Ali Seifoori

Orangutan · 5th November 2004, 10:18 AM

Re This Thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30405

I wonder if he denies a trained attack dog will bite him?

Pesonally I would be willing to donate to a fund to put him in a padded canvas suit and have a police handler sic a police attack dog on him.

We could donate the money raised to the charity of choice of the police force helping with the test.

All I ask in return for my donation is that the whole event is captured on video and posted on this site so I can laugh my socks off.

Simon.

PS lots of

s attaced to this posting.

Kimpatsu · 7th November 2004, 11:08 PM

I'm sure the local police force wherever Ali Bongo lives in the UK wouldn't mind helping out, for charity. And I, too, would pay good money for a video of this.

KRAMER · 10th November 2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Orangutan
I wonder if he denies a trained attack dog will bite him?

His claim letter specifically states NO DOG.

I'd really love to see this claim tested.

Brian · 10th November 2004, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
His claim letter specifically states NO DOG.

I'd really love to see this claim tested.

Well, it could be. As was mentioned in the first post. If he doesn't go into hiding maybe run it past him. He'll have to pay for all expenses of course. I believe a police dog can be called off as quick as it can be set on a person, shouldn't be too dangerous with the right gear..

misawafan · 11th November 2004, 09:17 AM

Do we know for sure that it wasn't this guy?

http://www.local6.com/news/3887764/detail.html

KRAMER · 11th November 2004, 10:22 AM

No, the applicant was Iranian, and emailing from London.

misawafan · 11th November 2004, 11:39 AM

I wonder if the notion of involving lions with lunatic schemes is part of a new growing trend? If so I'm all for it and look forward to some very entertaining news reports...

DrMatt · 2nd December 2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
His claim letter specifically states NO DOG.

I'd really love to see this claim tested.

Help! I'm being attacked by NO DOG!

KRAMER · 8th December 2004, 10:32 AM

Well, this applicant has just won the prize for the most foul-mouthed tirade ever offered in response to JREF's position regarding his claim.

I cannot post it (due to its profane content), but I can tell you that he told me where to go, along with specifics on what would be done to me there once I arrived.

He then told me to take "Randy Boy" with me.

We blocked his email address.

KRAMER · 14th December 2004, 12:24 PM

Well, I blocked his email, but Randi did not...

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Seifoori [mailto:*****************]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:24 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: Challenge

Dear Mr. Randi,

As you know some people do anything to get rich: unfortunately I've overstepped my limit and in the process disgraced only myself.

I now apologise once more, and make a quick exit.

Yours faithfully

Ali

Ali · 13th August 2006, 04:28 PM

Hi,
I'm Ali; my claim is true. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate my powers for the time being.

eri · 13th August 2006, 04:51 PM

Hi Ali! Welcome to the forums!

As you probably know, the JREF FAQ states that the JREF will not accept a protocal that could involve the applicant being injured. Since your original claim seems as though it could involve personal injury if things don't go as planned, how might you get around that? Do you have a similar power that could be tested safely?

Also, how do you know that no dog (or lion) will bite you? I've never been biten either, but that's probably because I don't spend much time around lions or unfriendly dogs.

GzuzKryzt · 13th August 2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ali

Hi,
I'm Ali; my claim is true. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate my powers for the time being.

How do you propose to demonstrate your "powers"?
What will constitute a success?
What will constitute a failure?
Can you provide proof that someone has witnessed your "powers"?

Thomas · 14th August 2006, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ali

Hi,
I'm Ali; my claim is true. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate my powers for the time being.

If you can't take the challenge because the million dollar prize will overstep your limits for cashing in on your powers (as you claimed in the letter to Randi). Then I hereby invite you to do it for free, or otherwise you could take the prize and donate it all to a charity of your own choice.

As per this thread I'm not really sure what your claim is (the OP link isn't working), but we should be able to test your claim with a protection suit and a trained attack dog if you claim that such a dog won't bite you. Is that your claim?

ETA: Ok, I found your claim. "No DOG, whatever its size, no matter how wild or how hungry, will bite me". This should be easy to test with a trained attack dog and a protection suit, you don't need to worry about the prize. Would you agree to such a test?

Ali · 14th August 2006, 04:53 PM

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

Skeptic Guy · 14th August 2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ali

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

Ali, the "I don't think the prize is real" claim is usually the first excuse used to sidestep being tested. However, since it seems that there is a real potential for your own personal harm, I think it best that you just walk away.

