid evidence. Likely you will get frustrated and leave the forum as previous psychics have. Likely the $1,000,000.00 will still be untouched (not a prediction, just playing the odds).


Too late to be argueing the toss with you lot. Ta Ta

Guess Elvis has left the building....

Even though I said it wasn't a prediction, can I still have the $1,000,000.00?

Or maybe a drink on the house?

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK--so he claims to predict the future and says he can prove it. We offer him ways to prove it, and he runs.

Yup, I'd call that a retraction of the claim.

I may have misread ferj's last post. He might just be saying "Ta ta" for the night.

I do hope he's back tomorrow, and I do hope we get an agreement on some sort of test run here.

What do other people think of his offer of a single prediction for the drawing (as a practice test, not an actual MDC preliminary test)?

[Gr8wight]

"I intend to post predictions of future events."

...



...



...



...



Well, I'm off. Let me know if my prediction (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2906915#post2906915) is ever proved wrong.

[grayman]

I would like to see at least one clear, verifiable prediction.

[Complexity]

ChristineR
Very interesting. I don,t know if that leaves me with a chance of even getting accepted for the challenge but thanks. It,s my turn to be childish now.
juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.

Ferj, meet the apostrophe: '

I don't think you have a chance of being accepted for the challenge because I don't think you have any power except that of self-delusion.

Your turn to be childish? You've got to be kidding.

Juggler is under no obligation to answer your questions. I personally don't give a damn whether you apply or not. Show some courtesy to the people you're asking to help you.

[jsfisher]

juggler Now it,s your turn to answer the 2 simple questions very simply. This will have a bearing on if I decide to agree to the mock protocols that you have put together without my help. To be plain I think you are too biased to be having any dealings with.


ferj,

I really don't understand this response. You came here for a practice run for the $1,000,000 Challenge. Well, a very early step in the Challenge process is to form your paranormal claims into a mutually agreeable protocol. We simply took the claims you made here, formalized them a bit, then asked you if they covered what you were claiming and if they were acceptable.

If what we proposed is off-base or impractical in your view, just tell us what you think the protocols should be.

But, you didn't respond with any comments. Instead, you are now focused on whether predicting letters and numbers from a random draw would qualify for the Challenge. Well, I think it would; is that now your claim of paranormal abilities in place of what you said before? If so, should we modify the proposed protocol for this other claim?

[magi]

I may have misread ferj's last post. He might just be saying "Ta ta" for the night.

I do hope he's back tomorrow, and I do hope we get an agreement on some sort of test run here.

What do other people think of his offer of a single prediction for the drawing (as a practice test, not an actual MDC preliminary test)?

Hope springs eternal, I reckon...

I would say yes, I would very much like to see him follow through with his single prediction for the lottery. Anything which is not in the past.

BTW, Joe, kudos to you for bending three ways from Tuesday in trying to help ferj.

[Czarcasm]

I would like to see at least one clear, verifiable prediction.It's rather obvious he's not here to make a prediction-he's here to finesse the system and gamble. As a sideline, he's jerking us around so that he can use our responses as an excuse as to why he refuses to cooperate with the simplest of requests.

[jsfisher]

I may have misread ferj's last post. He might just be saying "Ta ta" for the night.

That's how I read the comment.

What do other people think of his offer of a single prediction for the drawing (as a practice test, not an actual MDC preliminary test)?

Two letters and three digits, right? That's 1 : 676,000 if I multiplied correctly. So, a false-positive result is virtually impossible. I do have a few concerns, though.

First, ferj's prediction don't come with any predictability (ironic, eh?). How long should we wait for such a prediction related to such a specific event?

Second, what constitutes success? All letters and digits exactly right and in the right order? Do we accept things out of order (in which case, the 1 : 676,000 drops considerably). How about two of the three numbers?

Third, what if ferj falters? A single test may be inadequate for ferj to prove to us he has real abilities (or prove to ferj that he does not, as the case may be).

With all that said, I'd suggest ferj be given 6 months to make as many predictions as he'd like. Success requires exact matches of all letters and numbers, but exact order is not required. ferj had claimed a 90-95% hit rate; frankly, I'd be a true-believer with a considerably lower percentage.

[CLD]

Second, what constitutes success? All letters and digits exactly right and in the right order? Do we accept things out of order (in which case, the 1 : 676,000 drops considerably). How about two of the three numbers?

If it's based on a lottery drawing, exact order is required to win the big lottery prize. "Any order" pays much less. "Two like numbers" pays even less. I would be concerned about getting one number or letter right being promoted as a hit or partial hit.

[Hokulele]

juggler
Could you answer a couple of simple questions for me.
If a person could predict the result of a draw, lets say 2 letters and 4 numbers ,3 days before the draw. Would this be good enough in your opinion to pass the first stage of the $1m Challenge? What are the chances of this happening? I don,t know, but is it - 25-1 times 25-1 times 9-1 times 9-1 times 9-1 times 9-1? I,m sure you are clever enough not to missunderstand the questions and also work out the odds. Lets get it out of the way.


First of all, let me state that I am only speaking for myself, and not for the JREF.

I agree with the majority of the posters here, that a correct prediction of the lottery would be impressive enough to warrant a second look. Reno has been helpful with would-be applicants in the past, so I would recommend posting your prediction here (when you receive one), and have Reno* verify whether or not the prediction is correct. Although I doubt this would qualify as a "first stage of the challenge", it will at least verify whether or not it is worth your time and effort to pursue this.

In order for this to work, you must be very clear as to which lottery you are predicting, which date the drawing is set for, and the exact numbers/letters and sequence you are predicting. I will let others with better odds calculating skills than I determine what percentage of the numbers qualifies as a "hit".



* Sorry for recommending someone else JoeTheJuggler, but I don't think ferj likes you too much at this point. And likewise, I'm sure. ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

* Sorry for recommending someone else JoeTheJuggler, but I don't think ferj likes you too much at this point. And likewise, I'm sure. ;)

No worries. I'm in no position to verify a UK drawing (or even verify when it actually takes place) anyway.

The whole point of establishing a protocol is that the outcome doesn't depend on whether or not we like each other. The results should be indisputable--for both sides. If he hits, there should be no room for me to come back with an ad hoc explanation either.

If he makes the prediction 3 days before the drawing, I'd feel pretty safe that there's no cheating going on.

