It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ESP, Telekinesis tested in lab?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I bought this book the other day about the unexplained. It's called "Guide to the Unexplained" by Joe Levy. It talks about everything paranormal from mental powers and ghosts to alien encounters.

In the chapter about ESP and telekinesis, the author seems to say that even though the majority of the evidence for such things as ESP and telekinesis are personal testimony (and considered unreliable by scientists), there have actually been lab experiments which seem to support the idea that these phenomena do indeed exist. It is very vague about the telekinesis experiments, but presents the auto-Ganzfield experiment as postivie evidence for the existence of esp.

I would like to believe these things are real but I haven't been able to verify these lab findings from any sources on the internet. Does someone here know of such lab experiments giving credit to the existence of telekinesis, precognitions, and esp. Any other info you'd be willing to share?




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Does anyone have any information on the subject?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
DT

If you are looking for experiments carried out in a lab under controlled conditions; Check out Dr. J.B. Rhine and his work at Duke University. From there you will find links to more contempory studies using random number generators that stastically PROVE the existence of Psi.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I have a question about the auto-Ganfield experiment. I have a book on the paranormal which states that the auto-ganfield experiment has produced results that statistically show evidence that psi exists.

The auto-ganfield works with 2 people: one as a receiver and one as a sender. The sender is in one room and the receiver in another. The sender picks between one of four pictures and tries to send that picture into the recievers mind. After a specified amount of time the sender and receiver meet. The receiver is told to choose the correct picture from the four picture pile.

The 1 in 4 success rate produced by chance would mean 25%, but the results according to the author are between 35% and 40%. The author goes on to say that the only way to account for this 10-15% difference is by some form of telepathy or clairvoyance.

My question is how true is the above statement. How do we know that extra percentage isn't the result of lucky guessing. How does that prove anything?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
In this context lucky guessing is Chance. The way we know this is correct is by not drawing conclusions from a single test. If the overall results show a 40% success rate does that not mean that some people did much better?

You might want to consider that these sorts of tests are really operating under a severe handicap. In my experience need is a strong component in all psi events. What I mean by that is the ability to accomplish something is directly related to how important that thing is to the people involved.

Another thing that probably reduces the results is the very minds of the people doing the research. If they are totally open-minded then this is not a factor, but that rarely happens, we are not perfect. If some of the people in the area are negative, if they are just 'sure' that psi is not real, that will indeed affect the outcome. Most people have a hard time with this idea but I am very certain it is true.

Given all of that, anything beyond chance is a pretty solid indication that the tests were successful.


A.T
(-)



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Does anybody know where I can find good unbiased information about Uri Geller? I have heard that some of the world's most trusted scientists attest to Geller's remarkable abilities, could they have been duped? Would you say Geller is genuine or fake? Skeptics do raise some legitimate issues such as Uri not wanting to test under conditions run by professional magicians. What is your response to these accusations?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
There was a board on here about Uri Gellar not too long ago that I remember reading. I am terrible with searches so you will have to find it yourself though, sorry
.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I coudn't find it in the search. How about we just talk about here for now and if anyone finds the thread than we'll stop.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
i forget most of it, but basically there was overwhelming evidence that he was a fake. Like when he apparenlt stopped watches and made dead ones start again, he would take a part out of it to stop it and then put it back in to make it 'magically' start again, etc etc.







 
0

log in

join