Thomas · 15th August 2006, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Ali

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

The prize is there, but it's very usual for frauds to claim that it isn't so they have an excuse for not being tested.

I ask again, would you agree to a test where we sic a trained dog on you while you're in a protection suit?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

Ali, the "I don't think the prize is real" claim is usually the first excuse used to sidestep being tested. However, since it seems that there is a real potential for your own personal harm, I think it best that you just walk away.

I fail to see how he would get harmed if he's in a protection suit and we use a trained dog.

rjh01 · 15th August 2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ali

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

On what basis do you make that claim? Wishful thinking maybe

?

Ginarley · 15th August 2006, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas

I fail to see how he would get harmed if he's in a protection suit and we use a trained dog.

Except that you could argue the dog bit the suit and not him (and given police dogs are trained on those suits its a fair call.) The only fair trial would be to expose him to real harm and that of course is outside the rules.

Thomas · 15th August 2006, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Ginarley

Except that you could argue the dog bit the suit and not him (and given police dogs are trained on those suits its a fair call.) The only fair trial would be to expose him to real harm and that of course is outside the rules.

And if he had a sweater on, you could argue that the dog attacked the sweater, and if we strip him naked you could say the dog didn't like his skin color, and blah blah blah.

His claim is that no dog will attack him, that's it, and I think it's fair to test that claim by siccing a dog on him provided he is well protected. His sweater, pants, skin color or what else he might would wear, is not part of his claim, and perhaps you should let him change his claim himself, if he wants to.

Foolmewunz · 15th August 2006, 03:19 AM

Dogs Schmogs! Let's get back to the idea of LIONS. I'm with Misawafan - this could brighten up an otherwise very repetitive news hour!

GzuzKryzt · 15th August 2006, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Ali

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

Which makes perfect sense because you:

1. Want something which you don't think is for real
2. Don't think the Prize is for real and start posting in the Challenge Section.

Say, Ali, when can we expect your first rant?

Or, for that matter, a demonstration of your "abilities" on e.g. a local TV station? JREF, Schmayref. "Demonstration: any setting of your choice." Your move.

Ginarley · 15th August 2006, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas

And if he had a sweater on, you could argue that the dog attacked the sweater, and if we strip him naked you could say the dog didn't like his skin color, and blah blah blah.

His claim is that no dog will attack him, that's it, and I think it's fair to test that claim by siccing a dog on him provided he is well protected. His sweater, pants, skin color or what else he might would wear, is not part of his claim, and perhaps you should let him change his claim himself, if he wants to.

Firstly I was going by the original post in this thread which specifically said "bite". Attack is a whole different story.

Secondly, police dogs are specifically trained by making them first bite into those suits and rewarding them, and then gradually translating that to people. It is not the same as a sweater or skin colour at all and you could not be at all satisfied that the test was adequately failed if they bit the protective suits that the police use. Proper controls apply to ensuring the test is fair to both parties, not just to ensuring people don't cheat.

GzuzKryzt · 15th August 2006, 05:08 AM

How could "the purposes of the challenge in fact be accomplished" in this situation, Ginarley?

Sounds familiar?

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

Well?

Thomas · 15th August 2006, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ginarley

Firstly I was going by the original post in this thread which specifically said "bite". Attack is a whole different story.

Is it really? What would you suppose the attacking police dog would do instead of biting? Tornado kicks? Head locks? Try to think about what police dogs actually do when sicced on a person.

Quote:

Secondly, police dogs are specifically trained by making them first bite into those suits and rewarding them, and then gradually translating that to people. It is not the same as a sweater or skin colour at all and you could not be at all satisfied that the test was adequately failed if they bit the protective suits that the police use.

Proper controls apply to ensuring the test is fair to both parties, not just to ensuring people don't cheat.

A proper protection suit will merely make him look like a fat guy. So by your logic, a police dog is trained to attack fat guys. But in reality a police dog attacks the person despite how they look. And this is evident by the fact that they attack people with or without a suit by the very same sic command, the very same places.

Your concern that the dog would attack the suit and not Ali, isn't justified when you consider how these suits look, and what these dogs actually are trained to do. But I must congratulate you on trying to provide Ali with a possible (but not justified) "out" before he even got to answer himself.

Ali · 15th August 2006, 10:13 AM

Hi guys,
I havn't tried disarming a dog by wearing any protective clothing.
If the dog decides to bite it will squeal away, or go quiet, or.... :
different dogs seem to behave differently when faced with retreat as their only choice.