As others have pointed out, what really needs to be agreed to is what constitutes a "hit"--all the numbers and all the letters all in the correct order or something less than that? I leave it to people more knowledgeable than me to figure the probabilities.

By the way, I thought a "drawing" was where you buy a ticket, and they put the tickets in a barrel, mix 'em up, and pull out one of them as the winner. From the way this is described, it sounds the same as a lottery. Is it the same as a lottery? How are the winning numbers and letters selected? (Aren't they ping pong balls blown through a machine?)


<derail>
I worked an RV trade show once where a dealership gave out these little credit card thingies to people who visited their area. Each card had a 12 digit number. There was some sort of random thing (like a lottery) to come up with a winning 12 digit number. The people with the cards had to come to the dealership showroom, swipe the card into a reader to see if they matched the winning number. If so, they'd win a half-million dollar RV.
At the trade show, one of the guys passing out the cards would tell the people, "We're giving away an RV!" or even "Here's a free raffle ticket for an RV!" Both of these were false statements, because the event was a lottery and not really a drawing.

In fact, someone told me that they'd only printed out something like 300,000 cards, so it was unlikely that the winning number even existed on one of the cards. At any rate, in several years of running this promotion, they have NEVER given away the RV.
</derail>

[Hokulele]

No worries. I'm in no position to verify a UK drawing (or even verify when it actually takes place) anyway.

The whole point of establishing a protocol is that the outcome doesn't depend on whether or not we like each other. The results should be indisputable--for both sides. If he hits, there should be no room for me to come back with an ad hoc explanation either.


I know, I just wanted to lighten things up a little. On a more serious note, I believe Reno is in the UK (Scotland?), and has helped out in these kinds of things in the past.

If he makes the prediction 3 days before the drawing, I'd feel pretty safe that there's no cheating going on.

As others have pointed out, what really needs to be agreed to is what constitutes a "hit"--all the numbers and all the letters all in the correct order or something less than that? I leave it to people more knowledgeable than me to figure the probabilities.

By the way, I thought a "drawing" was where you buy a ticket, and they put the tickets in a barrel, mix 'em up, and pull out one of them as the winner. From the way this is described, it sounds the same as a lottery. Is it the same as a lottery? How are the winning numbers and letters selected? (Aren't they ping pong balls blown through a machine?)


IIRC, the UK numbers thingy is a lottery. I have heard some lotteries refer to the event where they choose/reveal the winning numbers as a drawing, but the actual game is a lottery, in that the prize may remain unclaimed if no one picks the correct numbers.


<derail>
I worked an RV trade show once where a dealership gave out these little credit card thingies to people who visited their area. Each card had a 12 digit number. There was some sort of random thing (like a lottery) to come up with a winning 12 digit number. The people with the cards had to come to the dealership showroom, swipe the card into a reader to see if they matched the winning number. If so, they'd win a half-million dollar RV.
At the trade show, one of the guys passing out the cards would tell the people, "We're giving away an RV!" or even "Here's a free raffle ticket for an RV!" Both of these were false statements, because the event was a lottery and not really a drawing.

In fact, someone told me that they'd only printed out something like 300,000 cards, so it was unlikely that the winning number even existed on one of the cards. At any rate, in several years of running this promotion, they have NEVER given away the RV.
</derail>


There is a car dealership where I live that does the same thing. Rather than a credit card, they send out mailers to all residents with a scratch-off area containing the numbers that must be matched at the dealership to win the car.

[Michael C]

If it were 25 letter balls and nine number balls and the balls were returned to the pile after each draw you'd get the odds mentioned: 25 * 25 * 9 * 9 * 9 * 9 = 455625.

I think you meant to say four number balls. And the result should be 4100625: you must have missed a 9 ;)

In any case, beating odds of 1 in 4100625 would be way good enough to pass the first stage of the Million Dollar Challenge. But, as others have pointed out, a past success won't be accepted: the JREF needs to verify the prediction at the time it is made.

So, ferj: if you're sure you could have this sort of premonition again, it would be really worth thinking about a protocol for the JREF to test it. The protocols that other posters have put forward are just suggestions: you can use the ideas to work out your own protocol, which you could submit to the JREF.

The point is this: to win the challenge, you need to find a way of proving to the JREF that your premonition is correct. This means that the JREF has to know the details of your prediction before the event you predict. You could suggest that, as soon as you have a suitable premonition, you communicate the details in writing to the JREF and to a neutral observer (someone agreed upon by you and the JREF). Then if the prediction comes true, there would be an independent witness to confirm it.

Of course, if you're just wanting to use this thread as practice, all you need to do is post a prediction hare as soon as you get a premonition. If the prediction comes true a few days later, I guarantee you we'll be very impressed. And very keen to help you win the JREF challenge.

[-Fran-]

I think many of you are being immensely rude and childish.


That is quite possible that several of us are, but I think you fail to show that we have been in this case.


I doubt ferj will win the million and I doubt he can actually do anything supernatural.

We all doubt that (well most of us) - on well founded grounds.


...He is telling you flat out that his powers of precognition are limited in that he does not control when it happens nor what it applies to. It is like receiving a random letter in the mail.

We might be childish and rude, but we are not stupid, and there's nothing wrong with our reading comprehension skills. Yes, ferj has stated this, we have read it and understood it. We have not demanded that he make a prediction right this minute, what we are pestering him about is to tell us if he is going to post them here at all when they do come! We have stated that we are willing to wait, and that we will give him all the time he needs, within reasonable limits.

What we want now is that he agrees (or disagrees as the case may be, and then we can move on to other stuff) to posting his predictions here when they come! No one here is slapping him around demanding a prediction now now now! We are being a bit of pests about him answering to if he is willing to post them at all! Which would be a logical thing to press him about considering his claim, and since he did say that it is a sure thing that they will come.

I would say that it's not very strange that we keep pressing him on this, since it was him coming here with a claim, and since he has been rather evasive about this all along, trying to avoid the reqeust in many ways. We just want a 'yes' or a 'no' now. That he has stated that the predictions won't come when he orders it, and that it can take some time between, we are fully aware of and have not tried to demand that he change this (which he claims he can't in any case).


So why after a day or two or even a week do you consistently ask for a prediction.

See above.


He told you it doesn't work that way and so asking for one or mocking him because he hasn't given one yet is ridiculous.

He hasn't answer our question if he will do this at all, that's what's it about. And at the time of this post of yours, he had been avoiding the question as the plague!


