Ganzfeld telepathy example 2

This ganzfeld telepathy test was conducted with Gail and her friend Ray, on September 27th.

This is the target pool. One of these images was being sent by Ray, from a distance. Neither Ray nor Gail knew anything in advance about the composition of the pool, and Ray selected one of these four pictures randomly with a tossed die.

What follows is the transcript of Gail's spoken impressions during the sending period, which lasted about 10 minutes:

- - -

I see an image of Ray when he jumped off the waterfall in Hawaii. Green. Swaying. I feel like I'm swaying. Palm Trees. Motion. I keep feeling like a lot of motion. Something solid and rectangular. Alive. Kinda...Jungle-y. Now my image changed to sort of like a port, but I feel like it's an analytical overlay. We were just talking about shipping so I'm not sure, all of a sudden I felt like I was at a port,
or a busy place or... Somewhere that felt like by, with water and industry. Hot.

Ray?! [At this point Gail felt that Ray's attention was wandering.]

Continuing with images of water or when I say like a sway or a wave, or some kinda flowing in and out feeling. I feel blues and whites. I'm not sure why I'm seeing an image of a stick of butter. But just that same shape again where I'm seeing a long, oblong... Before I felt like the oblong shape was standing upward and now I'm seeing it more like a train, you know, like a long train kind of a shape.

I'm hearing flower essence in my mind, flower essence. I see sort of a green leathery leaf. I guess I would draw a shape to go with that. A happy feeling.

Now all of a sudden, I just saw, I don't know, a metal structure, you know, like intricacies of a metal structure, that you would see like in an Eiffel Tower or a bridge or some sort of intertwining metal things. Repeated design, or repeated. I'm not sure.

I just saw some horses galloping by, again, the same thing about swift. Something about just the mane blowing in the wind, or the hair. Something about the swift and swaying feeling of motion. I seem to be traveling from a tropical feeling to a sort of a farm feeling. Seems kinda busy. I still have to go back to my rectangular oblong shape. I don't know if stick-of-butter yellow has something to do with the color. Hands ... keep feeling like I'm holding something.

- - -

After the sending period, when Gail was trying to match her impressions to the target, she immediately rejected two of the pictures and kept vacillating between the actual target and one of the decoys. She first selected the target, then changed her mind, and went back and forth several times, ending up by selecting the decoy.

Can you guess which picture was the target that Ray was sending?

Comments

Dean Radin said…
Hint: Gail tends to get psi impressions in a flash. The longer she's *trying* to receive, and thinking about it, the more likely fantasy takes over. I suspect this may be true for many psi-talented people.
Friday, October 15, 2010
butterfly said…
I want to pick between the top two, the white building on the blue background or the boat on the water. I like the boat on the water best.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Dean Radin said…
Sandy wins the Cupie doll. Those were the two images that Gail couldn't decide between, and the first one she selected, which was correct, was the one with water.

Her repeated reference to a feeling of swaying was, as Ray later put it, how he was trying to convey to her that it was all about water. Remember, Ray did not see the other images, so he couldn't know in advance (precognition notwithstanding) that some of his sending might match elements of the other images.
Friday, October 15, 2010
butterfly said…
Maybe that explains why looking at the images made me feel seasick!
Friday, October 15, 2010
Gareth said…
I first picked the boat on the water, but then thought it might be the flowers. Reading it all again I thought it was more likely to be the boat.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Demi Andre said…
The problem I have with this is that when I do zener cards which have simple designs, I fail. When I try these sorts of complicated images, I get pretty good hits. It kind of makes me suspicious, ie, more possibilities, more likely to get hits. Then add to this, someone sending images, because they would be adding multiple thoughts...white noise. More fish in the bucket. For those who missed it...there are horses on the acropolis.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Dean Radin said…
Quite true. If you recite the encyclopedia aloud you will eventually hit any natural (meaning real vs. pure fantasy) target. In an experiment the only important result is what one selects as the actual target given one's impressions. In that case reciting the encyclopedia doesn't help - you either get the right answer or you don't.

One reason hit rates with natural targets are often better than with Zener cards is because the latter consists of constrained pools of abstract possibilities that are used in repeated trials. Abstract, limited target pools plus lots of repetition make statistical counting inevitable, and such biases soon outweigh one's raw impressions.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Demi Andre said…
Well, it explains why doing the zener symbols on the computer is a lot harder for me than the old deck of cards. Sorry, I misconstrued the experiment. I thought that it was more like other remote viewing experiments where you try to guess what image is being sent...with no target pictures. That is, I thought the pictures were used by the sender to focus, not the receiver. Serves me right for not wearing my reading glasses and trying to skim through.

Could I ask you a question since I have your attention. I attempted one of your games a few years ago, the one where there is a pictue of a person and you have to guess if they are living or dead. I'd like to try it again. I left the time gap, hoping that any memory trace would have faded by now. Could I try it again...and where can I locate it?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology  and is available here .  The key
Read more

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a
Read more