Targ/Puthoff refute Randi/skeptics' claims about SRI

[WWu777]

Dear Skeptics,

Here is an old post I wrote up long ago.

-------------------------------

I emailed Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff with 6 commonly asked questions that you skeptics have asked me about military remote viewing tests and the SRI experiments with Uri Geller. Here are their answers. Both their emails to my questions are below. Pay special attention to what Hal Puthoff says though, because it is very REVEALING information from a firsthand source that indicates that you guys were TOTALLY wrong when you said that the CIA and government remote viewing tests were a failure and yielded nothing. The truth is actually the exact opposite of what you thought! Remember, this is from someone who was directly involved in this stuff for over 20 years.

Targ:

> 1. Skeptics have said that your SRI tests with Uri Geller back in the 70's and
> the report published in Nature have been discredited. Is this true? Why or
> why not?

Our work was not discredited, rather it was replicated at Princeton,
Edinburgh and many other labs, not to mention SRI for the next 20 years. We
said in Nature, that Geller did NOT bend anything at SRI.

>2. Skeptics have told me that the Introduction part in the Nature article
> about Geller made it clear that the SRI tests were in no way evidence for
> Geller's PSYCHOKINETIC powers. Is that so? If not, why did it sound that
> way? Did the publishers of Nature force you guys to write it that way so it
> wouldn't become a debacle of controversy and anger the skeptics?

We were not forced to write anything.

> 3. Skeptics have also said that the SRI tests with Geller were done with
> inadequate controls, which made it very easy for Geller to cheat. Is that so?
> How tight were the controls exactly in your tests with Geller? Were
> they controlled enough to prevent cheating? If not, why not? If they were,
> then why do Skeptics say this?

Geller did the same kind of remote viewing in our lab, that more than fifty others from the government and army have done as part of the 25 year remote viewing program. If the whole world has remote viewing abilities, why shouldn't Geller have some?

> 4. You guys said that you did remote viewing experiments for the government
> from the 1970's up til 1995. How successful were they? And if they were
> successful, why haven't they been published in scientific journals, and why
> hasn't the scientific community and the skeptics acknowledged the remote
> viewing phenomenon as fact?

Our work was published in the IEEE proceedings and AAAS proceedings. A similar paper was published by Prof. Robert Jahn in the 1982 IEEE.

Cheers,
Russell


Puthoff:

In a message dated 7/13/00 6:35:48 AM, WWu777 writes:

<< 1. Skeptics have said that your SRI tests with Uri Geller back in the 70's and the report published in Nature have been discredited. Is this true? Why or why not?>>

Not true, just a claim of the skeptics, made out of whole cloth.

<<2. Skeptics have told me that the Introduction part in the Nature article about Geller made it clear that the SRI tests were in no way evidence for Geller's powers. Is that so? If not, why did it sound that way?>>

Read it yourself and form your own opinion. They were just being conservative.

<<3. Skeptics have also said that the SRI tests with Geller were done with inadequate controls, which made it very easy for Geller to cheat. Is that so? How tight were the controls exactly in your tests with Geller? Were they controlled enough to prevent cheating?>>

Again, these claims of inadequate controls are generally just repeats of what Randi says. The truth of the matter is that none of Randi's claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi's guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi's suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician's tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam.

<<4. You guys said that you did remote viewing experiments for the government from the 1970s up til 1995. How successful were they?>>

Very. 95% still classified. Joe McMoneagle (one of the INSCOM viewers) received a Legion of Merit Award for the execution of more than 200 missions, addressing over 150 essential elements of information (EEI), done for Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, NSA, CIA, and the Secret Service, for "producing crucial and vital intelligence unavailable from any other source."

<<And if they were successful, why haven't they been published in scientific journals...>

Much of it (the nonclassified part) has been. See March 1996 Proceedings IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - - in that paper "visitor" results are CIA personnel); or AAAS (Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science) Selected Symposium 57, "The role of consciousness in the physical world," Ed. R. Jahn; or "Mind at Large: IEEE Symposium on the Nature of ESP," Ed. Tart, Puthoff and Targ, Praeger Press, or......

<<5. Skeptics also claim that the CIA and military remote viewing tests were all a failure and that the CIA even admitted it.>>

Yes, that's what skeptics claim. That's not what CIA said. They just said it wasn't ready for prime time yet as an intelligence collection tool, based on a report submitted by the American Institutes of Research (who were not privy to the highly classified results). Lots of politics involved, but that's another story.