Why don't you learn some patience and manners.

Why don't you stop calling people childish and rude for no reason.

[Spektator]

If it's based on a lottery drawing, exact order is required to win the big lottery prize. "Any order" pays much less. "Two like numbers" pays even less. I would be concerned about getting one number or letter right being promoted as a hit or partial hit.

Tell me about it. The one time I got five out of six numbers correct (there was also a "free ball" number which did not show up in my picks), I won six hundred bucks. One more number and I would've won ten thousand. Statistics can be so cruel.

[alfaniner]

ferj,

before you reply to anything else, answer this.

Have you read and understood the rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) for the challenge?

[Ladewig]

ferj,

before you reply to anything else, answer this.

Have you read and understood the rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) for the challenge?

Quoted for relevance.

Ferj, have you read and understood the rules?

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is why I was asking about the lottery/drawing issue:

I said the draw was lottery like. It was in fact similar to a Premium Bond draw. A number of viewers were allocated 10 or so chances to win so that it was guarenteed that there would be one winner. Sorry I put you wrong saying it was lottery like.

In order to guarantee a winner to a lottery with odds of 1: some 600,000+, with each viewer getting 10 chances (and some mechanism to make sure no two viewers get the same number), you'd need some 60,000 people to play. If there is no mechanism to make sure people don't choose the same number, then there is no guarantee of a winner.

I'm really not sure what happens in this thing--sorry I'm unfamiliar with the term "Premium Bond draw". I googled the term and came up with this:

A Premium Bond is a bond issued by the United Kingdom government's National Savings and Investments scheme. The government promises to buy back the bond, on request, for its original price.

The government pays interest on the bond but, instead of the interest being paid into individual accounts, it is paid into a prize fund from which a monthly lottery distributes tax-free prizes, or premiums, to selected bond-holders whose numbers come up. The machine that generates random numbers for the lottery is called ERNIE, which stands for Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment. There are many different prizes ranging from £50 to the top prize of £1,000,000, of which there have been two per month since the summer of 2005 (and one per month prior to that).

The prize draw is conducted so that the winners of the 2 jackpots can be notified on the first working day of the month although the actual date of the draw varies for administrative reasons. The online prize finder is updated by the 3rd or 4th working day of the month.

Currently, the odds of winning a prize for each bond number held is 21,000 to 1. Reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond).

I'm assuming that's a mistake and they mean the odds of winning are 1 in 21,000 (or the odds against winning are 21,000 to 1). Anyway, ferj said it is "like" this, but isn't this, so I'd like to see some more specifics about what it is and some definitive statement of the odds.

And sorry to beat a dead horse, but why is this preferable to just taking whatever premonition comes? Do you have the ability to pick these things on command, or do these winning numbers come to you unbidden the way you originally said happened with the 150 predictions over 10 years?

If they come unbidden, can we still discuss other predictions and how we would determine a hit or miss in case you get other premonitions before you get a lottery one?

[Locknar]

<snip>
And sorry to beat a dead horse
</snip>

*wack wack wack* (the sound of beating a dead horse)

Sorry, I could not resist.

Attempted humor aside, all valid points/questions...though I really think that ferj has left the building (but do honestly hope he returns and posts some type of prediction when ready).

I don't know if he felt we were being unfair protocol wise (as he hinted at) or he misunderstood that this forum is NOT the same as the JREF $1 Millon Dollar Challange.

[magi]

*wack wack wack* (the sound of beating a dead horse)

Sorry, I could not resist.



Nor I... Sorry, I'm being childish...8271

The frustrating thing is, thre is no way to know what ferj is thinking, as he will not reply to simple questions, let alone more complex ones.

I'm of the opinion his predictive abilities are just so much 8272

[Professor Yaffle]

If it's based on a lottery drawing, exact order is required to win the big lottery prize. "Any order" pays much less. "Two like numbers" pays even less. I would be concerned about getting one number or letter right being promoted as a hit or partial hit.

In the main Lotto draw in the UK, order is unimportant. I think there are other games in which order is important, but since I have never entered any of them, I don't really know.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know if he felt we were being unfair protocol wise (as he hinted at) or he misunderstood that this forum is NOT the same as the JREF $1 Millon Dollar Challange.

And I think the main difference between talking with us and with JREF is that we have lots more free time and willingness to converse.

On the other hand, it is probably more difficult to "converse" with a bunch of us all at once than with one JREF rep. (Yes, while some of us were saying let's forget about past stories and get on with setting up a protocol, some were wanting to delve into those stories and find out why ferj even thinks he can predict future events.)

[Locknar]

And I think the main difference between talking with us and with JREF is that we have lots more free time and willingness to converse.

On the other hand, it is probably more difficult to "converse" with a bunch of us all at once than with one JREF rep. (Yes, while some of us were saying let's forget about past stories and get on with setting up a protocol, some were wanting to delve into those stories and find out why ferj even thinks he can predict future events.)

Both valid points. Though to clarify, in my case I asked about past predictions only to guage the type and detail (assuming I'd get a honest answer of course) vs the "why" question.

That is, was it along the SB lines of "there will be a major drug bust this year" (one of her 2007 predictions; how generic can you get???) or something far more specific such as "predicting" drawing numbers as he related (which was fairly specific).

His complaint about the proposed protocol, asking if this "test" would have qualified for the JREF Challange, etc. makes me think he was jumping the gun a bit, or really didn't understand what he was trying to do "challange" wise.

[JPK]

I would not be suprised to see that ferj has moved on. So many times it seems that people actually beleive they have these powers simply because they have never questioned them or have had failures pointed out by others.
This is probably the case here as well. ferj's first example on here was about predicting the capture of Saddam. When he was pointed to the facts concerning the actual capture, ferj ignored it and moved to a differant prediction about a lottery.
He probably thought he had some special gift and probably had people around him supporting that.
Just a guess on my part.
JPK

[Paulhoff]

It is funny that people like this come to a skeptic site and are surprised that they are not taken seriously and that proof is asked of them. If they had true paranormal powers, they wouldn’t come here.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ferj]

ok lets talk about making some rules for this practice/exercise call it what you will. I do realise that it has no connection to the Challenge at all.Perhaps when I introduced myself I should have stated that I was not a deluded mental case looney with the i.q. of a gerbil.

