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.

 

Scientists Prove Sixth Sense

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Dr Stefan Schmidt conducted two experiments in the paranormal. The first consisted of remote staring in which an observer spied on another volunteer through a CCTV. In the second, one volunteer tried to make the other feel uncomfortable. In both, the subject was hooked to electrodes to monitor the skin's electrical activity when they were and weren't being subjected. In the British Journal of Psychology, the results were reported as "small, but significant."

Source Daily Telegraph AU:



Back in the 1960s Czech psychologist Milan Ryzl did a series of experiments with two supposedly telepathic people who were many kilometres apart.

Mr Ryzl was inspired by a colleague, Stepan Figar, who had proved that when one person concentrates on another, it can actually cause a measurable rise in blood pressure.


One skeptic said that the number of times you believe there is something, but there isn't outweigh the times when there is something. But this researcher did experiments with and without anyone there.

Here is the article summary: British Journal of Psychology


A small significant effect size (d =.11, p = .001) was found in 36 studies on 'direct mental interaction', while a best-evidence-synthesis of 7 studies yielded d = .05 (p = .50). In 15 remote staring studies a mean effect size of d = 0.13 (p = .01) was obtained. It is concluded that there are hints of an effect, but also a shortage of independent replications and theoretical concepts.


I am not very good at statistics, does anyone know what these values mean. Maybe d is the correlation and p is the probability of a more extreme. I know p is the probability of become more extreme, I'm not sure about d, but I think it has something to do with correlation. But anyway, it seems there are positive results.

So what do you think about this phenomenon, maybe theres finally proof for the skeptics...

Other Sources:
News AU

[edit on 4-7-2004 by Jamuhn]




posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 06:26 AM
link   
No matter how conclusive the proof is, they are still going to find flaws with it. If there aren't flaws, they can just make some up, haha. Sounds good to me, though I wasn't a major skeptic in the first place. I take it you'll be posting the full findings once you can.


sidenot: There goes my perfect 666 ATS points



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 06:30 AM
link   
There have been alot of studies into extra sensory perception that have had finding that are greater then what would be produced by chance alone. I think some people wont be convinced unless you could tell them exactly what their thinking our had a a success rate of 100% our could move things in a scientific setting even then some people wouldnt believe.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   


A small significant effect size (d =.11, p = .001) was found in 36 studies on 'direct mental interaction', while a best-evidence-synthesis of 7 studies yielded d = .05 (p = .50). In 15 remote staring studies a mean effect size of d = 0.13 (p = .01) was obtained. It is concluded that there are hints of an effect, but also a shortage of independent replications and theoretical concepts.


This is basically what they found, but I wish I know more about their methods, its really hard to comment on this alone to decide if there are flaws or not in the experiment; flaws that could go either way in determining the experiment. But all-in-all it seems there was a greater correlation with skin activity while being affected, then when there wasn't. I think that was the big purpose of the experiment. To show we are more often right than nought.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
They also did an experiment where sublect where wired up and were shown pictures, nothing happened when they were shown a puppy or house etc but there was a reaction when they were shown shocking pics such as a dead body.

Now that would be quite normal but the reactions showed up 1/10th of a second before the pics where shown on the screen.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
There will always be ways to disprove it. People will always be skeptical of the unknown. I wonder if theres any ways to adapt your sixth sense.




top topics
 
0

log in

join