GzuzKryzt · 15th August 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ali

Hi guys,
I havn't tried disarming a dog by wearing any protective clothing.
If the dog decides to bite it will squeal away, or go quiet, or.... :
different dogs seem to behave differently when faced with retreat as their only choice.

How do you propose to demonstrate your "powers" (to anyone but JREF, since you are "not taking it seriously any more"?
What will constitute a success?
What will constitute a failure?
Can you provide proof that someone has witnessed your "powers", i.e. have you successfully done this before?
What exactly "are" you doing anyway?

vIQleS · 15th August 2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ali

If the dog decides to bite it will squeal away, or go quiet, or.... :
different dogs seem to behave differently when faced with retreat as their only choice.

This is the most telling statement so far - "...if the dog decides to bite..."

Ask yourself - how do you know that a dog "decided to bite" you.

You have no way of knowing if a dog would have bitten you, unless you can read its mind or know the future. (both of which should also be testable under the $1m challenge)

A dog doesn't always approach you with the intent to attack or even bite. It may be barking in the hopes that you will run away, or it might be growling with 'cautious optimism' just in case you might be a source of treats or pats...

Doing the test with a dog that's been trained to attack on cue solves this problem, that's what you need to do before you apply again.

rjh01 · 16th August 2006, 04:44 AM

How to stop a dog from attacking you.
1. Stare at it
2. Approach it
3. Make LOTS of noise.

This proves to the dog that you are a bigger and stronger than you are and will run away. I must admit I have only tried this once and it worked.

You should only run away from a dog if you think you can get away. If you run and it catches you it will do the maximum damage to you.

Ginarley · 16th August 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Thomas

Is it really? What would you suppose the attacking police dog would do instead of biting? Tornado kicks? Head locks? Try to think about what police dogs actually do when sicced on a person.

A proper protection suit will merely make him look like a fat guy. So by your logic, a police dog is trained to attack fat guys. But in reality a police dog attacks the person despite how they look. And this is evident by the fact that they attack people with or without a suit by the very same sic command, the very same places.

Your concern that the dog would attack the suit and not Ali, isn't justified when you consider how these suits look, and what these dogs actually are trained to do. But I must congratulate you on trying to provide Ali with a possible (but not justified) "out" before he even got to answer himself.

All I am doing is applying the same rigour to determining that there is no false negative as to whether there is no false positive. It is a very procedure that ignores bias if it is in your favour.

Police dogs are trained by them attacking suits like that without any person in them and then rewarded. Then they are trained to attack people in those suits, and finally to attack unsuited people in a similar way. However it remains that the dogs are trained to attack the suits so you could not be certain enough that the dog attacked the person and not the suit to be able to be sure the test was failed.

Finally consider this:

The suit actually prevents the dog from biting the person in it right? It is pretty easy to pass a test where you say the dog can't bite you if it actually can't thanks to a suit! It can still attack the person wearing the suit though.

GzuzKryzt · 16th August 2006, 06:01 PM

We need a detailed description of his "claim" from Mr. Seifoori first. Then we may have a legit reason to start to bitchslap one another.

I would like to know how you, Mr. Seifoori, realized what you claimed here: How no dog - or even lion - will bite you. Why would that be? Will you shoot 'em first? Or run away? Extreme BO? Energy beam? Aura? All of the above?
We're listening.

Skeptic Guy · 16th August 2006, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

We need a detailed description of his "claim" from Mr. Seifoori first. Then we may have a legit reason to start to bitchslap one another.

I would like to know how you, Mr. Seifoori, realized what you claimed here: How no dog - or even lion - will bite you. Why would that be? Will you shoot 'em first? Or run away? Extreme BO? Energy beam? Aura? All of the above?
We're listening.

I am all for that. I suppose if he were to agree to wear the protective suit and that he did not think wearing said protective suit would interfere with his "powers", it would be good enough for me, but I am not sure Mr. Randi would go for it.

But as you said, let Mr Seifoori make the claim...

Thomas · 17th August 2006, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ginarley

All I am doing is applying the same rigour to determining that there is no false negative as to whether there is no false positive. It is a very procedure that ignores bias if it is in your favour.

Police dogs are trained by them attacking suits like that without any person in them and then rewarded. Then they are trained to attack people in those suits, and finally to attack unsuited people in a similar way. However it remains that the dogs are trained to attack the suits so you could not be certain enough that the dog attacked the person and not the suit to be able to be sure the test was failed.