[JoeTheJuggler]

ok lets talk about making some rules for this practice/exercise call it what you will. I do realise that it has no connection to the Challenge at all.Perhaps when I introduced myself I should have stated that I was not a deluded mental case looney with the i.q. of a gerbil.

Excellent! Glad you're not gone!

So is the protocol described in post #104 flat out unacceptable, or something you'd be willing to discuss and maybe modify to your liking? (I numbered the points in that post to make it easier to refer to.)

If it's out, can you give more details about the drawing thing? What exactly is it, and what exactly are you proposing that you can do?

[ferj]

jpk
what I said about Base 2 was wrong ok? I count 13th Dec as a hit. You do not. We will just have to disagree on this one.

[ferj]

Some of the protocol is acceptable. I would like it to be a combination of the rules and doing my own thing man kind of thing. I,ll have a look now.

[JPK]

Glad to see you back ferj.
jpk
what I said about Base 2 was wrong ok? I count 13th Dec as a hit. You do not. We will just have to disagree on this one.
I'm simply pointing out the memories do not work like recorders. They are reconstructed when you recall an event and any new info that might have been learned since the original event can creep in and feel like it was always there.
It's the same with everyone. I suspect even gerbils. :)

I am glad you are back because the best way to look at our own belief systems is to drag them out into the light and have a good look at them.
JPK

[ferj]

I accept 1,2,5,6,8,and 9

[Macoy]

1,2,5,6,8,and 9

I shall enter these for Saturday's uk lotto!! I'm looking for some real weirdness here!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I accept 1,2,5,6,8,and 9


Here it is again for easier reference:


1. You will post to this forum at least 10 predictions in the next one year period.
2. The time/date stamp on the posts must reflect that the posting was before the event they're predicting has happened.
3. You must get at least 90% correct.

4. I am adding this: let's use an all-or-nothing manner of counting hits and misses. You don't get partial credit. Each prediction must be deemed either right or wrong.
5. Predictions must be specific and detailed such that they're not just educated guesses (earthquake in California sort of thing).
6. Results must be verifiable to us all and obvious to any reasonable person whether they have come true or not.
7. Open ended predictions have a time limit of 90 days.
8. You must get at least 90% right. So if you have an average year, it means you'll provide us with 10 predictions and 9 of them will be hits.
Edit: 9. [Forgot my latest pet peeve.] Any prediction that is hedged (so that it is impossible NOT to come true) will be counted as a miss.


If 3 and 4 are out, what do you propose?

For No. 3: If not the claim you made before of at least 90%, then what accuracy do you want to set to define success or failure?

For No. 4: A lot of this depends on what you say for No. 3, but I do have trouble if the prediction overall is wrong, but some minor point ends out being correct and you count that. (Presumably, you could add up several partials to get another whole "hit" that didn't actually happen.)

Here's an example of what I'm thinking of: in Sylvia Browne's reading of the Shawn Hornbeck case, she was completely wrong overall (that he was dead). She claims a hit with the abductor (well, what she called murderer) by getting the name "Michael" correct, even though everything about the person's description was wrong (especially identifying him as Shawn's murderer). If SB's reading were considered a prediction, you wouldn't count getting "Michael" as a partial hit, given that the rest was so miserably wrong, would you?

And the other one you don't accept is number 7. I see that only as a practical consideration. If you say that something will happen, and it doesn't, how long do we have to wait? Remember, your original claim said you'd make specific and detailed predictions. How about if instead of 7, as worded, that all your predictions must include a time frame, none of which can exceed some reasonable upper limit? (None of us will probably wait 10 years to see if something you predicted this year comes true or not. Yet, I don't want the prediction hanging there as an unknown to mess up our ability to calculate a success rate.)

I'm frankly surprised you accepted 9, since it includes a punitive measure for doing something that is insincere at the start. I suppose that's because you wouldn't do that anyway, so the punishment is moot. (I was willing to negotiate that one down to, any prediction that is hedged just gets tossed and is not counted as a prediction.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

D'oh! I just realized that I repeated number 3 within number 8.

So you do accept the 90%?

So the only issues you have are with partial credit, and time limits--izzat right?

[Complexity]

ferj - accept what you like, because this dry run that you requested has no meaning.

If you weaken the proposed protocol sufficiently, you may get to the point where you 'win', but your prize will be nothing.

You are throwing away an opportunity to test your ability to predict events.

I'm not sure why these good people bother.

[ferj]

I accept 3 and 4. A time limit of 1 year should be acceptable.

[ferj]

Complexity
?

[ferj]

goodnight

[Complexity]

goodbye

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sounds good, ferj. Is there anything else you can think of, given this protocol, that would interfere with you being able to what you claim?

Anyone else see any issues that need to be addressed? Can we start the clock on the one year?

I'd encourage you, ferj, to wait a few months into this before you continue your real JREF application. You may save some time and effort.

[JoeTheJuggler]

ferj - accept what you like, because this dry run that you requested has no meaning.
No, but it could save a lot time, and it's a thing I'd love to see.




If you weaken the proposed protocol sufficiently, you may get to the point where you 'win', but your prize will be nothing.

You are throwing away an opportunity to test your ability to predict events.
Where do you see a weakness? I would assume the biggest issue is with judging whether something is sufficiently specific and detailed (point number 5).

Since he's got to get 90% out of at least 10 predictions (meaning only one wrong if he comes in with 10 for the year), and he succeeds, even if one or two were genuinely debatable, he still will have done something really remarkable.

If two are more (of 10) are flat out wrong, then it really won't matter how debatable any of the others are.

[Locknar]

JoeTheJuggler - I think you've covered all the bases; Thunderbirds are GO!

All we need now is a prediction from ferj, when he is ready to do so that is.

[CLD]

Where do you see a weakness? I would assume the biggest issue is with judging whether something is sufficiently specific and detailed (point number 5).

Since he's got to get 90% out of at least 10 predictions (meaning only one wrong if he comes in with 10 for the year), and he succeeds, even if one or two were genuinely debatable, he still will have done something really remarkable.

If two are more (of 10) are flat out wrong, then it really won't matter how debatable any of the others are.

Good protocol. I wonder if this part isn't comprehensive enough, though:

4. Let's use an all-or-nothing manner of counting hits and misses. You don't get partial credit. Each prediction must be deemed either right or wrong.

