Good to see Lekatt continues to apply the same rigid standards of evidence examination and logic.
So the rule is this: If it appears on the NDE website it’s true, if if doesn’t, it’s not. Right Lekatt?
:rolleyes:
hmmm
Would you mind providing a little documentation?
The SRI experts directory contains no reference to any of the researchers mentioned. It has been 30 years or so. So, I sent a letter to Jason Khoury, the PR contact for SRI. I don’t know if he’ll be able to help me find the research protcol and designs that were used in the experiments GOM has cited.
I did notice this at one of the sites GOM cited:
One of the subjects of these experiments was Ingo Swann, an artist and student of the paranormal who had come to New York years before from Colorado. Tiring of the standard research protocols, Swann suggested a number of changes in and improvements to the experiments, which among other things led to a successful series of attempts to mentally describe the current weather in various cities around the US.
The boldface parts made my eyebrow raise though.
Don’t forget JVP’s site and Edwards’ site.
The problem with 30 year old experiments is that the cites are so rarely in existance on the Web. I think I recall where I left my Gardners, but the bindings on some of them are a bit gone. Swann might be in it as well. I’ll see what I still have on the shelf tonight, and give you my poor summation.
Documentation supporting the allegation that Targ and Puthoff are “pretty much the poster boys for bad science”:
“The free energy segment was another high point of this episode. Featuring none other than Harold Puthoff, late of Uri Geller fame. Recall that Puthoff was part of the team with Russell Targ, whom Randi has characterized as the Laurel and Hardy of PSI (1). When Targ and Puthoff allowed themselves to be completely taken in by phony psychics, including Geller, at Stanford Research Institute in California back in the seventies, Randi followed up with a scathing review of their work. Now Puthoff is in business at the Austin, Texas, Institute of Advanced Studies, where he is conducting research in zero-point energy”
from:
http://www.baskeptics.org/blandonmay98.htm
“Targ and Puthoff were not put off by the fact that Swann claimed he saw a 30,000 ft. mountain range on Jupiter on his astral voyage when there is no such thing.”
from:
http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html
In an e-mail last week, Puthoff said that although Geller “was not able to demonstrate psychokinesis (metal bending) under controlled laboratory conditions, (he) was able to demonstrate `remote viewing’ (as did many others) . . . under laboratory conditions.”
"Targ e-mailed similar views, complaining that the phenomenon of remote viewing “is repressed in this society.” Although Geller failed to perform metal-bending feats, Targ said, "since that time I have seen metal bending, under excellent conditions, which makes me believe that Geller also can probably do "
from:
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/pcsicop.htm
A Brief History Of Dubious Science
The second case was in October 1974. Nature carried a paper in which Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff of Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park Calif., claimed that Uri Gefler had psychic powers. While locked up in an electronically shielded room, Geller purportedly reproduced target pictures drawn by experimenters at remote locations.
from:
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1988/sep/dixon_p5_880905.html
(you’lll have to register to see this one. It’s free though)
http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general327.html
Incidentally I found the answer I’ll probably get from Mr. Khoury:
Off to access these references.
I’m not a psychic, but I’ll bet $5.00 you’re right!
Quote from link:
“Please note that the use of SRI’s name in conjunction with this research and any claims made by participants in the research, other than those published in the journals cited below, is not approved by SRI and is not authorized by SRI.”
YYyeeeep, that’s the gentlemen. Down to the horrible laboratory controls and procedures. Oh, and Mr. Swann was one of the Remote Viewers on the Jupiter Trip? Well, there you go.
I’ve found a resource:
A Comprehensive Review of Major Empirical Studies in Parapsychology Involving Random Event Generators or Remote Viewing
James E. Alcock
Dept of Psychology Glendon
College York university
Commisioned by:
Committe on Techniques for the Enhancement
of Human Performance
Comission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
2102 Constitution Avenue
Washington DC 20418
The section on Puthoff and Targ begins on page 647. I haven’t finished looking through it yet. It’s very dry stuff. It also covers Jahn’s stuff, (PEAR I believe), and a number of other studies. It covers designs and protocols. I’ll try to digest and regurgitate the highlights of the RV section related to Targ and Puthoff. I hope someone else will also do so.
SimonX,
Anything in there about McMoneagle? I’m out of time for today.
GOM,
No, not a peep about McMoneagle.