Finally consider this:

The suit actually prevents the dog from biting the person in it right? It is pretty easy to pass a test where you say the dog can't bite you if it actually can't thanks to a suit! It can still attack the person wearing the suit though.

Yes, by biting. But that doesn't matter, because all we have to do to eliminate your (assumption based) concern, is to ask him if no dog will bite him or the protective suit he's wearing. No big deal.

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

I would like to know how you, Mr. Seifoori, realized what you claimed here: How no dog - or even lion - will bite you. Why would that be? Will you shoot 'em first? Or run away? Extreme BO? Energy beam? Aura? All of the above?
We're listening.

If he specified that, then we could perhaps demolish the claim right here of course (and that's why I doubt he will do it), but for now, I think it's fair enough to consider if the claim even is testable within ethical limits.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

I am all for that. I suppose if he were to agree to wear the protective suit and that he did not think wearing said protective suit would interfere with his "powers", it would be good enough for me, but I am not sure Mr. Randi would go for it.

JREF has closed his file after he threatened Randi and Kramer, so I don't think he can be tested by JREF at all. But, if he agrees that no dog will bite him or the protective suit he's wearing, then I guess there's a slim chance that the British police could test him on a normal dog training day - with British skeptics as observers. And then we could take it from there if he passed.

GzuzKryzt · 17th August 2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas

...
JREF has closed his file after he threatened Randi and Kramer, so I don't think he can be tested by JREF at all. But, if he agrees that no dog will bite him or the protective suit he's wearing, then I guess there's a slim chance that the British police could test him on a normal dog training day - with British skeptics as observers. And then we could take it from there if he passed.

Exactly.

Given a proper "unofficial" test execution by British skeptics and a significant better-than-chance result, I consider it very likely the JREF will let him apply again.

Sour grapes won't stand in the way of Mr. Seifoori's chance at the Million, for shizzle.

Mr. Seifoori, we're looking forward to your claim description and protocol suggestions.

fuelair · 18th August 2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ali

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

Good.

Riddance.

Ali · 18th August 2006, 02:05 PM

Hi,
I've already said in my claim regarding my powers, and how it can be tested (any setting will do).
As to the origins of my powers: they are gifts from God.
If you don't believe in God: that's your problem, I'm not going to waste my time talking, whether you're a believer or not.

GzuzKryzt · 18th August 2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ali

Hi,
I've already said in my claim regarding my powers, and how it can be tested (any setting will do).
As to the origins of my powers: they are gifts from God.
If you don't believe in God: that's your problem, I'm not going to waste my time talking, whether you're a believer or not.

Ali, your attitude will most likely not promote your "powers" to be recognized by an enquiring audience. Your call.

Have you already successfully achieved what you claim to be able to do? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30405

And, again, what exactly do you do?

And why do you post in this forum?

Ririon · 18th August 2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ali

Hi,
I've already said in my claim regarding my powers, and how it can be tested (any setting will do).
As to the origins of my powers: they are gifts from God.
If you don't believe in God: that's your problem, I'm not going to waste my time talking, whether you're a believer or not.

I don't believe you have those powers. A simple demonstration will change my mind. The God thing is a whole other issue. Let's not get tangled up in that.

Ali · 26th August 2006, 07:43 PM

Even though they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him: instead their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

It's by obedience and right thinking, (and therefore right attitude), that I have been given my supernatural powers.

TheBoyPaj · 27th August 2006, 12:58 AM

Ali, you're a disgrace.

5th November 2004, 10:18 AM	#1
Orangutan Graduate Poster Tagger Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Florida. Posts: 1,175	Ali Seifoori Re This Thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30405 I wonder if he denies a trained attack dog will bite him? Pesonally I would be willing to donate to a fund to put him in a padded canvas suit and have a police handler sic a police attack dog on him. We could donate the money raised to the charity of choice of the police force helping with the test. All I ask in return for my donation is that the whole event is captured on video and posted on this site so I can laugh my socks off. Simon. PS lots of s attaced to this posting.
	Last edited by Darat; 28th August 2006 at 02:32 AM. Reason: Link corrected

7th November 2004, 11:08 PM	#2
Kimpatsu Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tokyo Posts: 3,145	I'm sure the local police force wherever Ali Bongo lives in the UK wouldn't mind helping out, for charity. And I, too, would pay good money for a video of this.
	__________________ Tony Kehoe "Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "--Richard Dawkins