"Right or wrong" can be argued subjectively, which is a common loophole many psychics use. If the predictions were restricted to two letters and 3 numbers IN ORDER, however, the loophole is closed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Right or wrong" can be argued subjectively, which is a common loophole many psychics use. If the predictions were restricted to two letters and 3 numbers IN ORDER, however, the loophole is closed.

I think you misunderstand. We're back to the protocol about predictions in general--not just the lottery pick. Point 4 is the no partial credit one. In other words, if the prediction is substantially wrong, getting some minor point right doesn't change the fact that it counts as wrong. (That way you don't get several partial credits from wrong predictions adding up to a right.)

At any rate, unless he comes in way more predictions than his average per year of 15, it's a moot point. More than one or two wrong will most likely mean failure anyway.

[ferj]

Hello I basically agree to the test but there are still things to sort out.
no 7 I,ve had a think and I have recalled 2 occasions when my predictions took 2 years or more to come about.

[magi]

8288

[ferj]

What if I mistakenly predict an event that has already happened. Will it be a point off or will it just be voided. I can think of a way that this could happen.

[magi]

What if I mistakenly predict an event that has already happened. Will it be a point off or will it just be voided. I can think of a way that this could happen.

Yeah, that's called "reading history"... not a prediction. IMHO, that would be a miss. You'd need to predict that which hasn't happened yet, put the prefix of the work "predict" into action.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Edit: re: longer term predictions:

In those cases, do you know when you make the prediction that it'll take a long time? Remember, the prediction has to be specific and detailed, so just saying, for instance, that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq, isn't a valid prediction. Saying they'll pull out by a certain date (that hasn't been announced yet), might be OK.

Predicting a major airline crash with at least 300 fatalities would be another example of something that is bound to happen eventually--we'd definitely need more specifics and details.

On the other hand, predicting now the name of the person who will be elected the next PM of UK, or who will win the Gold Medal in the 100 meter dash at the 2012 Olympics would be valid predictions, but not appropriate for this test since we couldn't determine if it's right or wrong within the one year time period.

If it's only been 2 out of the 150 that were long-term predictions, I propose we just toss out (not count it as an attempt) any like that which come up.

Remember, we're still only requiring 10 for the year. 148 over ten years still averages out to 15 per year if you round to the nearest whole number. So 10 is still well under that. (For myself, I don't mind if we drop the requirement of 10, as long as you realize what "at least 90%" means--for fewer than 10 attempts, it is really the same as 100%. In other words, you can get more wrong if you end up with a higher number of attempts.)

[Bri]

Why not just eliminate any predications that cannot be resolved within a year? In other words, picking a lottery number without specifying which lottery wouldn't be allowed, nor would picking a lottery number of a lottery that was more than a year away.

In other words, limit your predictions to the outcome of events that you know will happen within a year.

That would also eliminate the possibility of inadvertently predicting something that has already happened.

-Bri

[JoeTheJuggler]

What if I mistakenly predict an event that has already happened. Will it be a point off or will it just be voided. I can think of a way that this could happen.
I think we should throw it out as an attempt. It could be an honest mistake, or that you didn't post it soon enough for whatever reason. Still, it definitely won't count as a hit.

Unless this happens frequently, in which case, I'd think you're just trying to get away with cheating (by finding something that we can't prove had happened before the prediction post). In other words, I don't think the protocol should encourage you to try to cheat--or even leave open the possibility or appearance of cheating.

How about we toss them out unless they comprise more than 30% of the attempts (or some other cut-off point--like 3 prediction posts), at which point they'll start counting as misses?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, that's called "reading history"... not a prediction. IMHO, that would be a miss. You'd need to predict that which hasn't happened yet, put the prefix of the work "predict" into action.

That's exactly what I'd be suspicious of if the a lot of predictions came in like that--purported predictions of events that had already happened.

On the other hand, I could see something like that happening by honest mistake (or trouble getting the post up in time).

That's why I'd propose SOME leeway, but not to have zero consequence for unlimited attempts at getting away with one. (Again, that would encourage cheating--if the worst thing that can happen is we determine the event had already happened and it just doesn't count.)

Edit: by the way, that point was worded to avoid the issue entirely of whether or not you knew or could have known the event happened. If it had already happened, it's not a prediction, period.

[ferj]

The detail in the predictions must be discussed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The detail in the predictions must be discussed.
Specific and detailed enough so that the event isn't something that's a liklihood (again, "Earthquakes in California" or "hurricanes in Carribean" or "major flooding in a Third World Country" are all near certainties over a year's time).

It's tough to say more than that without knowing what sort of predictions you'll be making, so these are all just examples.

Again, predicting a 7.0 earthquake within 100 miles of San Francisco within some time period, and then a 6.0 earthquake happens is NOT a hit.

Predicting a major earthquake within 100 miles of San Francisco within 6 months is not detailed enough to verify.

Predicting an Earthquake greater than 5.0 on a specific date would be fine, I think.

Your example of arresting Saddam Hussein on a specific date would've been a good one--except that you added he would be arrested in a place called Base Two which turned out to be wrong. (If you posted those as two separate predictions, I'd give you one right and one wrong.)

[Complexity]

Well, ferj, the ball's in your court.

What do you propose regarding the level or amount of detail in the predictions?

The details that would be needed for an acceptable prediciton depends entirely on the nature of the prediction.

What kind of predictions are you limiting yourself to? Each 'kind' would need to have specificity requirements.

I think that whoever is adjudicating this trial needs to be able to not accept any of ferj's predictions that he/she regards as insufficiently specific or non-failable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

BTW, back to the events that have already happened: I'd include developing stories as already having happened. In other words, if the Cubs are beating the Cards 4-2 and there's two out, no one on in the bottom of the 9th, predicting a Cubs win with a 4-2 score would not be a valid prediction (because the event is already nearly 100% certain to happen, even though it technically hasn't happened yet).

[ferj]

I can think of a way that the mistake could be repeated and it,s different to magi,s. I would prefer voiding these mistakes.

[Spektator]

ferj, just tell of of a way you think the mistake could be repeated. Then we can deal with it, okay?

[Pythra]

The detail in the predictions must be discussed.

Just out of interest, how much detail do you normally receive in your predictions? It's obviously enough that you've decided your predictions are actually paranormal phenomena, and not just chance occurances. So why not post as much detail as you possibly can about each prediction? You couldn't possibly post too much detail.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like you want your 'practice run' to allow you to get a hit with the minimum amount of detail you can possibly get away with providing. There's nothing wrong with that because if it beats the odds, it beats the odds.. but it makes me wonder how confident you are in your own abilities.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My thinking is, that unless ferj tries a lot of non-prediction things (things that are nearly certain to happen), that this isn't going to be a matter that requires a lot of subjective judgment. If he did (predict events that are already "slam dunks"), it would be probably more embarrassing to him than simply failing.