<<If your tests succeeded, why don't the skeptics know about it then?>>

They're classified and will remain so. The unclassified results have been replicated and published by many labs (Princeton's two-decade program being a major one), but the skeptics ignore what doesn't fit their belief system. See Dean Radin's book "Conscious Universe" for a recent overview.

<<6. Is the remote viewing phenomenon that you studied the same thing or related to the Out of Body Experience phenomenon (OBE)? Have you done any tests with OBE's?>>

In our opinion these labels carry assumptions about mechanisms and models. "Remote viewing" is neutral. But yes, there is a continuum.

Hal Puthoff

------------------------------------------
Puthoff:

In a message dated 5/17/02 12:43:41 AM, WWu777 writes:

<<
-----------------
Forwarded Message:

Subj: Re: Skeptics, did you know this about SRI?

<< good example of the inaccuracy of the remote viewing method is the work of Ed Dames. He is known to have made predictions that turn out to be wrong.>>

Unfortunately, true.

<<Further, if remote viewing were reliable, the people who do it could be millionaires by playing the stock market with RV information. >>

In our own study while I was at SRI, 30 days in the silver futures market netted us $26,000 using a technique we call Associational Remote Viewing. Details showed statistical significance as a scientific study to boot. Published in "Research in Parapsychology 1984."

<<I verified. independently be cannot and alone chance by seen could is what often however, accurate, may that something see will someone occasionally have>>

All the SRI studies were double blind in which all transcripts generated in an RV series were blind rated against all targets, from which statistical significance could be independently determined. Chance matchings are washed out in this procedure. For details see March 1976 Proceedings of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

<<We would know the location of the terrorist leaders.>>

Remote viewers who work this problem maintain a very low profile, for obvious security reasons. If successful, you won't hear about it for years.

In short, your skeptic is ill-informed.

Best regards,
Hal Puthoff

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by WWu777
Targ:

> 1. Skeptics have said that your SRI tests with Uri Geller back in the 70's and
> the report published in Nature have been discredited. Is this true? Why or
> why not?

Our work was not discredited, rather it was replicated at Princeton,
Edinburgh and many other labs, not to mention SRI for the next 20 years. We
said in Nature, that Geller did NOT bend anything at SRI.


Even PEAR admits they've got precisely diddly-squat. Try again Puthoff.


>2. Skeptics have told me that the Introduction part in the Nature article
> about Geller made it clear that the SRI tests were in no way evidence for
> Geller's PSYCHOKINETIC powers. Is that so? If not, why did it sound that
> way? Did the publishers of Nature force you guys to write it that way so it
> wouldn't become a debacle of controversy and anger the skeptics?

We were not forced to write anything.


This is true. But its Winston's idiotic interpetation of the events. Puthoff realised that Gellers metal bending evidence was too lame to present in an article they hope would be taken seriously, but that did not stop Targ and Puthoff from showing films of Geller's alleged metal bending in other media.


> 3. Skeptics have also said that the SRI tests with Geller were done with
> inadequate controls, which made it very easy for Geller to cheat. Is that so?
> How tight were the controls exactly in your tests with Geller? Were
> they controlled enough to prevent cheating? If not, why not? If they were,
> then why do Skeptics say this?

Geller did the same kind of remote viewing in our lab, that more than fifty others from the government and army have done as part of the 25 year remote viewing program. If the whole world has remote viewing abilities, why shouldn't Geller have some?
]

That is not an answer. Remote Viewing was abandoned by 'the government' due to a complete lack of results.


> 4. You guys said that you did remote viewing experiments for the government
> from the 1970's up til 1995. How successful were they? And if they were
> successful, why haven't they been published in scientific journals, and why
> hasn't the scientific community and the skeptics acknowledged the remote
> viewing phenomenon as fact?

Our work was published in the IEEE proceedings and AAAS proceedings. A similar paper was published by Prof. Robert Jahn in the 1982 IEEE.


And was as world changing as the football bat. Skeptics don't rule the world so why didn't this incredible paper change anything in the world at large?

Because it was a load of Bollocks! Thats why!


<< 1. Skeptics have said that your SRI tests with Uri Geller back in the 70's and the report published in Nature have been discredited. Is this true? Why or why not?>>

Not true, just a claim of the skeptics, made out of whole cloth.


Discredited well before the skeptics even got a chance, quite frankly. Read the reports from the Nature peer reviewers.