10th November 2004, 02:37 PM	#3
KRAMER Former challenge facilitator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,443	Re: Ali Seifoori Quote: Originally posted by Orangutan I wonder if he denies a trained attack dog will bite him? His claim letter specifically states NO DOG. I'd really love to see this claim tested.
	__________________ KRAMER, JREF Paranormal Challenge Desk

10th November 2004, 06:27 PM	#4
Brian Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780	Re: Re: Ali Seifoori Quote: Originally posted by KRAMER His claim letter specifically states NO DOG. I'd really love to see this claim tested. Well, it could be. As was mentioned in the first post. If he doesn't go into hiding maybe run it past him. He'll have to pay for all expenses of course. I believe a police dog can be called off as quick as it can be set on a person, shouldn't be too dangerous with the right gear..
Brian Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780	__________________ O' beautiful, for spacious skies But now those skies are threatening They're beating plowshares into swords For this tired old man that we elected king Armchair warriors often fail And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales The lawyers clean up all details Since daddy had to lie -Don Henley

11th November 2004, 09:17 AM	#5
misawafan Scholar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Do we know for sure that it wasn't this guy? http://www.local6.com/news/3887764/detail.html
misawafan Scholar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111

11th November 2004, 10:22 AM	#6
KRAMER Former challenge facilitator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,443	I wish. No, the applicant was Iranian, and emailing from London.
	__________________ KRAMER, JREF Paranormal Challenge Desk

11th November 2004, 11:39 AM	#7
misawafan Scholar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	I wonder if the notion of involving lions with lunatic schemes is part of a new growing trend? If so I'm all for it and look forward to some very entertaining news reports...
misawafan Scholar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111

2nd December 2004, 06:40 AM	#8
DrMatt Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,422	Re: Re: Ali Seifoori Quote: Originally posted by KRAMER His claim letter specifically states NO DOG. I'd really love to see this claim tested. Help! I'm being attacked by NO DOG!
	__________________ Music: Splendor in Sound CD No.3 is out!

8th December 2004, 10:32 AM	#9
KRAMER Former challenge facilitator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,443	Ooof! Well, this applicant has just won the prize for the most foul-mouthed tirade ever offered in response to JREF's position regarding his claim. I cannot post it (due to its profane content), but I can tell you that he told me where to go, along with specifics on what would be done to me there once I arrived. He then told me to take "Randy Boy" with me. We blocked his email address.
	__________________ KRAMER, JREF Paranormal Challenge Desk

14th December 2004, 12:24 PM	#10
KRAMER Former challenge facilitator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,443	The latest from ALI - Well, I blocked his email, but Randi did not... =========================================== -----Original Message----- From: Ali Seifoori [mailto:*****************] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:24 PM To: randi@randi.org Subject: RE: Challenge Dear Mr. Randi, As you know some people do anything to get rich: unfortunately I've overstepped my limit and in the process disgraced only myself. I now apologise once more, and make a quick exit. Yours faithfully Ali
	__________________ KRAMER, JREF Paranormal Challenge Desk

13th August 2006, 04:28 PM	#11
Ali Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Fiery furnace Posts: 679	Hi, I'm Ali; my claim is true. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate my powers for the time being.

13th August 2006, 04:51 PM	#12
eri Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere nearby, pointing and laughing. Posts: 459	Hi Ali! Welcome to the forums! As you probably know, the JREF FAQ states that the JREF will not accept a protocal that could involve the applicant being injured. Since your original claim seems as though it could involve personal injury if things don't go as planned, how might you get around that? Do you have a similar power that could be tested safely? Also, how do you know that no dog (or lion) will bite you? I've never been biten either, but that's probably because I don't spend much time around lions or unfriendly dogs.
	__________________ I wish I would have a real tragic love affair and get so bummed out that I'd just quit my job and become a bum for a few years, because I was thinking about doing that anyway. -Jack Handy

13th August 2006, 05:14 PM	#13
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by Ali Hi, I'm Ali; my claim is true. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate my powers for the time being. How do you propose to demonstrate your "powers"? What will constitute a success? What will constitute a failure? Can you provide proof that someone has witnessed your "powers"?
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