The 90% standard should take care of anything that is genuinely debatable--where reasonable minds could disagree.

There just isn't a lot of room for error. If he got 8 of ten right and there's one that falls into that debatable category, I would still be thoroughly amazed at his ability to predict the future! (I'd be amazed if he got 5 of 10 real and indisputable predictions right!)

[ferj]

What about an accumulation of evidence?
For instance, what if I could predict the bonus ball in the British or other lottery. One would be luck but above that could count as 1 correct prediction.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can think of a way that the mistake could be repeated and it,s different to magi,s. I would prefer voiding these mistakes.

What do you think of my idea to toss out the first 3 (or 30% of the total year's predictions, whichever is the larger number), and then after that point counting them as wrong (again, so that we don't encourage cheating attempts)?

Otherwise, what would you suggest? I don't think we can allow no punishment for unlimited predictions that turn out to be past events. If you had nothing to lose by trying it, we could waste the entire year on that sort of thing, and it would be no conclusive test of paranormal abilities.

Speaking of the timing, are most of your predictions exceptionally short-term (like predicting events that will happen within 24 hours)? If not, I don't mind letting the specific and detailed go as to the "reasonable mind" test. We should have time to discuss and evaluate the predictions as they're made before the predicted event occurs.

Obviously, this isn't the way JREF would handle it, but for a practice run with the standard at 90%, I'm totally OK with it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about an accumulation of evidence?
For instance, what if I could predict the bonus ball in the British or other lottery. One would be luck but above that could count as 1 correct prediction.
Sorry--I don't understand.

If you say "Next week's winning bonus ball will be number 32", I would accept that as a prediction. If it turns out to be 32, you score a hit. If it is any other number, you score a miss.

If you say "One of the winning bonus balls drawn within the next year will be number 32", I'd have to know how likely an event that is. (If there are only 32 numbers possible, and there are 200 drawings in the next year--then the event is very nearly certain, so that would be an invalid prediction. If you've only increased your odds to something like 12 out of 100, I'd be OK with that.)

I must say though, that I'd be more impressed with actual predictions of events that aren't known to happen with a finite set of outcomes. (In other words, we know there will be drawings on certain dates already.) Like the prediction of a celebrity death by auto accident, or a prediction of specific political events (Pakistan launches a nuke against Afghanistan). Obviously, the longer the odds against the event, the more impressive is the prediction. The closer you get to events that are likely, the less you are able to prove anything paranormal.

I remember once, a guy made a prediction of an airline accident. IIRC, he had the number fatalities to within something like 1 percent, he had the location within a few hundred miles, and even said he could see red paint in the airline logo on the tail of the plane. Turned out he made no paranormal claim. Instead, he used actuarial data to make his prediction. The number of dead corresponded to the typical number of passengers in an airline (they're usually full on long flights) and the fact that airline crashes invariably result in 100% fatalities. The red paint in the logo was just that he realized that at the time pretty much all major airlines had some red in their logos, and they all painted their logos on the tail of the plane.

[Locknar]

My two comments....

- I think Complexity is right; there should be a someone "overseeing" this...I'd say JoeTheJuggler, as he has carried the torch here not to mention done a great job keeping it all straight and on track

- Level of detail; at this rate, you (ferj) are never going to get started as Complexity noted...the level of detail would vary by prediction type.

If your prediction is a bonus ball in a lottery (as you ferj suggest), that is the prediction...thought I'd submit that depending on the level of complexity/odds may be insufficiently difficult.

As you (frej) have a say in the protocol....how about you say what is the min. odds that are acceptable? 1:6 (roll of the dice), 1:52 (deck of cards), etc.

I say just get started, JTJ can "oversee" and ask for additional detail before a prediction will be accepted. Or, of course, we can debate, discuss, and otherwise stall as many JREF applicants do.

Not to be harsh...but someone that boldly claims to have a +90% sucess rate, seems to be taking a long time getting that first prediction.

[ferj]

ferj, just tell of of a way you think the mistake could be repeated. Then we can deal with it, okay?

What if I predicted what would be in my local evening newspaper. It is sold at about 2 in the afternoon. A lot of the "news" happened the previous day and some the same day. So if I got the prediction the previous day,it could already have happened and I would not know that. It would then be "proved" that I had cheated from another media source. So void it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

- I think Complexity is right; there should be a someone "overseeing" this...I'd say JoeTheJuggler, as he has carried the torch here not to mention done a great job keeping it all straight and on track

Thanks. Myself, I don't think it's necessary. Still, I'm very nearly a professional beachcomber, so I'm probably on the forum as much as anyone. Though I'd hate for something to be depending on me being there if I happen to be busy or something. For the most part, as I said, if the predictions aren't embarrassingly trivial (events that are nearly certain to happen), I think we're OK to go.

AThe 90% takes care of a lot of the need for worry.


As you (frej) have a say in the protocol....how about you say what is the min. odds that are acceptable? 1:6 (roll of the dice), 1:52 (deck of cards), etc.

That's a good idea. You mean the odds of any event in a single prediction, right?

Obviously for the kind I'd like to see (predicting real world events, like the assassination of a named person, rather than the unknown outcome of known events as with dice rolls and lotteries), the odds are incalculable and certainly high enough to satisfy everyone.

For other events, I'd be content with as low as 1:6. That means he could, for instance, predict at least 10 dice rolls (except they'd have to be "dice rolls" that are reported in the news or otherwise verifiable to all of us) and get 90% of the right. (I don't know the statistics, but I'm guessing it results in an overall result beyond 1:1000.)

If he could do that, I would be suitably impressed and feel he should definitely go forward with his JREF MDC application.


I say just get started, JTJ can "oversee" and ask for additional detail before a prediction will be accepted. Or, of course, we can debate, discuss, and otherwise stall as many JREF applicants do.

I agree with the just get started. I think the debate and discuss will go on anyway--it'd be nice to make it about actual predictions.

[ferj]

ok 1 right bonus ball equals 1 correct prediction.

[ungoliant]

I hope the prediction is something more specific than "Something is going to happen to someone somewhere sometime".

now that's a prediction i can get behind!