<<2. Skeptics have told me that the Introduction part in the Nature article about Geller made it clear that the SRI tests were in no way evidence for Geller's powers. Is that so? If not, why did it sound that way?>>

Read it yourself and form your own opinion. They were just being conservative.


Awwwwww, pooooowwwrr Puthoff. They weren't just being conservative. they had stinging and accurate criticisms. READ THEM WINSTON YOU FREAKING COWARD!


<<3. Skeptics have also said that the SRI tests with Geller were done with inadequate controls, which made it very easy for Geller to cheat. Is that so? How tight were the controls exactly in your tests with Geller? Were they controlled enough to prevent cheating?>>

Again, these claims of inadequate controls are generally just repeats of what Randi says. The truth of the matter is that none of Randi's claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi's guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi's suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician's tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam.


Scott Rogo was making stuff up. Randi's info came from people who were there. In addition Randi has physical evidence of security breakdown and the like. Spare me.


<<4. You guys said that you did remote viewing experiments for the government from the 1970s up til 1995. How successful were they?>>

Very. 95% still classified. Joe McMoneagle (one of the INSCOM viewers) received a Legion of Merit Award for the execution of more than 200 missions, addressing over 150 essential elements of information (EEI), done for Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, NSA, CIA, and the Secret Service, for "producing crucial and vital intelligence unavailable from any other source."


Snort. Soooooooper SEEEEEEEEKRIT!!! you;ll never know how seeeekrit.


<<And if they were successful, why haven't they been published in scientific journals...>

Much of it (the nonclassified part) has been. See March 1996 Proceedings IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - - in that paper "visitor" results are CIA personnel); or AAAS (Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science) Selected Symposium 57, "The role of consciousness in the physical world," Ed. R. Jahn; or "Mind at Large: IEEE Symposium on the Nature of ESP," Ed. Tart, Puthoff and Targ, Praeger Press, or......


And thew world shattering results of this gibberish was....


<<5. Skeptics also claim that the CIA and military remote viewing tests were all a failure and that the CIA even admitted it.>>

Yes, that's what skeptics claim. That's not what CIA said. They just said it wasn't ready for prime time yet as an intelligence collection tool, based on a report submitted by the American Institutes of Research (who were not privy to the highly classified results). Lots of politics involved, but that's another story.


Not a single verifiable result...that's the CIA's definition of 'not ready for prime time.


<<If your tests succeeded, why don't the skeptics know about it then?>>

They're classified and will remain so. The unclassified results have been replicated and published by many labs (Princeton's two-decade program being a major one), but the skeptics ignore what doesn't fit their belief system. See Dean Radin's book "Conscious Universe" for a recent overview.


Radin has been shown to be extremely subjective, to the point of inventing evidnece.


<<6. Is the remote viewing phenomenon that you studied the same thing or related to the Out of Body Experience phenomenon (OBE)? Have you done any tests with OBE's?>>

In our opinion these labels carry assumptions about mechanisms and models. "Remote viewing" is neutral. But yes, there is a continuum.


Y'know, people were skeptical of the Wright brothers, but thirty years after their first flight their machines were poised to change the course of war (assuming they already hadn't). Puthoff's nonsense has gone nowhere.


<< good example of the inaccuracy of the remote viewing method is the work of Ed Dames. He is known to have made predictions that turn out to be wrong.>>

Unfortunately, true.


Fraud, fraud, fraud. AShame he's so closely attached to what Puthoff's claims is his life's work.


<<Further, if remote viewing were reliable, the people who do it could be millionaires by playing the stock market with RV information. >>

In our own study while I was at SRI, 30 days in the silver futures market netted us $26,000 using a technique we call Associational Remote Viewing. Details showed statistical significance as a scientific study to boot. Published in "Research in Parapsychology 1984."


So... they're millionares by now, right? Oh.


<<I verified. independently be cannot and alone chance by seen could is what often however, accurate, may that something see will someone occasionally have>>

All the SRI studies were double blind in which all transcripts generated in an RV series were blind rated against all targets, from which statistical significance could be independently determined. Chance matchings are washed out in this procedure. For details see March 1976 Proceedings of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).


This does seem to have happened, they were published.... where's the world shattering kabooom?


<<We would know the location of the terrorist leaders.>>

Remote viewers who work this problem maintain a very low profile, for obvious security reasons. If successful, you won't hear about it for years.