14th August 2006, 01:46 AM	#14
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Originally Posted by Ali Hi, I'm Ali; my claim is true. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate my powers for the time being. If you can't take the challenge because the million dollar prize will overstep your limits for cashing in on your powers (as you claimed in the letter to Randi). Then I hereby invite you to do it for free, or otherwise you could take the prize and donate it all to a charity of your own choice. As per this thread I'm not really sure what your claim is (the OP link isn't working), but we should be able to test your claim with a protection suit and a trained attack dog if you claim that such a dog won't bite you. Is that your claim? ETA: Ok, I found your claim. "No DOG, whatever its size, no matter how wild or how hungry, will bite me". This should be easy to test with a trained attack dog and a protection suit, you don't need to worry about the prize. Would you agree to such a test?
	Last edited by Thomas; 14th August 2006 at 01:51 AM.

14th August 2006, 04:53 PM	#15
Ali Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Fiery furnace Posts: 679	Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

14th August 2006, 05:09 PM	#16
Skeptic Guy Raccoon Death Squad Leader Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Southeast of Disorder Posts: 6,996	Originally Posted by Ali Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more. Ali, the "I don't think the prize is real" claim is usually the first excuse used to sidestep being tested. However, since it seems that there is a real potential for your own personal harm, I think it best that you just walk away.
	__________________ "Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan Even Mother Teresa^WP doubted.

15th August 2006, 12:45 AM	#17
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Originally Posted by Ali Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more. The prize is there, but it's very usual for frauds to claim that it isn't so they have an excuse for not being tested. I ask again, would you agree to a test where we sic a trained dog on you while you're in a protection suit? Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy Ali, the "I don't think the prize is real" claim is usually the first excuse used to sidestep being tested. However, since it seems that there is a real potential for your own personal harm, I think it best that you just walk away. I fail to see how he would get harmed if he's in a protection suit and we use a trained dog.

15th August 2006, 02:24 AM	#18
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,187	Originally Posted by Ali Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more. On what basis do you make that claim? Wishful thinking maybe ?

15th August 2006, 02:42 AM	#19
Ginarley Post-normalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Palmy, NZ Posts: 1,334	Originally Posted by Thomas I fail to see how he would get harmed if he's in a protection suit and we use a trained dog. Except that you could argue the dog bit the suit and not him (and given police dogs are trained on those suits its a fair call.) The only fair trial would be to expose him to real harm and that of course is outside the rules.

15th August 2006, 02:55 AM	#20
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Originally Posted by Ginarley Except that you could argue the dog bit the suit and not him (and given police dogs are trained on those suits its a fair call.) The only fair trial would be to expose him to real harm and that of course is outside the rules. And if he had a sweater on, you could argue that the dog attacked the sweater, and if we strip him naked you could say the dog didn't like his skin color, and blah blah blah. His claim is that no dog will attack him, that's it, and I think it's fair to test that claim by siccing a dog on him provided he is well protected. His sweater, pants, skin color or what else he might would wear, is not part of his claim, and perhaps you should let him change his claim himself, if he wants to.

15th August 2006, 03:19 AM	#21
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Dogs Schmogs! Let's get back to the idea of LIONS. I'm with Misawafan - this could brighten up an otherwise very repetitive news hour!
	Last edited by Foolmewunz; 15th August 2006 at 03:22 AM. Reason: "news" hour not "new" hour

15th August 2006, 03:59 AM	#22
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by Ali Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more. Which makes perfect sense because you: 1. Want something which you don't think is for real 2. Don't think the Prize is for real and start posting in the Challenge Section. Say, Ali, when can we expect your first rant? Or, for that matter, a demonstration of your "abilities" on e.g. a local TV station? JREF, Schmayref. "Demonstration: any setting of your choice." Your move.
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

15th August 2006, 04:02 AM	#23
Ginarley Post-normalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Palmy, NZ Posts: 1,334	Originally Posted by Thomas And if he had a sweater on, you could argue that the dog attacked the sweater, and if we strip him naked you could say the dog didn't like his skin color, and blah blah blah. His claim is that no dog will attack him, that's it, and I think it's fair to test that claim by siccing a dog on him provided he is well protected. His sweater, pants, skin color or what else he might would wear, is not part of his claim, and perhaps you should let him change his claim himself, if he wants to. Firstly I was going by the original post in this thread which specifically said "bite". Attack is a whole different story. Secondly, police dogs are specifically trained by making them first bite into those suits and rewarding them, and then gradually translating that to people. It is not the same as a sweater or skin colour at all and you could not be at all satisfied that the test was adequately failed if they bit the protective suits that the police use. Proper controls apply to ensuring the test is fair to both parties, not just to ensuring people don't cheat.

