Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.

Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.

[fuzzytomcat]

I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.

Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.

This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my web site (link) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations. 

FTC

[TinselKoala]

This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my web site (link) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations. 

FTC

He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test.  First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.

So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.

[fuzzytomcat]

He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test.  First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.

So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.

Hey Tk, I never thought of this kind of testing that you've outlined because of the possibility of actually catching the optical distortions for others to view being some have seen what's described in his video presentations. This does although sound good as a alternative method to do at least some testing and evaluation of his device.

Please note David's YouTube videos (link) shows fairly the same device in each one. It took me a while to wade through the blah, blah, blah postings of Rosemary's ( aka witsend ) as usual but I found her "replication" (  ) http://www.energeticforum.com/100788-post904.html  for her testing and evaluation .... but she claims not to be able to electromagnetically lock the tubes together.   

FTC

[TinselKoala]

Hey Fuzz

The point of the testing I've outlined is to see if there really is an effect at all, or if it's just in David's imagination. After all.... the most sensitive instrument we know about to detect what he's describing is David himself, right? So if we suspect the reality of the effect, as I do, we should calibrate our instrument before we do anything else. Does it (he) really detect what it says on the box, and with what accuracy?
So an analysis under the Theory of Signal Detection fits the bill perfectly. If, under controlled conditions, even David can't reliably detect the effect, then there isn't any real need to go farther, is there? On the other hand, if the TSD analysis shows that there is even a slight ability to discriminate whether the effect-producing device is active or not.... then a deeper study is entirely justified, and you have something solid to justify it: real numbers from a blinded, objective test that shows the detectability of the phenomenon and also David's "bias"... his tendency to read "one side or the other of the needle" so to speak. I think you know what I mean. Both of these parameters fall out of the TSD score matrix.

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_5/ch5p1.html

Golly.... and RA actually tried to make one of these things? Doesn't really seem like a thing a woman would want to do.... although, now that I think about it, sawing off all those pipe pieces...... oh, never mind.