In other words, USELESS!


In short, your skeptic is ill-informed.

Best regards,
Hal Puthoff [/B]

In short, Puthoff is trying to make his fooling some publishers into publishing nonsense into some kind of earth changing event. Of course, its all hush hush CIA seeekrit spy stuff. Whatyousay?WhyisOsamaalivewithallthesesuuperseekri tremoteviewers?Gowaykidyounotherme!

[Zep]

Winston,

First thing, have Targ and Puthoff given you permission to post their writings here? I'm just checking to make sure you are OK with copyright and ownership and that sort of thing.

Apart from that, what is your point in posting this stuff here? Anything in particular? Hint: Perhaps you might care to reference where and who made what claims you are trying to refute with this stuff.

Otherwise it's just a blog.

[epepke]

I had a long correspondence with one of the people in the PEAR group many moons ago. I was suggesting ways that they could control their results in such a way that it could convince any skeptic. It's really easy. Just have an independent group produce the boxes, sealed. In some boxes there will be a random number generator, preferably decay-based. In others, there will be a pseudo-random number generator that cannot be influenced. Put enough lead and a big storage battery in them so that one cannot tell the difference without opening them. Provide these to the researchers. If they are correct, then their events should only show for the random number generators. Compare their results after the fact, again by an independent team.

It turns out that they weren't interested.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They weren't interested? The fools! A PRNG can be affected, using retro-micro-PK with a touch of precognition.

~~ Paul

[Lothian]

Originally posted by WWu777
Dear Skeptics,

Here is an old post I wrote up long ago.
Dear Woo woo

Here is an old reply

Luci, you are just a spamming troll

Ther names wrong but I think you'll get the gist.

[Dancing David]

Uh, huh, sure, why aren't they publisising thier reslutls, because they don't have any?

Uh, I am sceptical, would you like to see some e-mail I have from Bill Clinton?

I do have type written letter from Jesus that was left on my door as well.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by WWu777
Dear Skeptics,

Here is an old post I wrote up long ago.


From 2000 on sci.skeptic, to be exact, though even that may only have been a reprint.

Here is the thread -- along with all of the answers at that time that you essentially ignored:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=20000714065745.13522.00000034%40ng-bg1.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Demailed%2BRussell%2BTarg%2Band%2BHal% 2BPuthoff%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D20000714065745.13522.00000034%2540ng-bg1.aol.com%26rnum%3D1

N/A

Fun game: See if you can spot the Lucianarchy sock(s) posting or quoted in that thread.

[figtertype]

WWu777 wrote:

We said in Nature, that Geller did NOT bend anything at SRI.





Does anyone have the Date/Issue number of the Nature article? I'd be interested in reading the details of the research.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by figtertype
Does anyone have the Date/Issue number of the Nature article? I'd be interested in reading the details of the research.

October 18th 1974

[figtertype]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
October 18th 1974

Thank you, Paj!

I'm going to try to track it down. :)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by figtertype


Thank you, Paj!

I'm going to try to track it down. :)

You can probably find it online...even on Geller's site. Puthoff's comment is semi-accurate, as they did not present Geller's spoonbending as one of his abilities. Even they realised their controls were too poor. But Geller did do bending at SRI.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


From 2000 on sci.skeptic, to be exact, though even that may only
Fun game: See if you can spot the Lucianarchy sock(s) posting or quoted in that thread. [/B]

No fair, there's at least 3 Luci socks in that thread.

[TheBoyPaj]

Yeah, it's on Geller's site, along with the Nature editorial team's introduction which effectively distances the publication from the steaming pile of poo which followed.

[figtertype]

For anyone else who is interested, the origional article is called Information Transmission Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding , by Harold E. Puthoff, Ph.D., and Russell Targ, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Califonia

It was originally published in Nature, Vol. 251 on October 18th 1974.

The complete text of the article can be found here. (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g3.html)

[magicflute]

Targ and Puthoff, the Laurel and hardy of the parascientific world.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by WWu777 (for Puthoff)
We said in Nature, that Geller did NOT bend anything at SRI.

It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis.
Source: Nature, VOL 252, No. 5476, Oct. 18, 1974, pp. 602-607 (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g3.html)
(Emphasis mine)

Oops.

Originally posted by WWu777 (for Puthoff)
In short, your skeptic is ill-informed.

In short, either the article is incorrect, or you are a liar.