[ferj]

ok 30% "mistakes" agreed.

[Locknar]

That's a good idea. You mean the odds of any event in a single prediction, right?


Yes...exactly. Though (as posts are passing on the forum), he's agreed to 30% mistakes, no idea where that came from.

He has also agreed to 1 bonus ball = 1 prediction, but has not said what the odds in this event might be.

[ferj]

Also newspapers can change the detail in a story from 1 day to the next. I could be proved right in one newspaper, wrong in another.

[ferj]

British lottery 49 balls-48-1?

[Complexity]

What if I predicted what would be in my local evening newspaper. It is sold at about 2 in the afternoon. A lot of the "news" happened the previous day and some the same day. So if I got the prediction the previous day,it could already have happened and I would not know that. It would then be "proved" that I had cheated from another media source. So void it.


Not acceptable. You could have found out about the event apart from the publication in the local paper, you could have influenced the event, or influenced the local paper to cover the event.

This kind of prediction would be worthless. Don't even think of offering it as one of your quota.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes...exactly. Though (as posts are passing on the forum), he's agreed to 30% mistakes, no idea where that came from.


That refers to the stuff about accidentally posting a prediction for an event that has already happened. We'll allow 3 of 10 (or 30% of total) to be just tossed out, but more than that, we start counting them as misses.

[Complexity]

What are the possible values for a 'bonus ball'?

You would have to publicly specify exactly which lottery the prediction is being made for, the lottery must be reputable, the lottery drawing and results must be publicly observable in real time, and the prediction must be recorded sufficiently in advance of the lottery drawing.

[Complexity]

That refers to the stuff about accidentally posting a prediction for an event that has already happened. We'll allow 3 of 10 (or 30% of total) to be just tossed out, but more than that, we start counting them as misses.


Actual misses should not be discardable, however.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also newspapers can change the detail in a story from 1 day to the next. I could be proved right in one newspaper, wrong in another.
We go by our ultimate verification of what event actually happened.

In other words, if early reports say 11 miners were found alive and one dead, and you predicted that, but it turns out that the early reports were wrong, and in fact 11 died and only 1 survived, your prediction would be wrong.

If, in the end, there's no way to verify whether it's right or wrong--as in conflicting accounts of the death toll of Iraqi civilians-- then the attempt doesn't count. ("Verifiable" was one of the stated criteria.) Similarly, if you predict that there is unicellular life in the subsurface oceans of Europa (or elsewhere in the universe for that matter), that's most likely not verifiable. If you predict life in the subsurface oceans of Europa will be discovered in the next year, that is certainly verifiable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actual misses should not be discardable, however.

Good point--even if they were made after the event predicted has occurred, a miss is a miss. (Nor would it count, though, against the 30% accidentally posted too early.) Obviously, the point of this rule is to discourage cheating. If he's wrong, he clearly didn't cheat, so it counts.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What are the possible values for a 'bonus ball'?

You would have to publicly specify exactly which lottery the prediction is being made for, the lottery must be reputable, the lottery drawing and results must be publicly observable in real time, and the prediction must be recorded sufficiently in advance of the lottery drawing.
I think he said it was the National Lottery in UK or something like that, right?

If it's a prediction for a single drawing of a single ball, I'd accept it. Surely the probably can't be better than the 1:6 we talked about before. Probably a lot steeper (like 1:30 or however high the numbers go). Again, if he accomplished that feat 9 times out of 10 attempts, I'd be in awe.

This is just getting good, but I have to go meet a lady friend! ;)

[ferj]

How about 3 with impresive detail counts as the experiment is over and successful.

[Locknar]

Also newspapers can change the detail in a story from 1 day to the next. I could be proved right in one newspaper, wrong in another.

Well...you are predicting what will happen vs what actually happens; "change in detail" as you note should not have any bearing.

[ferj]

I may have more questions but hope most if not all of the protocol is agreed by tomorrow. Goodnight

[Locknar]

How about 3 with impresive detail counts as the experiment is over and successful.

I suppose that would be up JTJ; off hand I'd say sure...if you want to make the prediction count 3, then you'd have to get all 3 right. One miss, you'd be WELL below the +90% accuracy rate you claim.

[jsfisher]

How about 3 with impresive detail counts as the experiment is over and successful.


Keep in mind, ferj, this is a practice run for your benefit. You should first decide what your claimed ability is, then work to construct a protocol that will demonstrate that ability.

You now seem to be working from the other direction. Ten predictions with at most one failure, but if the first three are spot on.... I don't know what the underlying claim is in this case.

One more thing, ferj, this is not just all about how you convince us of your abilities. It is possible you don't really have the capabilities you think you have. I am not saying you do or don't, just that either is possible. Thus, I have these questions: What evidence would convince you don't have any paranormal gifts? How can we incorporate that into the protocol, as well.

At the end of the practice run, it would be best if we all were convinced of the result. Grey is not my favorite color.

[UltraTexan]

Don't you guys know that sometimes accurate predictions can take up to after the event has happened? :D

[ChristineR]

The reason I talked so much about lotto and bingo balls is that they are unambiguous. You name the drawing, you name the date, and your choices are 1-49. There's no need for interpretation.

Not that being able to make predictions that are less specific than lotto balls is to be despised, it's just that it's very easy to fool yourself. People make predictions about the everything from the stock market to the war in Iraq every day, and I dare say more than half of them are correct. In fact, given the vagueness of some of the predictions made by the likes of Sylvia Browne, I'm surprised her record is so poor.

Somewhere there is a group of skeptics that does a yearly predictions meeting and they get something like 80% success. I can't find them just now though.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I may have more questions but hope most if not all of the protocol is agreed by tomorrow. Goodnight

Great.

As for your 3 predictions idea--I go along with what jsfisher said. The purpose of this is to yield an unambiguous result based on the claim you made.

[Czarcasm]

I may have more questions but hope most if not all of the protocol is agreed by tomorrow. Goodnight
E.
Frigging.
Nough.

I am tired of the waffling.
I am tired of the odds playing by you.
I am tired of your tired attempts at rigging the odds in your favor as if this was some sort of game you could finesse.
I am tired of your stories, because that is all they are without proper verification, of past "successes".
I am tired of your attempting to get "points" for getting some numbers right in a lottery.
Most of all, I am tired of your say "Goodnight" just when something is about to get established, as if we were children that needed to be put to bed.