15th August 2006, 05:08 AM	#24
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	How could "the purposes of the challenge in fact be accomplished" in this situation, Ginarley? Sounds familiar? Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt Well?
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

15th August 2006, 05:13 AM	#25
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Originally Posted by Ginarley Firstly I was going by the original post in this thread which specifically said "bite". Attack is a whole different story. Is it really? What would you suppose the attacking police dog would do instead of biting? Tornado kicks? Head locks? Try to think about what police dogs actually do when sicced on a person. Quote: Secondly, police dogs are specifically trained by making them first bite into those suits and rewarding them, and then gradually translating that to people. It is not the same as a sweater or skin colour at all and you could not be at all satisfied that the test was adequately failed if they bit the protective suits that the police use. Proper controls apply to ensuring the test is fair to both parties, not just to ensuring people don't cheat. A proper protection suit will merely make him look like a fat guy. So by your logic, a police dog is trained to attack fat guys. But in reality a police dog attacks the person despite how they look. And this is evident by the fact that they attack people with or without a suit by the very same sic command, the very same places. Your concern that the dog would attack the suit and not Ali, isn't justified when you consider how these suits look, and what these dogs actually are trained to do. But I must congratulate you on trying to provide Ali with a possible (but not justified) "out" before he even got to answer himself.
	Last edited by Thomas; 15th August 2006 at 06:25 AM.

15th August 2006, 10:13 AM	#26
Ali Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Fiery furnace Posts: 679	Hi guys, I havn't tried disarming a dog by wearing any protective clothing. If the dog decides to bite it will squeal away, or go quiet, or.... : different dogs seem to behave differently when faced with retreat as their only choice.

15th August 2006, 10:27 AM	#27
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by Ali Hi guys, I havn't tried disarming a dog by wearing any protective clothing. If the dog decides to bite it will squeal away, or go quiet, or.... : different dogs seem to behave differently when faced with retreat as their only choice. How do you propose to demonstrate your "powers" (to anyone but JREF, since you are "not taking it seriously any more"? What will constitute a success? What will constitute a failure? Can you provide proof that someone has witnessed your "powers", i.e. have you successfully done this before? What exactly "are" you doing anyway?
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

15th August 2006, 06:45 PM	#28
vIQleS Muse Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Auckland NZ Posts: 861	Originally Posted by Ali If the dog decides to bite it will squeal away, or go quiet, or.... : different dogs seem to behave differently when faced with retreat as their only choice. This is the most telling statement so far - "...if the dog decides to bite..." Ask yourself - how do you know that a dog "decided to bite" you. You have no way of knowing if a dog would have bitten you, unless you can read its mind or know the future. (both of which should also be testable under the $1m challenge) A dog doesn't always approach you with the intent to attack or even bite. It may be barking in the hopes that you will run away, or it might be growling with 'cautious optimism' just in case you might be a source of treats or pats... Doing the test with a dog that's been trained to attack on cue solves this problem, that's what you need to do before you apply again.
	__________________ ==--New NZ Skeptical Podcast--== http://thecusp.org.nz "vIQleS, Slap me. Slap me twice." - Foolmewunz

16th August 2006, 04:44 AM	#29
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,187	How to stop a dog from attacking you. 1. Stare at it 2. Approach it 3. Make LOTS of noise. This proves to the dog that you are a bigger and stronger than you are and will run away. I must admit I have only tried this once and it worked. You should only run away from a dog if you think you can get away. If you run and it catches you it will do the maximum damage to you.

16th August 2006, 05:28 PM	#30
Ginarley Post-normalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Palmy, NZ Posts: 1,334	Originally Posted by Thomas Is it really? What would you suppose the attacking police dog would do instead of biting? Tornado kicks? Head locks? Try to think about what police dogs actually do when sicced on a person. A proper protection suit will merely make him look like a fat guy. So by your logic, a police dog is trained to attack fat guys. But in reality a police dog attacks the person despite how they look. And this is evident by the fact that they attack people with or without a suit by the very same sic command, the very same places. Your concern that the dog would attack the suit and not Ali, isn't justified when you consider how these suits look, and what these dogs actually are trained to do. But I must congratulate you on trying to provide Ali with a possible (but not justified) "out" before he even got to answer himself. All I am doing is applying the same rigour to determining that there is no false negative as to whether there is no false positive. It is a very procedure that ignores bias if it is in your favour. Police dogs are trained by them attacking suits like that without any person in them and then rewarded. Then they are trained to attack people in those suits, and finally to attack unsuited people in a similar way. However it remains that the dogs are trained to attack the suits so you could not be certain enough that the dog attacked the person and not the suit to be able to be sure the test was failed. Finally consider this: The suit actually prevents the dog from biting the person in it right? It is pretty easy to pass a test where you say the dog can't bite you if it actually can't thanks to a suit! It can still attack the person wearing the suit though.