Alcock’s review of T&P’s experiments is written in academese. I’ll post a more detailed synopsis of the major, easily understood, (by me), methodological flaws later. It does say that there were eight subjects in the various experiments. Some but not all of the names were given though.
I just went to Uri Geller’s website, after reading about his “Para-Science Pack” at the CSICOP website. He offers buyers a kit containing brass dowsing rods (two bent brass rods of course) A “genuine rock crystal” (a quartz is a quartz, of course of course) and “much much more.” Which, after viewing a picture of the pack translates into a few cards, a couple of “ESP” testing flash cards and some sort of mandala-like diagram with a piece of string. I suspect there’s a weight on the end of the string and one is supposed to dangle it over the diagram. Wow. What a bargain.
There’s also a whole section devoted to the alleged significance of the number eleven, and the number 1111. Supposedly these have great significance in our consciousness. There are a bunch of “uncanny” eleven occurrences. Here are a few of the best.
Except of course in any leap year.
Of course, the more common spelling, CRUCIFICTION, has 12 letters.
So do any number of identical straight things.
Or you can spell it Muhammed or Mohammed, both of which have 12 letters. Arabic names don’t translate into specific English spellings, after all.
And my personal favorite:
Great. So, in Uriworld it’s permissible to manipulate spelling and substitute Roman Numerals for English words, so long as it forces something to fit a particular mold.
I agree with lekatt that the spirit photos look doctored. Pretty fakey looking ghosts if you ask me. On the other had, his link with out of focus headlights, photos of some faded book page and other fun out of focus light shots sure has me convinced that there is an afterlife. Give me 15 minutes and a roll of film and I can give you 24 REAL spirit pictures.
Btw, what exactly does this center do? How can they help verify or disprove Joe’s claim?
I know what you mean. For Christmas 2001 I gave each of my nephews a point and shoot digital camera. (I figured they wouldn’t spend so much of their folks money on film that way.) Within the first hour each of them had shot over 50 amazing “spirit pictures,” that were every bit as convincing as the ones Lekatt linked to. (Their TV show deals are still in the works, but “Psykids” is looking good.)
This a respository of military personel records. The only claims it can verify or disprove are ones about military personel records. The legion of merit award willl most certainly be noted on the record of anyone who has received it. I asked for the relevant paperwork tha comes with the citation. This should give a description of the acts tha tearned him the award. I have a suspicion that this won’t be a single form issue. I’ll probably have to file several more forms.
As far as I can tell, the gist of the objections to their studies center around the use of results that would be obtained by chance as a comparison for the results obtained from the test subjects in the experiments. I know that this doesn’t sound like much of an objection; BUT the allegation is that, because of the structure of the tests, if the tests were run w/o RV the results would also exceed those obtained chance. The problems with the test designs are grouped into 5 categories by Alcock:
direct cuing of judges
non-independence of trials
selection of data
failure to provide adequate control conditions
subjective validation
-
Okay. Then I have a question for you. If the information you receive shows he got the award during the time he was doing “psychic” work for our government are you going to accept that as proof?
-
Why? Does it make a difference because he was doing classified work?
The citation will list the actual deed(s) that earned him the award. It won’t be merely a matter of if it matches a certain time period. If the record shows either that he didn’t receive the award or that he received it for something else I won’t be as interested in pursuing the matter further. It’ll be enough to satisfy my curiosity that he lied about his citation and that the tests published by the researchers involved were fundamentally flawed. If he did indeed receive the award for what it’s said he did then I’ll be curious enough to try and learn more about the situations.
There is quite a wealth of sources for further research in the Alcock report I cited. It comes with a full appendix of cites. Due to the age of some of the material I will have to actually go to the library! Hopefully, The school will have access to the journals referenced.
I think this because:
of my experience with bureaucracies;
the legendary reputation of military bureaucracies
I don’t have his service # nor SS#;
I don’t have his exact dates of service.
But mostly because of my impressions of the nature of bureaucracies.
I’ve discovered that even awards for classified work are public record. The awards citations are just written in euphemistic language. A case I found was a Medal of Honor winner who was involved in classified missions in Viet Nam. His ceremony was public just like everybody else’s. His name is included on the honor roll just like everybody else’s. His citation is just more vague.
Gom, I have a question. You seem fairly sure that the Remote Viewing tests worked, and this MacMoneagle is telling the truth. What led you to that conclusion. I’d seriously like to know.