Just make a prediction that would beat the odds. ANY prediction. At all.
Let me show you how it's done. o.k.?

I predict that, unless people put their foot down and walk away from this(like I am right now), and quit giving this person the egoboo that is obviously being sought, it will go 20 pages without anything being resolved.

[magi]

I must agree with Czarcasm. Ferj is weasling, he's been weasling,he will continue to weasle. Rather than make a prediction, every post has been about negotiating his test-run "protocol", opening it up, making a common guess about tomorrow's paper a "hit". JoeTheJuggler, you are the epitomy of patience.

Ferj, quit messin' around, wasting Joe's time and efforts. Cough up ONE (1) good solid prediction, with a specific event on a specific date. In the future. Up to a year away. Do it.

[Complexity]

Frankly, I don't see any reason to continue this charade.

Let him interact with JREF and apply if he wishes.

He's done nothing to warrant the patience, time, and good will that has already been given to him.

[Bri]

ferj, why not just give us one prediction that can be unambiguously confirmed in a reasonable amount of time? If you're 80% accurate, as you claim, then we should see a positive result and we would all be impressed.

Then discuss a more vigorous test with multiple predictions. I suggest that both parties agree on the list of predictions beforehand and throw out any that cannot be definitively confirmed in a reasonable amount of time. At that time, it can be discussed exactly what constitutes a "hit" for particular predictions in order to ensure that the outcome of each prediction will be obvious and the results will be obtained within a reasonable amount of time.

-Bri

[Spektator]

Predicting a newspaper headline in advance is a standard mentalist's trick, with nothing odd about it--just a trick. Here are some variants:

http://www.online-visions.com/reviews/0512glassbox.html
http://www.carlyletouch.com/PageTwo.html
http://www.collectorsworkshop.com/?key=93&html=full

I would say that headline prediction is far too "iffy" to be acceptable as a test.

[ferj]

Czarcasm
Yes, goodbye then.

[ferj]

magi + complexity
You are now competing for the much saught after title of Chief Troublemaker.

[Locknar]

magi + complexity
You are now competing for the much saught after title of Chief Troublemaker.

So when can we expect some meangful input from you; predictions, protocol, etc.? You have a lot of folks that are eager....

[ferj]

sought
I have to go now honestly.

[Complexity]

I'm contemptuous.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Predicting a newspaper headline in advance is a standard mentalist's trick, with nothing odd about it--just a trick. Here are some variants:

http://www.online-visions.com/reviews/0512glassbox.html
http://www.carlyletouch.com/PageTwo.html
http://www.collectorsworkshop.com/?key=93&html=full

I would say that headline prediction is far too "iffy" to be acceptable as a test.

I was thinking along those lines myself.

Besides, the claim was to predict events, not headlines.

Also, if you treat the printing of a headline as an event, then the prediction has to be way before the event. Most papers have their headline layout ready a good 24 hours before that publication day.

Also, as mentioned, we don't know that you don't have connections with the newspaper or the ability to influence by normal means what stories might appear or be in a local paper. I'm not sure we'd have anyone who lives near enough even to verify the headlines.

On top of that, for a lot of days, you can pretty well guess what the topic of headlines will be anyway.

For example, I haven't seen any news since waking up today, but I'll bet anything that for most major news outlets in the U.S. the lead story will still be about Senator Craig. I'd bet it's so on CNN, yahoo news, msnbc news, etc.

That's also why I ruled out predictions about a "developing story". The Craig business has been in the news for a few days already, so making a common sense prediction (I'm guessing he'll resign or be forced to resign his seat in the Senate) is certainly no proof of paranormal powers. Remember, that's the point to this.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have to go now honestly.
Can we assume therefore that other similar announcements were made dishonestly?

[magi]

magi + complexity
You are now competing for the much saught after title of Chief Troublemaker.

Oh dearie dearie me... Are you upset? Do you feel you can *that close* to pulling a stage trick on a bunch of evil skeptics? And the naughty "troublemakers" queered the deal for you?

Pal, if you think there was only two here openly skeptical, you cannot count. **everybody** was skeptical. Your waffle/weasel act just nailed it down.

I'm going to defer the title of "Chief Troublemaker" to Complexity, due to seniority and pithiness of comments. I will apply for the title of "General Pain in the Arse", however.

[Locknar]

Headline predictions; I'd almost be willing to say yes...if he can/could correctly predict a headline (that can be verified), as in word for word....say 3 days in advance?

If he means to simply correctly predict the subject - naw, that is no challange at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Headline predictions; I'd almost be willing to say yes...if he can/could correctly predict a headline (that can be verified), as in word for word....say 3 days in advance?

If he means to simply correctly predict the subject - naw, that is no challange at all.

I'd go along with that if 1) we can determine that he has no connections to the paper or ability to influence headline-writing through ordinary means, and 2) he specifies the page number and location of the headline.

Frankly, I don't think we can achieve number 1, so I'd scrap the idea.

Now if he can predict a word-for-word headline including what page it appears on, at least 3 days in advance for the New York Times, I'd be more willing to treat that as an "event".

[Complexity]

I'm going to defer the title of "Chief Troublemaker" to Complexity, due to seniority and pithiness of comments. I will apply for the title of "General Pain in the Arse", however.


I'd like to thank the Academy...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ferj, after pondering what it would take to prove your claim of paranormal abilities, have you yet reconsidered your claim that you actually made some 150 real predictions over the years with 90-95% accuracy?

As many of us pointed out at the beginning, it's very easy to over-estimate something like this. The confirmation bias: you remember the hits and forget the misses (because you're not really keeping count of them). Issues with memory: maybe something that was a near-hit (but actually a miss), might get revised upon repeating the story.

About memory: I'm one of 10 children--now in my middle ages. I've had this experience quite regularly: in remembering a fairly important event from my childhood, reminiscing with one of my siblings, we'll discover that we have vivid memories (where we each are able to see in the mind's eye, as they say, images of the event) that are completely contradictory, where there's no way possible that both could be right. We've both fixed those memories by now, and to both of us, our own seems as real as anything can possibly seem. In fact, one of us has to be mistaken. I admit that in some of these cases, my memory is the one that's faulty (even though it seems real and vivid, and I swear I can picture what I say I can). In others, no doubt, it's my sibling's.

Memory is like that. There's even scientific proof that memories are plastic, easily influenced by retelling, and so on.