16th August 2006, 06:01 PM	#31
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	We need a detailed description of his "claim" from Mr. Seifoori first. Then we may have a legit reason to start to bitchslap one another. I would like to know how you, Mr. Seifoori, realized what you claimed here: How no dog - or even lion - will bite you. Why would that be? Will you shoot 'em first? Or run away? Extreme BO? Energy beam? Aura? All of the above? We're listening.
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

16th August 2006, 07:54 PM	#32
Skeptic Guy Raccoon Death Squad Leader Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Southeast of Disorder Posts: 6,996	Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt We need a detailed description of his "claim" from Mr. Seifoori first. Then we may have a legit reason to start to bitchslap one another. I would like to know how you, Mr. Seifoori, realized what you claimed here: How no dog - or even lion - will bite you. Why would that be? Will you shoot 'em first? Or run away? Extreme BO? Energy beam? Aura? All of the above? We're listening. I am all for that. I suppose if he were to agree to wear the protective suit and that he did not think wearing said protective suit would interfere with his "powers", it would be good enough for me, but I am not sure Mr. Randi would go for it. But as you said, let Mr Seifoori make the claim...
	__________________ "Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan Even Mother Teresa^WP doubted.

17th August 2006, 08:41 AM	#33
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Originally Posted by Ginarley All I am doing is applying the same rigour to determining that there is no false negative as to whether there is no false positive. It is a very procedure that ignores bias if it is in your favour. Police dogs are trained by them attacking suits like that without any person in them and then rewarded. Then they are trained to attack people in those suits, and finally to attack unsuited people in a similar way. However it remains that the dogs are trained to attack the suits so you could not be certain enough that the dog attacked the person and not the suit to be able to be sure the test was failed. Finally consider this: The suit actually prevents the dog from biting the person in it right? It is pretty easy to pass a test where you say the dog can't bite you if it actually can't thanks to a suit! It can still attack the person wearing the suit though. Yes, by biting. But that doesn't matter, because all we have to do to eliminate your (assumption based) concern, is to ask him if no dog will bite him or the protective suit he's wearing. No big deal. Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt I would like to know how you, Mr. Seifoori, realized what you claimed here: How no dog - or even lion - will bite you. Why would that be? Will you shoot 'em first? Or run away? Extreme BO? Energy beam? Aura? All of the above? We're listening. If he specified that, then we could perhaps demolish the claim right here of course (and that's why I doubt he will do it), but for now, I think it's fair enough to consider if the claim even is testable within ethical limits. Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy I am all for that. I suppose if he were to agree to wear the protective suit and that he did not think wearing said protective suit would interfere with his "powers", it would be good enough for me, but I am not sure Mr. Randi would go for it. JREF has closed his file after he threatened Randi and Kramer, so I don't think he can be tested by JREF at all. But, if he agrees that no dog will bite him or the protective suit he's wearing, then I guess there's a slim chance that the British police could test him on a normal dog training day - with British skeptics as observers. And then we could take it from there if he passed.

17th August 2006, 08:59 AM	#34
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by Thomas ... JREF has closed his file after he threatened Randi and Kramer, so I don't think he can be tested by JREF at all. But, if he agrees that no dog will bite him or the protective suit he's wearing, then I guess there's a slim chance that the British police could test him on a normal dog training day - with British skeptics as observers. And then we could take it from there if he passed. Exactly. Given a proper "unofficial" test execution by British skeptics and a significant better-than-chance result, I consider it very likely the JREF will let him apply again. Sour grapes won't stand in the way of Mr. Seifoori's chance at the Million, for shizzle. Mr. Seifoori, we're looking forward to your claim description and protocol suggestions.
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

18th August 2006, 01:38 PM	#35
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,948	Originally Posted by Ali Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more. Good. Riddance.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,948	Last edited by fuelair; 18th August 2006 at 01:39 PM. Reason: seperate word per way written but not maintained when sent.