Originally posted by WWu777 (for Puthoff)
Best regards,
Hal Puthoff

You're welcome.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by magicflute
Targ and Puthoff, the Laurel and hardy of the parascientific world.
Err, no. Laurel and Hardy were very good at what they did. Consummate professionals, Laurel especially.
Also, Laurel and Hardy were funny on purpose.

[figtertype]

Originally posted by Dragon

Err, no. Laurel and Hardy were very good at what they did. Consummate professionals, Laurel especially.
Also, Laurel and Hardy were funny on purpose.


Maybe the Bevis and Butthead of Parascience, then?

huh...huhhuh...he said 'Geller'...

[Dancing David]

he he he ...he bent his spoon...I wish I could bend my spoon without touching it... heh heh

[WWu777]

Originally posted by figtertype




Does anyone have the Date/Issue number of the Nature article? I'd be interested in reading the details of the research.

W: I have it, but if I posted it, I'd probably be cited for copyright violations again. Just do an online search for it at Google or Yahoo.

[WWu777]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


You can probably find it online...even on Geller's site. Puthoff's comment is semi-accurate, as they did not present Geller's spoonbending as one of his abilities. Even they realised their controls were too poor. But Geller did do bending at SRI.

W: That's right. Apparently, he bent silverware in the cafeteria. lol However, he did get some results at SRI under controlled conditions. For example, he guessed the role of a die in a cup 8 times in a row. Randi claimed he stomped on the floor to shake the table and look under the cup, but Targ and Puthoff already guarded against that by bolting the table to the floor with nails.

[epepke]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: I have it, but if I posted it, I'd probably be cited for copyright violations again. Just do an online search for it at Google or Yahoo.

You're too stupid to figure out the difference between posting volume/issue/date and copying entire articles, and yet you expect people to take you as something other than a talking monkey.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: That's right. Apparently, he bent silverware in the cafeteria. lol

Whoa, where does the article mention anything about "cafeteria"?

The quote is very clear:

Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory

In the LABORATORY, Winston.

Do you agree that the metal bending took place in the LABORATORY?

Do you agree that this:

We said in Nature, that Geller did NOT bend anything at SRI.

contradict this?

Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory

Yes or no, Winston.

[chillzero]

Calm down CF - I read that as a randmom act of vandalism - perhaps that's all it was?

:D

[Zep]

I must find the report that ACTUALLY describes what happened, but for the moment, I'll post my own memory of the report (which means I may not have this exactly right):

Targ and Puthoff put Geller under properly controlled conditions in a laboratory and Geller tried to bend a spoon by thought power. No results. They tried for some time, still without result. Then for some reason they switched from a spoon to a pair of tweezers (or some other small metal implement), and continued testing but with no results.

After some time, they decided to take a break - the testing team went to the cafeteria to get coffee (or some short break), but Geller stayed sitting in a chair (or on a bench) outside the laboratory, in the presence of one of the female testers. Importantly, he still had the tweezers in his hand.

In a few minutes, Geller claimed that he had "felt the vibes" or somesuch, and produced the tweezers in front of the female tester and "bent" them. There is dispute as to whether they were already bent when he showed them to her, or that they bent while she watched.

At that point, the rest of the team returned, and were shown the bent tweezers which Geller claimed was "a successful result". Targ and Puthoff accepted the female tester's story that Geller bent the tweezers in front of her, but subsequent testing in the laboratory failed to repeat the performance.

Nett result: Geller had ample opportunity to perform his usual magician's stunt when not being actively observed; Targ and Puthoff accepted a single uncontrolled example as a "positive" although they realised they had nothing to back it up under controlled conditions and that the result was simply not good enough to be publishable.

I thought it sounded like a classic case of Targ and Puthoff wanting to believe, therefore it was "true".

I simply MUST find that report again...saw it a few years ago somewhere...

[Zep]

Huh! Looks like I got it SIGNIFICANTLY wrong! Oh well...

However, Jean Millay's description of the events of SRI in 1972 (http://www.uri-geller.com/millay.htm) does serve to show the slap-dash methodological slip-ups and straight out failure to control for fraud that were permitted.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: I have it, but if I posted it, I'd probably be cited for copyright violations again. Just do an online search for it at Google or Yahoo.

That is just lame WW, you post all sorts of links, if you have a reading comprehension problem get help. You can not post entire or mostly entire articles and web sites without permission. You can post links and cite quotations for the purpose of review.

Lame-O, Me say lame, me say lame, me say lame-o, dayligyt come and me brain be gone... :p

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Dragon

Err, no. Laurel and Hardy were very good at what they did. Consummate professionals, Laurel especially.
Also, Laurel and Hardy were funny on purpose.

Than maybe they are the Ed Wood of Science?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by WWu777

For example, he guessed the role of a die in a cup 8 times in a row. Randi claimed he stomped on the floor to shake the table and look under the cup, but Targ and Puthoff already guarded against that by bolting the table to the floor with nails.

Wrong again Winston, read what Randi actually said about the experiement rather than what Puthoff told you. The only time Randi mentions Geller stomping the floor was with regards to his 'guess the film can with water in it' stunt.

The die box case had plenty of other holes in it. Such as letting Geller handle the box.

Your mixing things up left and right, apparently deliberately so.

[figtertype]

Originally posted by WWu777
W: I have it, but if I posted it, I'd probably be cited for copyright violations again. Just do an online search for it at Google or Yahoo.


Okay. First off, when you posted this I had already found the link and posted the information hours ago. Why bother to respond to it like that?

Second off, you've been cited for posting the text of articles without proper permissions and ownership. *I* posted a LINK to an article, along with issue information, making it clear that the article is property of a publication.

I thought that you'd get the idea of what you did wrong by now, it's only been regurgitated at you a DOZEN TIMES!

Third off, after examining your supposed discourse with both Torg and Puthoff, I must state, I rather doubt the veracity of your purported exchange.

In a short, WWu777, is your left sock Puthoff and the right one Torg in your little e-mail chat or is it the other way around?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by figtertype
I thought that you'd get the idea of what you did wrong by now, it's only been regurgitated at you a DOZEN TIMES!


Winston often shows a remarkable ability to become less knowledgable as his online experience increases. Most folks tend to grow,or at least have the courtesy to flatline their level of knowledge.

Negative learning curve, is how I call it.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Than maybe they are the Ed Wood of Science?
:D :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Winston often shows a remarkable ability to become less knowledgable as his online experience increases. Most folks tend to grow,or at least have the courtesy to flatline their level of knowledge.

Negative learning curve, is how I call it.


Entropy I calls it.:D

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for Winston.

[qII]

the thought of Hal Putoff conducting studies that are flawed is ridiculous. The man has outstanding credentials.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by olaf
the thought of Hal Putoff conducting studies that are flawed is ridiculous. The man has outstanding credentials.

Are we then to believe that all work carried out by people with 'outstanding credentials' is to be taken at face value with no questions asked? That would not form the basis of a sound scientific approach.

Many famous scientists have made errors and come up with flawed studies. Perhaps most famously, our beloved French bum-chum, Jacques Benveniste. There's one for the Googlin'.

[Kopji]

Spoon!

[Ed]

Originally posted by olaf
the thought of Hal Putoff conducting studies that are flawed is ridiculous. The man has outstanding credentials.

Is hthe thought that Targ is a fraud ridiculous? Get over it, she is (was). You don't seem to comprehend the fact that poor research is a hallmark of paranormal inquery.

[Zep]

Isn't it amazing! We address questions to Winston Wu, who started this thread, and "Olaf" answers...

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Zep
Isn't it amazing! We address questions to Winston Wu, who started this thread, and "Olaf" answers...

I was coming to that same conclusion Zep, just by observing....
(and I have no hunch that I have any paranormal powers!! By the Great Prophet Zod, I KNOW I don't!)

Nigel

[Zep]

Originally posted by Nigel

I was coming to that same conclusion Zep, just by observing....
(and I have no hunch that I have any paranormal powers!! By the Great Prophet Zod, I KNOW I don't!)

Nigel You are not the only one, believe me.

[Filippo Lippi]

Olaf comes across as the inverse of Rational

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by olaf
the thought of Hal Putoff conducting studies that are flawed is ridiculous. The man has outstanding credentials.

You recall Dr. Mengela the Nazi? He had outstanding "credentials" but used them on pointless genetic experiements...Credentials are meaningless if the science and technique is bad, and lack of credentials is meaningless if the science and technique are right, reproducable and accepted....

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by olaf
the thought of Hal Putoff conducting studies that are flawed is ridiculous. The man has outstanding credentials.

That is it, wow, slam dunk and win the game. No sources, no cites.

Many researchers mess up. What in the field of the paranormal did Puthof do which we should study?